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.
I am with you. That is not what Paul says, of course. He reckons that his mission was the uncircumcised and Peter's to the circumcised. That parses as Paul's mission is to the gentiles and Peter's to the Jews.
Paul no -where suggests that Peter originally witnessed to the gentiles and then Paul rolled up and said 'I'm taking over.' Where is there any indication of God appearing to peter and saying 'Trust Saul. He has converted and my plan is that he will take over your mission to the gentiles, and you can just concentrate on the Jews'. There is nothing like that and the pages indicate that Paul had his mission direct from Jesus and there was no mission to the gentiles for him to take over.
You are effectively inventing something extra and adding it to NT writ in order to get over what appears to be an error in Acts (not the only one) and in fact thank you, because that is what I say was done in the first place, with Matthew and Luke adding all sorts of stuff to get over various problems, but examination of the text does not really support their explanation, nor yours.
If you take note that Paul showed up at the meeting in a capacity of subservience to the Apostles and Elders there, more like an evangelist...Paul is the only one naming himself the Apostle to the Gentiles...Knda like those of today...
If you take note that Paul showed up at the meeting in a capacity of subservience to the Apostles and Elders there, more like an evangelist...Paul is the only one naming himself the Apostle to the Gentiles...Knda like those of today...
Yes. I suppose that Luke/Acts presenting Paul as having to get a ruling from James is significant, though one has to be cautious. Reading Paul, one gets the impression that he recognized the need to get approval from the Jerusalem squad, even though he clearly saw his mission as authorized by God, and felt that he shouldn't have to explain his mission to James, Peter or anyone else.
Gal 2.6 'and from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me' God shows no partiality) those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me' This deprecating and even sneering reference is to James and the other disciples of Jesus in Jerusalem, because I believe that Acts' reference to James ruling on Paul's mission is confirmed by paul himself. And this is all of a piece with his sneering references to 'super - apostles', after, that is, his grovelling adulation of them, though only so that he can get himself accepted as just as much an apostle as they (even though the least of them) though they knew Jesus in the flesh, and Paul never knew him at all.
1Cor 15:9 'For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
But it doesn't take long before he is treating them with something close to contempt.
Again nobody does a faster two-step trying to get around direct contradictions in the Bible than a Christian apologist. Here's one trying to explain away direct contradictions in Paul's conversion:
Contradiction:
Quote:
Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard no voice of him that spake to me.
The explanation:
Quote:
Does this mean that Paul was lying or unreliable? No, it means that he was misinformed at the time of his speeches in Chapters 22/26.
Say what?? Paul has had how many years to get the facts from his companions straight and he doesn't?
But the apologist finally comes clean and says that another way to look at it was the Paul was intentionally lying; that it was a popular technique back in those days. But notice how the apologist soft-pedals the "lie" part and calls it an intentional "contradiction"
Quote:
However, another way to look at this is as an intentional contradiction designed to magnify Paul and put down the importance of his companions. This aspect would find parallels in Greco-Roman rhetorical methods; see on this matter Ronald Witherup, "Functional Redundancy in the Acts of the Apostles" from Journal for the Study of the New Testament 48, 1992, pp. 67-86.
You like that euphemism for lying, "Fuctional Redundency"
As I asked, was Paul a pathological liar; did he feel absolutely okay with using untruths as a means to getting people saved from the law, which he now felt in his spirit condemned people to eternal death, whereas faith alone saved?
There has been enough evidence presented in this thread to strongly question Paul's veracity.
Like the name, sungod. Thanks for the relevant Tim. quote.
I only produced facts according to your holy bible. When religious clergy is exposed people get mad when they can no longer defend their doctrine and then slander or insult the person putting forth this information. I have no problem with the diety that represents the sun which substains life on this planet and the center of our solar system.
Again nobody does a faster two-step trying to get around direct contradictions in the Bible than a Christian apologist. Here's one trying to explain away direct contradictions in Paul's conversion:
Contradiction:
The explanation:
Say what?? Paul has had how many years to get the facts from his companions straight and he doesn't?
But the apologist finally comes clean and says that another way to look at it was the Paul was intentionally lying; that it was a popular technique back in those days. But notice how the apologist soft-pedals the "lie" part and calls it an intentional "contradiction"
You like that euphemism for lying, "Fuctional Redundency"
As I asked, was Paul a pathological liar; did he feel absolutely okay with using untruths as a means to getting people saved from the law, which he now felt in his spirit condemned people to eternal death, whereas faith alone saved?
There has been enough evidence presented in this thread to strongly question Paul's veracity.
Thank you. I learn something new every day. The account on the way to Damascus, the men heard a voice but saw no -one. Paul speaking (Acts 22) says they saw a light but not a voice.
Misinformed by whom? Surely Paul would have asked them what they experienced or they would have asked him, or both, or both would have related what they experienced. why would they lie about it?
More particularly, since this is one writer, how is it that he contradicted himself? Assuming that he simply hadn't noticed, makes him look very clumsy. Otherwise, it might be that he used two accounts. One of what Paul said he saw, and another of what Paul related in his speech. Rather than lying, it seems it's just an error because I see no reason for Paul to change his story, or for two different stories to come down to Luke (Acts) from the same source.
The Explanation just looks like another attempt to explain away a puzzling problem, but does not do it very convincingly. But, we are getting to know that the method of proving that the Bible has no contradiction, discrepancies or errors is to come up with any explanation, no matter how poor, far - fetched of inadequate.
I agree with you that 'intentional contradiction' is quite in character for Paul, who sees deceit as perfectly legitimate if it helps to convert people, and my post was just saying that the Romans passage wasn't him admitting that he lied, but talking rhetorically about a Jew such as himself being untrue to the law.
However, with this, my problem is, though I can imagine Paul intentionally producing two different accounts, I can't think why.
Yes. I suppose that Luke/Acts presenting Paul as having to get a ruling from James is significant, though one has to be cautious. Reading Paul, one gets the impression that he recognized the need to get approval from the Jerusalem squad, even though he clearly saw his mission as authorized by God, and felt that he shouldn't have to explain his mission to James, Peter or anyone else.
Gal 2.6 'and from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me' God shows no partiality) those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me' This deprecating and even sneering reference is to James and the other disciples of Jesus in Jerusalem, because I believe that Acts' reference to James ruling on Paul's mission is confirmed by paul himself. And this is all of a piece with his sneering references to 'super - apostles', after, that is, his grovelling adulation of them, though only so that he can get himself accepted as just as much an apostle as they (even though the least of them) though they knew Jesus in the flesh, and Paul never knew him at all.
1Cor 15:9 'For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
But it doesn't take long before he is treating them with something close to contempt.
Which makes me wonder if today's Christianity is not Paulianity...Therr must have been something that caused his contempt...
Which makes me wonder if today's Christianity is not Paulianity...Therr must have been something that caused his contempt...
Given the preponderance of exclusivity mentality within mainstream Christianity . . . I see it more as a Jewishianity. The overriding sense I get from the Orthodox and conservative Jews is one of exclusivity and contempt for those not Jewish. The ability to withdraw love from and consider one's own family member dead for converting from Judaism to another religion . . . highlights the extremity of this exclusivity. Paul actually believed Christ's unconditional love and acceptance and spread it to the non-Jews.
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.
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.
Thanks for the relevant Tim. quote.
see on this matter Ronald Witherup, "Functional Redundancy in the Acts of the Apostles" from Journal for the Study of the New Testament 48, 1992, pp. 67-86.
The account on the way to Damascus, the men heard a voice but saw no -one. Paul speaking (Acts 22) says they saw a light but not a voice.
