1497Re: [The Truth Of God's Word] Norm needs educating
- Feb 27, 20071Then 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
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
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
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
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.
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
- Next post in topic >>