logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#1 Posted : Saturday, June 26, 2010 7:48:42 AM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Well done Swalchy - I know how much effort and research this took and you made a great job of it.
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline Steve in PA  
#2 Posted : Sunday, June 27, 2010 9:51:02 AM(UTC)
Steve in PA
Joined: 3/31/2010(UTC)
Posts: 157
Location: PA

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 3 post(s)
Regardless if Paul wrote "Galatians" or not, the fruit that came from and was/is attributed to him is bad.
All his letters are foundational to the false religion built by man.
Weather Paul was a true follower, apostle and Torah observer or false prophet and deceiver is almost irrelevant.
"Christianity" would totally crumble without his foundation.

If he were to have been killed by lighting when he fell off his horse...

Yahuwah's words, covenant and commandments do still stand true.

Yahushua's fulfillment of the Torah does still stand true.

The tree that either inspired Paul's letters or twisted and/or falsified them has a date with the fire.



Matthew 7:15-20

"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?
"So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
"A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
"Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
"So then, you will know them by their fruits.

Offline bitnet  
#3 Posted : Sunday, June 27, 2010 7:15:22 PM(UTC)
bitnet
Joined: 7/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,120

Shalom,

Swalchy, what Greek fonts are used in your document? I got some generic square boxes in some places where there should be some text in between some Greek letters that can be seen.
The reverence of Yahweh is the beginning of Wisdom.
Offline Steve in PA  
#4 Posted : Sunday, June 27, 2010 8:02:30 PM(UTC)
Steve in PA
Joined: 3/31/2010(UTC)
Posts: 157
Location: PA

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 3 post(s)
Sorry Swalchy,

My comment was not meant to be as a response or a rebuttal to your .pdf
It was just a comment that came to mind when I checked out this thread and briefly looked over the .pdf
Thinking about it now, the comment could have been placed in the other thread or not at all.
Feel free to remove it. I will not be offended.
Offline bigritchie  
#5 Posted : Monday, June 28, 2010 6:36:32 AM(UTC)
bigritchie
Joined: 4/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 305
Location: USA

Swalchy,

Hey I have been reading your document, and am really enjoying it, thanks for the hard work, time, and effort in writings it and placing it on the net for free.

I was really surprised regarding the Acts 14 cities. I had always thought that was the Galatian assemblies, and I always used Acts 14 to tie in Galatians chapter 4 with christians where it talks about "Observing times and Seasons".

I would just always point back to Acts 14 and say "Observing Times and Seasons is a Torah concept to begin with regarding pagan holidays" and show how those people worshiped Paul and wanted to commit sacrifice to him, and assumed those times and seasons were the normal sun god worship holidays (Christmas, Easter, Etc)

I guess it is a approach I would still have to take with christians really, because of course their Bibles say "Galatia" in the headings.

And needless to say in Galatians where the writer compares Mount Sinai to Hagar/Ishmael that just utterly screams PROBLEM to me also.

Quite frankly though I have just gotten to the point when speaking with a christian, that as soon as they say "But Paul says", I have them right where I want anyways.

Anyways, thanks again, really enjoying the read.
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#6 Posted : Tuesday, June 29, 2010 12:30:05 AM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
The thing that has to be remembered is that Galatia isn't a city...
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline bigritchie  
#7 Posted : Tuesday, June 29, 2010 11:56:00 AM(UTC)
bigritchie
Joined: 4/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 305
Location: USA

Robskiwarrior wrote:
The thing that has to be remembered is that Galatia isn't a city...


O yea I agree, I was just more speaking of talking to your average pagan sun god worshiper that will punch you in the face if you tell him the King James Bible is not infallible hehe.

I live in the Appalachian Mountains, and I kid you not they have Bible book burnings of anything not King James. So when dealing with the pagans, I have to approach it carefully.

The entire thing just drives me batty really.

I mean why is it so hard for religious people that claim to worship the Creator to just do what he says? Why is it so hard for christians to just do what Messiah says when he says "Do and teach the least of the Torah". It is all so simple really.

I can see why Yaakov called the Torah "The perfect Torah of liberty"
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#8 Posted : Tuesday, June 29, 2010 2:06:22 PM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Well what I mean is you can show them on a map lol

But yea - crazy people... crazy lol
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline bigritchie  
#9 Posted : Friday, July 2, 2010 6:11:11 PM(UTC)
bigritchie
Joined: 4/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 305
Location: USA

Swalchy,

I just finished reading your book. Utterly brilliant. BRILLIANT! MASTERPIECE!


I kind of figured all along that Paul never wrote Galatians, and I figured there was a good chance that Simon Magus wrote it. (Especially if 3rd Corinthians was written by Paul)

You just trashed a big portion of every "But Paul says" arguments on the planet with that.

Thank you so much for taking the time and putting in the hard work to write this.

That should be published and sent to every "Church" and bookstore in the world.


Offline bigritchie  
#10 Posted : Saturday, July 3, 2010 7:24:59 AM(UTC)
bigritchie
Joined: 4/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 305
Location: USA

Swalchy wrote:
Thanks for that, bigritchie :)

I'm certain that other people have also read the document, and I'm a bit surprised that only you have actually made any comment about it, especially as I do kinda contradict most of Yada's "Questioning Paul" website.

Early days I guess - it is 118 A4 pages long :)



I have only read the first few chapter of "Questioning Paul", and it (So far anyway) seems to deal alot more with questioning Galatians also with the assumption that Paul 100% wrote it. I hope Yada gets a chance to read your book. The two works could wind up complimenting each other very much.

I am reading "James, the Brother of Jesus" right now, and while the book is filled with WAY to much opinionated nonsense by the author, he has also mentioned Simon Magus running around pretending to be Paul and writing letters pretending to be Paul.

Offline Robskiwarrior  
#11 Posted : Saturday, July 3, 2010 7:38:28 AM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
bigritchie wrote:
I have only read the first few chapter of "Questioning Paul", and it (So far anyway) seems to deal alot more with questioning Galatians also with the assumption that Paul 100% wrote it. I hope Yada gets a chance to read your book. The two works could wind up complimenting each other very much.



That's what I hope will happen :)
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline Juski  
#12 Posted : Thursday, July 8, 2010 4:40:58 AM(UTC)
Juski
Joined: 7/6/2007(UTC)
Posts: 114
Location: Salford, UK

sorry Swalch -still reading, but I'm sure the questions will follow shortly! :)
Offline dugdoo56  
#13 Posted : Thursday, July 8, 2010 10:11:28 AM(UTC)
dugdoo56
Joined: 12/1/2009(UTC)
Posts: 58
Location: adelaide south australia

Swalch...like the others, I am still reading but your in depth study of the subject is amazing. I hope Yada does read it..it will be interesting as to his take of it. Will he now have to undo all of the "Pauletcomy" of YY??. Anyway, a question has arisen...the Name of the Messiah. Is it Yahushua or Yahusha? In the website "Bibletruth.cc there they state that the "shua" ending means opulent and that the ending should be "sha" As we dont want to get the Name wrong, does anybody know, if coming from the oldest extant manuscripts, what the real ending of His Name should be. Many thanks...DD56.
Offline Prodigal  
#14 Posted : Friday, July 9, 2010 1:15:52 AM(UTC)
Prodigal
Joined: 2/24/2010(UTC)
Posts: 65
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Still reading, but a few thoughts and a question came up:

Having tables, especially when you're comparing the word selection and frequency among the different books would be very helpful. It may just be me, but I get information like that much better in a table format (probably comes from being an engineer). I find it easier to compare and contrast the books that way (and it's probably more concise, as well).

Also, while I understand the nature behind each of the 8 criteria that Ephesians was discredited with, it seems like #3 and #4 work against #5. Separately, one would expect to see similar phrasing and word usage throughout Paul's letters (hence #3 and #4), but outright copies can also discredit it (hence #5). Together, doesn't this kind of set up a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario? Also, since Colossians is in the disputed section, #5 would tend to indicate that Colossians and Ephesians may have the same author (or at least one was inspired by the other).

Great read so far! Very great work!

Matt
Offline Richard  
#15 Posted : Friday, July 9, 2010 3:49:08 AM(UTC)
Richard
Joined: 1/19/2010(UTC)
Posts: 695
Man
United States

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
Stephen and the rest,

Am I understanding you all correctly, that you believe that Paul was an actual "apostle" and not the impostor Yada and others have made him out to be?

Richard
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#16 Posted : Friday, July 9, 2010 6:10:07 AM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
NOTICE: This document is not Pro-Paul.

If the document is read in full - the whole point of it is to shed light on whether or not Paul wrote Galatians. It is not a defence of Paul to bring some kinda of credibility back, but if you are using Galatians to attack Paul then you need a better case. If you view Paul's letters through the lens of Galatians then yes he would be a "false" whatever - but with a lacking of evidence and the fact that his other letters are not anti Torah does not make his writings Scripture by any sense of the imagination, and nor does the document try to make that case.

Paul was a messenger, that is all - take or leave his letters, like James says it dosen't really matter as we have all we need already, but do not shoot him down for the sake of inaccuracy and wonky facts. The document is an exercise in logical thought and evidence, not slander and conjecture. We have to look at the whole facts and get as much of the actual story right as possible, whether that makes Paul false, true, fictional or an elephant. It is the truth that matters.

What I take away from the document is that it is very hard to trust anything canonised into the "New Testament", there are over 100 letters attributed to writers around the time documenting or claiming one thing or another - or that they were someone person or else, so the fact that someone might have forged the letter is completely logical, especially as most scholars themselves would say that Ephesians is a forgery.

So lets get this back to reality. Is Paul awesome - no. He's a bloke. But lets get the picture right before we burn him at the stake.

as I said in the notice at the start, you have to understand, this is not a Pro-Paul document. Swalchy is not pro Paul, neither am I.

Read the document through and bring questions about it that would be awesome - it's to large to try and summarise.

NOTICE: This document is not Pro-Paul.
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline Matthew  
#17 Posted : Friday, July 9, 2010 7:04:15 AM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
If someone teaches another Messiah (i.e. Muhammad or Buddha or the Christ that says we no longer need to understand the Torah but can follow other pagan rituals instead) then we can safely say that he's a false apostle. But if someone teaches, for argument sake with 90% accuracy, without claiming to be an apostle nor prophesying then can we say this person is a false teacher? Because if he purposefully and knowingly teaches 10% deception in order to mislead then he's most likely a false representative of the Messiah, but what if he teaches 10, 20 or even 40% wrong without the knowledge of him being wrong and loves Yahweh, what then? Should we too label him a false apostle, someone teaching on behalf of Satan, or just a simple bloke like us trying to have a relationship with Yahweh?

I'm not trying to protect or accuse Paul here but merely trying to clarify the meaning of what a false prophet is. Let's say a person publishes a 100 page document online regarding the Tanakh, yet we find a couple of erroneous teachings and interpretations, should we label him a false prophet just because we heard him once say "God showed this to me" or "I like to share the Word of God with all those I meet"?

Thank goodness my writings aren't elevated to the level of Scripture, though I do know people will be reading my comments on this forum. I don't intend to mislead but I know I don't know Scripture perfectly. I still share God's Word with people knowing full well that I might not be perfect with my words, that I could be wrong, and that someone could always take what I say out of context.

The other day I told my wife, in front of my father, that the Secondary School in my home town was called that because it was the second high school in town because another school was already called the High School. My father quickly showed me that secondary in regards to schools already means that it's a high school. I felt mildly embarrassed because I didn't see the obvious all these years, but my father didn't call me a liar all of a sudden and abandon me in his process. Neither did my wife label me a liar, she probably thought I was just a typical innocent fool lacking in vocabulary. My intention was obviously not to mislead, but to help explain through the best of my knowledge something to my wife, albeit being wrong.

Before we start labelling Paul a false prophet we have to prove the words are his and that he intends to mislead. I can still read the letters associated to him and not feel they are anti-Torah but rather trying to help, such as the posting we do on this forum.

I only saw Rob's post now after I wrote all the above, and can say nice post Rob.
Offline bigritchie  
#18 Posted : Friday, July 9, 2010 7:55:51 AM(UTC)
bigritchie
Joined: 4/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 305
Location: USA

flintface wrote:
Stephen and the rest,

Am I understanding you all correctly, that you believe that Paul was an actual "apostle" and not the impostor Yada and others have made him out to be?

Richard


Here is how I view Shaul. (I am speaking outside of Galatians here)

Virtually every single one of the "verses" that we constantly have thrown in our faces, say the exact opposite of what Christianity teaches.

Acts shows Paul keeping Torah, teaching on the Sabbath, doing temple Sacrifice, and Luke writes about how the Pharisees started the lie that said Paul taught against Torah.

So for me we have 2 different "versions" of Paul throughout the "New Testament"

The Dead Sea scrolls talk about the "Liar" that went out from among them and taught people to not keep Torah, but in 3rd Corinthians Paul writes about Simon Magus traveling around and brags on the Corinthians not being lead away by the error of being without Torah.

So in my personal, humble opinion, I think Simon Magus wrote Galatians. I think the REAL Paul was a Torah observant Hebrew. And I think the "Church" utterly butchered his writings. I think the "liar" running around teaching everyone not to keep the Torah was Simon Magus.

And let me make something clear, I am not judging Yada or anyone else who rejects Paul's writings. I think people who obey Paul in their English "versions" of the Bible rather then the Creator and the Messiah are utter fools. I tell people all the time something to the effect of "What Paul may or may not have said in regards to Torah, DOES NOT MATTER". The Creator and Messiah and get the final word on Torah NOT PAUL. And clearly without a doubt christianity is based upon what the church says Paul says.


Offline Richard  
#19 Posted : Friday, July 9, 2010 5:01:11 PM(UTC)
Richard
Joined: 1/19/2010(UTC)
Posts: 695
Man
United States

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
Sorry, Stephen, didn't mean to start a wildfire.
Offline Walt  
#20 Posted : Saturday, July 10, 2010 4:16:35 AM(UTC)
Walt
Joined: 10/26/2008(UTC)
Posts: 374
Man

Swalchy wrote:


So, unless people have anything to talk about Paul writing Galatians, take this tangented debate to another topic


Sorry, didn't mean to distract, moved my discussion.

Noticed that this was an announcement, which made my comments even more inappropriate
Offline RidesWithYah  
#21 Posted : Monday, July 12, 2010 4:27:28 PM(UTC)
RidesWithYah
Joined: 6/10/2008(UTC)
Posts: 331

Swalchy,

Nice job with the book. It usually takes me more than one reading to absorb something like this, so please pardon if I miss something you covered or don't get something quite right.

Interesting to me how you point-by-point use the arguments taken to show "Paul" didn't write Ephesians, and apply those same tests to Galatians. Trouble is, I don't really know how many people that argument is effective against -- those who insist "Paul" wrote Galatians, but not Ephesians, I guess. Is there someone in particular you had in mind? I encounter far more "Paul wrote it all" types among the casual Christians I know.

Your logic seems sound in contrasting with Ephesians, but the frequency with which an author uses a certain word or phrase isn't compelling to me. It makes sense that letters to different people, covering different topics, would vary. I'm sure mine do.

Where I think you've got me is some of the other peculiarities:
-- "quoting" the same Scripture *very* differently than the other letters, or the Septuagint
-- struggling with Greek vocabulary and grammar (Don't know whether it would be possible that Galatians was an "early" letter, before his Greek was polished. Just my ignorance showing, I'm sure, but I'd like to dig into that to verify.)
-- referring to people by their "province" rather than their city.
-- closing with a unique, rather than his standard, signatory.

And of course, the fact that he had no known contact, let alone a strong relationship, with anyone likely to be called "Galatians".

After my second read, I hope to find time to distill some of the basics down to talking points; maybe a short summary. REALLY appreciate the work you put into this.

RWY.

Offline Robskiwarrior  
#22 Posted : Tuesday, July 13, 2010 12:27:42 AM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Also I think the main point of the phrasing study is because that is how most of the books are either shown to be Paul or not. As you have discovered the document pretty much exposes the flaws without even going into the phrases used... but to the scholars that is a big thing they look at. So taking what they use to discredit Ephesians for example and applying the same rules to Galatians exposes their hypocrisy.

It is "playing by their rules" - if it can be proved that Paul could not have written Galatians by the rules set and followed by those who are the scholars, then well... that leaves a lot to be thought about :)

As for Christianity, they have no idea really what their scholars think - unless they actually read stuff about where their religion comes from. So that excludes about 90% lol If it can be brought to light that the scholars think certain things, maybe they will start to think too....

Edited by moderator Tuesday, July 13, 2010 3:49:08 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline Richard  
#23 Posted : Tuesday, July 13, 2010 5:09:28 AM(UTC)
Richard
Joined: 1/19/2010(UTC)
Posts: 695
Man
United States

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
Swalchy, my friend, regarding Galatians 3:13, I always understood "the curse of the Law" to be referring to the curses listed in Deuteronomy 28:15-68, where Moseh described the terrible things which would befall those who turned away from Yahuweh. I have to disagree with you that the author of the letter to the Galatians was calling the Torah itself a curse.

Also, in Romans 8:38-39, Paul does not exclude the Master's right to spew us out of His mouth or to blot our names from the Book of Life. He rightly states that no created thing can ever separate us from God's love. Yahushua is not a created thing; He is the Creator. He has promised us that those who overcome will not have their names blotted out of His Book of Life, which very strongly implies that those who do not overcome will be cast out, just like a stiff-necked, unrepentent delinquent child is expelled from his parents's home for the good of everyone else living there.

Great read so far, man.

Edit:

I dunno, Swalchy. It seems to me that you are not accurately understanding some of the meanings of the verses you are exploring. For example, you quote part of Galatians 6:7 ("God is not mocked") and then say, "God is definitely mocked and derided nearly every moment of the day." What the writer of the letter was saying in that verse was that God is not really mocked, because whoever mocks Him will himself be mocked by God, Whose overwhelming power makes His mockery the one which will stand. Thus, in effect, God is NOT mocked, at least not in any meaningful or lasting way, by anyone. He won't tolerate being mocked, just like He won't share His glory with another. People glorify themselves all the time, but can their pride really diminish Yahuweh's glory? Of course not! In the same way, one's mocking of God will not diminish His authority or right to recompense.

I could be wrong on this, but I think I am spot on.

Anyway, your work is still awesome and educational. Thanks!

Edited by moderator Tuesday, July 13, 2010 7:13:25 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline Richard  
#24 Posted : Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:03:32 AM(UTC)
Richard
Joined: 1/19/2010(UTC)
Posts: 695
Man
United States

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
Swalchy wrote:
So if the only thing people are having problems with are my interpretation of a certain verses Theology, then it's not really all that important to the overall message of the document.


Good point. So far, I am persuaded that your conclusion is correct, that Paul was not the author of the letter to the Galatians. What astounds me is the amount of research you've put into this document and the blatant hypocrisy of "biblical scholars" everywhere which your labors have exposed.

By the way, the part about the use of the word alla made me think of those people who, when they speak and/or write, string all their thoughts into one continuous sentence with the conjunction and. To me, that might be as indicative of authorship as other traits.

Richard

Edited by user Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:13:06 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline lassie1865  
#25 Posted : Saturday, August 7, 2010 11:41:52 AM(UTC)
lassie1865
Joined: 2/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 309
Woman
Location: Colorado

I can't seem to send email successfully through the Forum, so I'll post here.

Is the Greek word for "rock" the same for "Peter" as it is for "God", "Yahushua", and for "living stones"? Or are there two words: one for "big mountain type rock" and one for "little stone"?
Offline bigritchie  
#26 Posted : Saturday, August 14, 2010 8:37:33 AM(UTC)
bigritchie
Joined: 4/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 305
Location: USA

So I wanted to post a few thoughts regarding Galatians, and I hope this is the thread to do it on.

The entire Paul thing has burned me up recently, and especially Galatians.

I wanted to post what I think are utter holes you could drive a semi through regarding Galatians, and get thoughts on it.

#1 Galatians is based upon "The Just shall live by Faith". As I am sure most of you know this is a utter nonsense translation of Habbakuk 2:4 which really says "The Just shall live by FAITHFULNESS", or "The Just shall live by my Faith"

Either translation utterly destroys the credibility of the entire book of Galatians. As living by faithfulness is OBEDIENCE and works. (not to mention James tearing Galatians apart)

#2 Galatians is also based upon the Torah being a schoolmaster until faith comes. Now we are not under the school master, but under faith blah blah. When the writers entire thesis is that people were always justified by faith............then he tells us faith has come after Messiah........It just seems to be circular reasoning to me. If faith only came after Messiah, then how could people have been justified by faith before Messiah..........

And of course if Abraham had just "believed" God but not OBEYED God, he would have been called the first western gentile American Christian rather then the first Hebrew!

#3 it presents Paul as the champion of eating with Gentiles. And attacking Peter. Several problems with this

A. Acts presents Peter as the champion of the gentiles, and in fact peter has 3 visions from heaven regarding gentiles!

B. By attacking Peter in public in front of everyone, Paul contradicts not only the Messiah's teachings, but HIS OWN!

#4 Galatians has Paul going straight to Arabia which contradicts Acts, and Paul going to jerusalem.

#5 Galatians has Paul calling a entire region of people "Fools" which contradicts the very teachings of the Messiah!

#6 Galatians has angels as writings the Torah, which contradicts the Torah itself which has the Creator writings Torah.

#7 Galatians has Paul saying he wishes his enemies would cut their penis off............

#8 Galatians contradicts what Paul says in Romans. In romans Paul says "The doers of the law are justified and not the hearers"

#9 Galatians attacks a forever, everlasting command of the Creator regarding Circumcision. And by the writer of Galatians own words Paul would have made "Christ of no effect" for Timothy.

This is just a few of the things right off the bat.

Would there happen to be a direct list of problems like this on the forums anywhere? I would like to have a condensed list, to present to those christians who tell me I am going to hell "because I obey Jesus and don't just believe in him".
Offline CatholicMan  
#27 Posted : Saturday, October 9, 2010 11:16:56 AM(UTC)
CatholicMan
Joined: 10/9/2010(UTC)
Posts: 6
Location: US

Hey folks:

I am a little confused here. Apparently, we can't take Paul at his word in Galatians but we arte to take Luke at his word with regard to the Council of Jerusalem.
Offline BiynaYahu  
#28 Posted : Saturday, October 9, 2010 5:05:52 PM(UTC)
BiynaYahu
Joined: 4/5/2008(UTC)
Posts: 314
Man
Location: British Columbia, Canada

I personally don't trust the "Gospel of Luke" or even Acts. Also, I put a lot more credence in the Tanakh than the Renewed Covenant scriptures in general. The Renewed Covenant scriptures have been maimed and spun to a ridiculous degree by the religious authorities.
Someone who does not dearly love or welcome, entertain, look fondly upon or cherish people with strong affection or highly esteem them with great favour, goodwill or benevolence, be loyal to or greatly adore them has not known or understood, perceived or realized, noticed or discerned, discovered or observed, experienced or ascertained, learned about or distinguished, comprehended, acknowledged or recognized God*, for concerning this, God* is and exists as brotherly love and affection, good will, esteem and benevolence.
Offline bigritchie  
#29 Posted : Sunday, October 10, 2010 7:25:11 AM(UTC)
bigritchie
Joined: 4/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 305
Location: USA

CatholicMan wrote:
Hey folks:

I am a little confused here. Apparently, we can't take Paul at his word in Galatians but we arte to take Luke at his word with regard to the Council of Jerusalem.


I tend to think that they had a much different take on circumcision then Acts says due to Paul's rants against Circumcision in Galatians and his other letters.

So much info that is not in Acts and just a massive time period covered with very little info.

Luke does expose Paul in a way in Acts and even his gospel (Luke 1:6 destroys Paul's Romans Road)
Offline James  
#30 Posted : Monday, October 11, 2010 6:28:05 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
I would not put Luke's writings in the same category as the apostles, but i wouldn't completely dismiss them like I do Paul's.

Luke was for the most part a historian who was trying to compile what all had happened. So for a historical record I would trust him over Paul.

but ritchie is right, Acts lacks a lot of details.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.