U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-11-2012, 11:51 PM
 
Location: Florida
595 posts, read 711,628 times
Reputation: 266

Advertisements

There are many questions regarding the "real" locations of the birth of Christ , the tomb and the location of the last supper are based on suposition rather than fact . These present day locations were manufacture with some research by well intended people of religousity attempting to fill the gap. In the near future our group will give
more specific locations some just walking distances away and the reasons.

Das
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-11-2012, 11:55 PM
 
20,299 posts, read 15,647,071 times
Reputation: 7409
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmalltownKSgirl View Post
I take note that you used lower case w describing the Bible as word, not Word. I appreciate that distinction.

But we'll just have to disagree on this: "so also the Bible is the word of God because it is God's message to man" because that is not what the Bible is. It is a whole library of books, which, individually, contradict each other in places but, collectively, are a powerful testimony to God. These books have human authors and were selected for the canon by human editors. Inspired by God? You bet. Written by God? Nope. God is so much better and more than the Bible.

As much as I appreciate the handful of verses you cited, I simply do not agree that they mean what you think they mean.



That which God communicates is his Son. The Bible is the written testimony of human beings, believers, who were inspired by what they saw, heard, and was shown to them by God. Inspired? Yes. Perfect? Um, have you read it?
You have no idea what you're talking about and are a victim of and an adherent of neorthodoxy. You ignore the fact that Jesus said the Scriptures are the word of God. You ignore the fact that the apostles state that their message is the word of God. You cannot know who Jesus Christ is apart from what the Bible reveals about Him. If the Bible is in error about anything that it teaches then you cannot trust what it says about Jesus Christ or about anything else. But the Bible is not in error about anything that it teaches. It is the absolute divine norm and standard of truth. And how confused and disoriented to reality they are who think they can come to a knowledge of God apart from the Bible. Apart from the word of God.

Last edited by Mike555; 04-12-2012 at 12:16 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2012, 04:25 AM
 
5,496 posts, read 4,402,563 times
Reputation: 1802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
There is no contradiction between Acts 9:26-30 and Galatians 1:18-24 either. The disciples mentioned in Acts 9:26 refers not to the other apostles, but to believers in general. In Acts 9:27 the apostles referred to are only Peter and James as mentioned in Gal 1:18-19.
There are plenty of details that are contradictory. The basis for the contradiction does not only rest upon the 'disciples' and 'apostles' issue.

Quote:
As for Paul's visits to Jerusalem, I didn't spend much time on this, but you're perhaps referring to the omission in Gal 2:1 of a visit to Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 11:29,30-12:25
That alignment does not work very well - Paul is not 'omitting' anything (see below).

First, let me preface my remarks with this point - Contradictions really are beside the point because of one very important principle in logic - Coherence does not necessitate Correspondence. The Bible could be without contradictions and still not correspond to reality.

Second, although the 3 years problem was not my focus there can be a strong case for a contradiction regarding it. I was simply granting it in order to focus on the more obvious contradiction regarding Paul's first visit - Acts 9:26 and Gal.1:18

Now onto the contradictions.

There are three issues:

1) The 3 Years Problem

The tone of Acts suggest a short time period between Paul's conversion (near Damascas) and his 1st subsequent trip to Jerusalem (Acts 9:26 and Gal.1:18).

*Acts suggest that Paul tried to join the disciples but they were afraid. This is precisley because of Paul's recent persucution just prior to his conversion. Why would the disciples be afraid of Paul after 3 years?

* Paul goes to great measures to seperate himself from the Church in Jerusalem in Galatians - he certainly did not try to join the fellowship. Why would Paul try to join it after three years of being in Arabia, being taught by Christ himself, and teaching in Damascus? Antioch was the center of his ministry.

*Paul is very adamant and clear, in Galatians, that he did NOT go up to Jerusalem prior to Arabia (v.17 - the very thing Acts fails to mention). Why does Paul feel it necessary to clarify this issue in such a forceful manner - even so much so as to take and oath - v.20. Who was saying otherwise? Notice that Paul contrast going up to Jerusalem first (the lie) and going to Arabia first (the truth according to Paul). Why does Paul make this distinction between the two? The simple answer is that there was some lie/rumor that Paul had gone to Jerusalem prior to going to Arabia. Acts presents that scenario (the lie) that Paul corrects - hence Acts does not mention Arabia but presents it as if Paul went there only shortly (many days) after his conversion.

Sidebar: The difference between I Kings 17 and here is that 'many days' and '3 years' is in the same verse not so with the passages we are dealing with - One is in Acts the other Galatians. You are meshing the two together precisly becuase there is a difficulty.

*Acts downplays the tension between Paul and the Jerusalem Church and highlights the unity as it spread (Acts 9:31). Why? Paul thinks that there was another gospel - one of faith and works. It seems clear that Acts edited the facts to reduce the theological differences that were competing in Christianity prior to any N.T. writings which were started primarily to correct such differences. Remember no N.T writings were started until 20-25 years after the death of Christ.

Like I said I was not trying to even argue for the above because the real problems come with the first visit.

2) The 1st Visit Problem (Acts 9:26 and Gal.1:18)

*The Apostles and Disciples Issue: Acts does not mention two apostles it is just vague and says Aposltes (granted this could mean technically just two - Peter and James). The problem is that Acts states that Barnabas brought him to the apostles and Acts calls Barnabas an apostle (Acts 14:4, 14). Barnabas was part of the Jerusalem Church (Acts 4:36). So that would be at least three apostles that Paul met or saw according to Acts - not two. You might quible that Paul means two of the twelve - OK - let flesh this out.

If that is the case then how do you reconcile the fact the James (the Lord's brother Gal.1:19) was not one of the twelve. When Paul uses the word apostles he means any apostle in the broad sense not the narrow sense. Interestingly, Paul does not mention Barnabas regarding his 1st trip only the second trip. If Barnabas was there on the 1st trip (as Acts says)why did not Paul mention him and why is he not included in the term 'apostles?' Acts cannot mean that Barnasbas was just taking Paul to two of the Twelve since James was not one of the Twelve. Acts sugests that Paul was brought by Barnabas to more than just Peter and James.

As far as the term disciples are concerned Paul says that he only saw James and Peter - he makes no mention of meeting any of the disciples which would certainly be the case when trying to join them as Acts suggests.

Acts has 1) Paul meet the disciples which become afraid (Seeing and Fearing), as aresult 2) Barnabas takes him to the Apostles.

Galatians has 1) Paul unknown by face to the churches of Judea (Gal.1:22) and only sees Peter and James, and 2) No Barnabas. The disclpes only heard of Paul's conversion and rejoiced at it (Gal.1:23-24) (Hearing and Rejoicing).

Completely different tone between Seeing and Fearing and Hearing and Rejoicing.

*In Acts Paul was 'coming in and going out' and 'disputing with the Hellenists.' Nothing like this is even hinted at in Galatians. Paul says he was only there 15 days with Peter. Acts makes it sound as if Paul came there to join them and stayed awile, going in and out, disputing with people, preaching and fellowshiping with them - all is well in Jerusalem no tension here (Acts 9:31). Paul has a completely different tone - unkown by face to the churches, confered only with Peter (even though he met James), stayed there a short time, and corrects lies about the very trip itself. It is very clear this is not reconcilable. Paul's face, according to Acts, seems to have gotten around quite a bit on that 1st Journey.

Sidebar: It is also interesting that Acts sides with the Hebrews not the Hellenist (Liberal Jews who thought some compromises were alright with the Greco-Roman culture and had differences with regard to the application of Jewish Law). Acts tries to have Paul side with Jerusalem against the Hellenist - once again highlighting unity not tension. There are many clues like this throughout.

3) The 2nd Visit Problem (Acts 11 and Galatian 2)

Once again this is not the main problem but it still is a problem.

*Titus is absent in the Acts narrative. Titus also has probelms with some compeling him to be circumcised (more tension) and Paul lays into them and even contrast this compulsion with his gospel - that is after 14 years the Jerusalem Church was still preaching another Gospel. Note this false gospel is not a pagan teaching it is a aberrant Christian teaching. This is the struggles Paul had with this sect of Christianity in Jerusalem that Acts seems to downplay.

*Paul says that he went up by revelation not a prophecy from Agabus. Paul does not mention any relief only that he went and communicated what he thought was the gospel (Gal.2:2). Was Acts 11 14 years later from 9:26?

*Paul explicitly says 'Then (Next) after 14 years I went up again...' Barns is completely wrong when he says that Paul just omittied this relief visit. There is no room for a visit between Gal 1:18 and 2:1. There is a strict chronology with the terminology that Paul uses not to mention the seriousness of his tone in laying out the trips he has made to Jerusalem in order to correct those lies - there is no room for an omission. The only omission is, as Metzger points out, the word 'again' is missing in some witnesses and subscibes this to scribal error or scribal uncertainty. Yeah, I would think so seeing that 'again' in directly in reference to 1:18 (the 1st trip). Seeing such a problem it is no wonder some scribes removed it.

*No mention of the Feast days and Mark in Galatians as in Acts 12:3, 25).

There is plenty more but frankly I am tired.

The musings and Scriptural gyrations that people have done to try to reconcile this is sad.

Acts seems clear on downplaying the problems between Antioch and Jerusalem. As such it promotes a vision of the Church that is far from the facts of Paul's letters - A Church of Unity - not one with a different gospel. So much is made of this unity that God even strikes down any disunity and deception with death (Ananias and Sapphira).

The very question and ambiguity regarding these sections is even more telling when Paul explicitly deals with these travels to Jerusalem in such a strict, forceful, correcting, and chronological manner that it is obvious that Acts seems to fudge the facts and fits the lie category nicely.

The main concern for me is the first visit but the other two only add to the overall problem.

Anyway, with such a powerful God you would think inspiration would not have such ambiguity.

Last edited by Shiloh1; 04-12-2012 at 04:44 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2012, 05:53 AM
 
2,779 posts, read 2,079,030 times
Reputation: 228
There are no contradictions in the book of Acts, or any other book of the Bible. God's word is inspired and infallible. The only contradictions I see are in the minds of readers such as yourself.

I'm wondering why you are working so hard to discredit God's word? You have every right to not believe, but why try to bring others down? Why does it bother you so much that people believe the Bible?

Katie
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2012, 05:57 AM
 
2,779 posts, read 2,079,030 times
Reputation: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1 View Post
There are plenty of details that are contradictory. The basis for the contradiction does not only rest upon the 'disciples' and 'apostles' issue.



That alignment does not work very well - Paul is not 'omitting' anything (see below).

First, let me preface my remarks with this point - Contradictions really are beside the point because of one very important principle in logic - Coherence does not necessitate Correspondence. The Bible could be without contradictions and still not correspond to reality.

Second, although the 3 years problem was not my focus there can be a strong case for a contradiction regarding it. I was simply granting it in order to focus on the more obvious contradiction regarding Paul's first visit - Acts 9:26 and Gal.1:18

Now onto the contradictions.

There are three issues:

1) The 3 Years Problem

The tone of Acts suggest a short time period between Paul's conversion (near Damascas) and his 1st subsequent trip to Jerusalem (Acts 9:26 and Gal.1:18).

*Acts suggest that Paul tried to join the disciples but they were afraid. This is precisley because of Paul's recent persucution just prior to his conversion. Why would the disciples be afraid of Paul after 3 years?

* Paul goes to great measures to seperate himself from the Church in Jerusalem in Galatians - he certainly did not try to join the fellowship. Why would Paul try to join it after three years of being in Arabia, being taught by Christ himself, and teaching in Damascus? Antioch was the center of his ministry.

*Paul is very adamant and clear, in Galatians, that he did NOT go up to Jerusalem prior to Arabia (v.17 - the very thing Acts fails to mention). Why does Paul feel it necessary to clarify this issue in such a forceful manner - even so much so as to take and oath - v.20. Who was saying otherwise? Notice that Paul contrast going up to Jerusalem first (the lie) and going to Arabia first (the truth according to Paul). Why does Paul make this distinction between the two? The simple answer is that there was some lie/rumor that Paul had gone to Jerusalem prior to going to Arabia. Acts presents that scenario (the lie) that Paul corrects - hence Acts does not mention Arabia but presents it as if Paul went there only shortly (many days) after his conversion.

Sidebar: The difference between I Kings 17 and here is that 'many days' and '3 years' is in the same verse not so with the passages we are dealing with - One is in Acts the other Galatians. You are meshing the two together precisly becuase there is a difficulty.

*Acts downplays the tension between Paul and the Jerusalem Church and highlights the unity as it spread (Acts 9:31). Why? Paul thinks that there was another gospel - one of faith and works. It seems clear that Acts edited the facts to reduce the theological differences that were competing in Christianity prior to any N.T. writings which were started primarily to correct such differences. Remember no N.T writings were started until 20-25 years after the death of Christ.

Like I said I was not trying to even argue for the above because the real problems come with the first visit.

2) The 1st Visit Problem (Acts 9:26 and Gal.1:18)

*The Apostles and Disciples Issue: Acts does not mention two apostles it is just vague and says Aposltes (granted this could mean technically just two - Peter and James). The problem is that Acts states that Barnabas brought him to the apostles and Acts calls Barnabas an apostle (Acts 14:4, 14). Barnabas was part of the Jerusalem Church (Acts 4:36). So that would be at least three apostles that Paul met or saw according to Acts - not two. You might quible that Paul means two of the twelve - OK - let flesh this out.

If that is the case then how do you reconcile the fact the James (the Lord's brother Gal.1:19) was not one of the twelve. When Paul uses the word apostles he means any apostle in the broad sense not the narrow sense. Interestingly, Paul does not mention Barnabas regarding his 1st trip only the second trip. If Barnabas was there on the 1st trip (as Acts says)why did not Paul mention him and why is he not included in the term 'apostles?' Acts cannot mean that Barnasbas was just taking Paul to two of the Twelve since James was not one of the Twelve. Acts sugests that Paul was brought by Barnabas to more than just Peter and James.

As far as the term disciples are concerned Paul says that he only saw James and Peter - he makes no mention of meeting any of the disciples which would certainly be the case when trying to join them as Acts suggests.

Acts has 1) Paul meet the disciples which become afraid (Seeing and Fearing), as aresult 2) Barnabas takes him to the Apostles.

Galatians has 1) Paul unknown by face to the churches of Judea (Gal.1:22) and only sees Peter and James, and 2) No Barnabas. The disclpes only heard of Paul's conversion and rejoiced at it (Gal.1:23-24) (Hearing and Rejoicing).

Completely different tone between Seeing and Fearing and Hearing and Rejoicing.

*In Acts Paul was 'coming in and going out' and 'disputing with the Hellenists.' Nothing like this is even hinted at in Galatians. Paul says he was only there 15 days with Peter. Acts makes it sound as if Paul came there to join them and stayed awile, going in and out, disputing with people, preaching and fellowshiping with them - all is well in Jerusalem no tension here (Acts 9:31). Paul has a completely different tone - unkown by face to the churches, confered only with Peter (even though he met James), stayed there a short time, and corrects lies about the very trip itself. It is very clear this is not reconcilable. Paul's face, according to Acts, seems to have gotten around quite a bit on that 1st Journey.

Sidebar: It is also interesting that Acts sides with the Hebrews not the Hellenist (Liberal Jews who thought some compromises were alright with the Greco-Roman culture and had differences with regard to the application of Jewish Law). Acts tries to have Paul side with Jerusalem against the Hellenist - once again highlighting unity not tension. There are many clues like this throughout.

3) The 2nd Visit Problem (Acts 11 and Galatian 2)

Once again this is not the main problem but it still is a problem.

*Titus is absent in the Acts narrative. Titus also has probelms with some compeling him to be circumcised (more tension) and Paul lays into them and even contrast this compulsion with his gospel - that is after 14 years the Jerusalem Church was still preaching another Gospel. Note this false gospel is not a pagan teaching it is a aberrant Christian teaching. This is the struggles Paul had with this sect of Christianity in Jerusalem that Acts seems to downplay.

*Paul says that he went up by revelation not a prophecy from Agabus. Paul does not mention any relief only that he went and communicated what he thought was the gospel (Gal.2:2). Was Acts 11 14 years later from 9:26?

*Paul explicitly says 'Then (Next) after 14 years I went up again...' Barns is completely wrong when he says that Paul just omittied this relief visit. There is no room for a visit between Gal 1:18 and 2:1. There is a strict chronology with the terminology that Paul uses not to mention the seriousness of his tone in laying out the trips he has made to Jerusalem in order to correct those lies - there is no room for an omission. The only omission is, as Metzger points out, the word 'again' is missing in some witnesses and subscibes this to scribal error or scribal uncertainty. Yeah, I would think so seeing that 'again' in directly in reference to 1:18 (the 1st trip). Seeing such a problem it is no wonder some scribes removed it.

*No mention of the Feast days and Mark in Galatians as in Acts 12:3, 25).

There is plenty more but frankly I am tired.

The musings and Scriptural gyrations that people have done to try to reconcile this is sad.

Acts seems clear on downplaying the problems between Antioch and Jerusalem. As such it promotes a vision of the Church that is far from the facts of Paul's letters - A Church of Unity - not one with a different gospel. So much is made of this unity that God even strikes down any disunity and deception with death (Ananias and Sapphira).

The very question and ambiguity regarding these sections is even more telling when Paul explicitly deals with these travels to Jerusalem in such a strict, forceful, correcting, and chronological manner that it is obvious that Acts seems to fudge the facts and fits the lie category nicely.

The main concern for me is the first visit but the other two only add to the overall problem.

Anyway, with such a powerful God you would think inspiration would not have such ambiguity.
Satan's MO: Attack the word of God.

Some things never change. Back in the garden, he used one simple little word to deceive Eve. "You shall NOT surely die."

He's gotten quite sophisticated and long winded these days hasn't he?

Katie
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2012, 06:01 AM
 
2,779 posts, read 2,079,030 times
Reputation: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
You have no idea what you're talking about and are a victim of and an adherent of neorthodoxy. You ignore the fact that Jesus said the Scriptures are the word of God. You ignore the fact that the apostles state that their message is the word of God. You cannot know who Jesus Christ is apart from what the Bible reveals about Him. If the Bible is in error about anything that it teaches then you cannot trust what it says about Jesus Christ or about anything else. But the Bible is not in error about anything that it teaches. It is the absolute divine norm and standard of truth. And how confused and disoriented to reality they are who think they can come to a knowledge of God apart from the Bible. Apart from the word of God.
Amen!!

As I said in my other post...

Satan's MO: Attack the word. He's been doing it since the beginning of time.

Katie
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2012, 07:14 AM
 
2,779 posts, read 2,079,030 times
Reputation: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by saved33 View Post
What is the purpose of your thread? Are you seeking solutions to your supposed contradictions, or are you simply trying to discredit God's Word?
I find it funny that someone can believe that Jesus arose from the dead but have problems believing x amount of people were in the upper room. Both seem illogical, but when one has faith in the seemingly impossible, it's no problem at all. This is what real christians do. They accept God's word on faith.

The Holy Spirit is the author of the Bible. Some claim He contradicts Himself. There is no better word to describe this other than blasphemy.

I vote for the latter half of your statement. Discredit the word of God. One of Satan's oldest tricks.


Kate
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2012, 07:20 AM
 
37,508 posts, read 25,238,629 times
Reputation: 5856
Quote:
Originally Posted by katiemygirl View Post
There are no contradictions in the book of Acts, or any other book of the Bible. God's word is inspired and infallible. The only contradictions I see are in the minds of readers such as yourself.
I'm wondering why you are working so hard to discredit God's word? You have every right to not believe, but why try to bring others down? Why does it bother you so much that people believe the Bible?
Katie
No one is trying to discredit God's word, katie . . . just promote an intelligent and rational understanding of it as intended . . . abandon carnal milk when the ability to understand more solid food is achieved. What we are trying to stop is the disdain for intelligence and rationality promoted by the churches to retain power and control over membership through fear and ignorance. We are trying to promote Christ's original uncorrupted Gospel of love and to foster following His commands to "love God and each other" daily and to repent when we don't. What is Satanic about that? You need to stop indirectly accusing people of being Satan because they intelligently and rationally oppose your blind acceptance of literal ancient ignorance . . . ignoring all accumulated knowledge over the past 2000+ years. The love of Christ is the important factor here . . . not all the other "precepts and doctrines of men" that corrupt that message.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2012, 07:36 AM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 2,937,389 times
Reputation: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
And this is a teaching that belongs squarely in the "precepts and doctrines of men" category because there is absolutely no foundation for it whatsoever. The inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible are there DELIBERATELY to provide clues to revise the earlier ancient ignorant interpretations and understandings ("carnal milk") in light of more knowledge as we evolved spiritually and intellectually. This has been the big mistake of religion . . . retaining the ancient ignorance instead of revising it with increased knowledge and understanding. The church and its leaders were supremely negligent and carry a heavy burden.
RESPONSE:

Logic is the foundation for it. If it is claimed that God inspired all scripture and that scripture contains errors or contradictions, then God is responsible for those errors or contradictions.

Is God ignorant of the facts or does God deceive?

>>The inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible are there DELIBERATELY to provide clues to revise the earlier ancient ignorant interpretations and understandings<<

This isn't creditable because it admits that God made errors for whatever reason. Moreover, if true than we can't rely on even the present bible as being God's word since it meaning might still be evolving.

Last edited by ancient warrior; 04-12-2012 at 07:40 AM.. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2012, 07:47 AM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 2,937,389 times
Reputation: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by katiemygirl View Post
There are no contradictions in the book of Acts, or any other book of the Bible. God's word is inspired and infallible. The only contradictions I see are in the minds of readers such as yourself.

I'm wondering why you are working so hard to discredit God's word? You have every right to not believe, but why try to bring others down? Why does it bother you so much that people believe the Bible?

Katie
RESPONSE:

Hint. THe Bible isn't God's word as evidenced by the errors and contradictions it contains.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top