Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1497Re: [The Truth Of God's Word] Norm needs educating

Expand Messages
  • Dave Wave
    Feb 27, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      1Then after an interval of fourteen years I (A)went
      up again to Jerusalem with (B)Barnabas, taking
      (C)Titus along also.
      2It was because of a (D)revelation that I went up;
      and I submitted to them the (E)gospel which I preach
      among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those
      who were of reputation, for fear that I might be
      (F)running, or had run, in vain." (Galatians 2)

      Paul expressed a fear or at least a concern, that he
      might discover, after submitting his gospel to the
      Jerusalem apostles, that he had run in vain.

      Doesn't exactly sound like original Christianity's
      apostles were always harmonious and agreed with each
      other on everything, as the doctrine of biblical
      inerrancy implies, eh?

      I'd like some inerrantist to explain how they can be
      so sure that Paul didn't need to feel concerned, since
      James and Paul obviously agreed on the gospel, but
      that Paul himself, a much better authority on Paul
      than any modern-day inerrantist, actually had concerns
      about running in vain when he was about to show James
      his gospel.



      Do you ever submit your belief in the trinity to your
      pastor? Probably not, since it is already a given
      that your pastor agrees with you on the matter.

      The implication of the analogy is that Paul would only
      go to submit his gospel to someone, if that someone
      had NOT heard of his gospel before.

      It gets worse:

      If Paul and James were equally inspired and thus
      totally in agreement on the nature of the gospel, why
      was Paul going up to Jerusalem to submit his gospel to
      them in the first place?

      Paul says "it was because of false brethren".

      Wait a minute....What is the probability that the
      apostles in Jerusalem would be misled by false
      brothers into believing their false report about
      Paul's gospel, so that Paul would feel compelled to
      defend his gospel himself from that rumor? Wouldn't
      you say there was NO possibility at all, given that
      they were all inspired by God and teaching the same
      gospel, as you believe they did?

      If so, then how can Paul have been motivated by false
      brothers to go confirm his gospel with James? If you
      are an apostle, inspired by God and in agreement with
      other inspired apostles, then obviously no false
      brothers with their lies are gonna make it necessary
      for you to make sure the other inspired apostles
      understand your gospel, amen? Your other inspired
      apostles in Christ would not need you to personally
      confirm your gospel to them, they would be just as
      quick to condemn there heretics lies as you, right?

      So how is it that Paul was motivated by false teachers
      to go submit his gospel to apostle james?

      I say it is because he knew James disagreed with his
      gospel, but that he couldn't exactly just wave James
      aside as a nobody, but felt it a good business
      decision to go and try to forge some sort of agreement
      with James, an important leader of the church.
      Otherwise it's like you being worried that Jehovah's
      witnesses might convince your friend that you teach
      falsely, so you make a special trip to go see that
      friend and assure them that you believe the same
      things they do. That's just stupid. And if you and
      your friend are inspired apostles, then your trip to
      go see them and do this is all the more unnecessary.

      Would you agree with me that those who believe the
      bible is inerrant, cannot rationally explain Paul's
      motivation to go confirm his gospel with James, merely
      because some heretics got involved?

      And doesn't Acts 16 record episodes of mental
      telepathy, conveniently overcoming the costly and
      dangerous problem of needing to journey to see
      someone? Yes.

      So I believe Paul is fudging his words a bit in
      Galatians. The truth is that he made the dangerous
      costly journey to Jerusalem to 'submit' his gospel to
      apostle James, because apostle James had never heard
      that gospel, and too many people were saying James
      disagreed with paul, so that it wasn't good for
      business anymore. But if James surely always agreed
      with Paul on the nature of the gospel, then what new
      thing is he informing James of when he goes to submit
      his gospel to him?

      Paul's journey to James in Galatians 2 only makes
      sense if he honestly felt James probably disagreed
      with him, and so Paul needed to seriously deal with
      this important leader face-to-face. paul uses the
      excuse that this all happened because of false
      brothers, but I've already demonstrated that this is a
      pitifully stupid excuse that doesn't make sense if we
      assume James's and Paul's divine inspiration as
      inerrantists will.

      Paul is fudging his words, because he says there were
      some authorities he submitted his gospel to, whom he
      resisted, and didn't give place by subjection to; no,
      not for an hour...see Galatians 2:5.

      You may say this wasn't James that he was resisting
      but false brothers.

      That's not my point.

      My point is that Paul places this confrontation in the
      context AFTER he gets to Jerusalem, in his effort to
      submit his gospel to the Jerusalam apostles.

      Apparantly then, he came upon false legalistic
      brothers WHO WERE IN JERUSALEM (!?), who disagreed
      with his gospel, and Paul didn't give in to them one
      bit.

      Ain't that just a bit suspicious, that Paul would
      bother defending his gospel with those whom he regards
      already as heretics?

      Isn't it even scarier, that after all the
      crowd-converting miracles and awe-inspiring power of
      the apostles spoken of in Acts, that Paul finds
      resistence to his gospel in the very city that was
      apostle James' seat of authority...Jerusalem?

      Can you seriously believe that apostle James disagreed
      just as violently with his local legalist Christians
      as Paul did?

      Is it not more reasonable to suppose that the reason
      there are legalistic Christians in Jerusalem is
      because apostle James, head of that particular locale,
      was himself a legalist?

      Yeah, the idea that appostle James taught a legalistic
      gospel may offend what you currently believe, but then
      again, you are quick to move wherever the truth is, or
      quick to acknowledge that you were decieved when you
      become convinced you were in error, amen?

      Sure, you can continue insisting that apostle James
      wasn't legalistic, so as to defend your doctrine of
      inerrancy, but you can only do so if you have already
      read the historical information on apostle James as
      being a legalist himself, information recorded by
      Jerome and Eusebius, and found good reason to say the
      early Church trusted in a false rumor about James.

      But I'm not too sure you wanna deliver that supply of
      ammo to us atheists. You go around saying the beliefs
      of the early post-apostolic church about their
      founders was often false, and yer gonna lose about 80%
      of the material apologists regularly work with.

      Because if you agree with the Church's historical
      information that apostle James was a high Jewish
      priest who performed animal sacrifices long after
      Jesus died for sin, you will be forced to conclude
      that apostle James was a legalist, and therefore a
      very prime candidate for the legalist preacher who
      Paul screams curses at in Galatians 1:8.

      Don't be so quick to assume that James couldn't have
      done animal sacrifices after Jesus died because he'd
      have known that Jesus' death made them irrelevent.

      That assumes, blindly, that he would agree with
      apostle Paul, and assumes, blindly, that the
      historical information from Eusebius and Jerome must
      be false just so you don't have to give up believing
      in biblical inerrancy.

      --- Dave



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
      Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
      in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
      http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic