|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 7/4/2007
Posts: 1,267
Points: 3,312
Location: England
|
No, there isn't a condensed list of the problems with Galatians bigritchie. Maybe you could compile one? :) By the way, it would be a long list that would need to be condensed a bit, especially with all the stuff I point out in The Great Galatians Debate :) And to add to #3: The Author of Galatians also contradicts 1 Corinthians 3:18-4:1 where Paul calls himself, Peter (although using Paul's actually only way of referring to Peter - calling him Kepha), and Apollos "fellow servants of Messiah and stewards of the mysteries of God".
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Joined: 10/9/2010
Posts: 6
Points: 9
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.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Joined: 4/5/2008
Posts: 314
Points: 500
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.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Joined: 4/15/2010
Posts: 305
Points: 438
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)
|
|
|
Rank: Moderator  Joined: 10/23/2007 Posts: 1,784 Points: 3,832 Location: Texas
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
YAFVision Theme by Jaben Cargman (Tiny Gecko)Powered by YAF 1.9.301 |
YAF © 2003-2009, Yet Another Forum.NETThis page was generated in 0.118 seconds.
