Galatians 1:
1 This letter is from Paul, an apostle. I was not appointed by any group or by human authority. My call is from Jesus Christ himself and from God the Father

11 Dear brothers and sisters, I solemnly assure you that the Good News of salvation which I preach is not based on mere human reasoning or logic.

18 It was not until three years later that I finally went to Jerusalem for a visit with Peter F4 and stayed there with him for fifteen days. 19 And the only other apostle I met at that time was James, our Lord's brother. 20 You must believe what I am saying, for I declare before God that I am not lying. 21 Then after this visit, I went north into the provinces of Syria and Cilicia.


Here is the problems with the above statements made by Paul…

Paul starts the message by claiming to be an apostle. In an overt begging demeanor, he pleads that they believe he is an apostle. By vs.18, he seems to start an argument to prove he is a real apostle by his travels to Jerusalem to stay with Peter for 15 days, yet he doesn’t give any reason as to why his claim to being an apostle was proven or even helped in the least by his stay with Peter. He then continues in the next vs.19, which further confuses the issue by saying the only other apostle I met was James, as though meeting with too many apostles would be a bad thing. Yet that was suppose to prove he was an apostle.

It just doesn’t make any sense why he would claim that the meeting with two of the original apostles, helped his argument that he was an apostle appointed by God, then give no detail as to what the meeting with the apostles accomplished, or why the meeting helped in validating that he is an apostle. You would think Paul would claim that these two agreed that Paul was an apostle, but no such luck here. Of course, had the two claimed such, it would have made Paul’s statement in Gal 1:1 false, so we know that he was not ordained as apostle by these two.

If this meeting with Peter and James was of no importance, why the big push in the next vs. 20 to plead that the reader “believe” that this meeting had occurred. Yet, again we have no real need to believe or not believe that such a meeting occurred because Paul gave us no indication of why the meeting would have been supportive of his claim to being an “Apostle

Which brings us back to the question of why did Paul include this bit of useless information in this letter.

The only possible reason for such a statement is for the oldest reason in politics and salesmanship…. Name Dropping!
He felt that these people would not believe his claim of being an apostle and felt that if he could just drop a couple of names it might help sell the idea. This may not be considered telling a lie but surely it is highly UNETHICAL and meant to misrepresent his claim. It also shows an ignorance in creating proof and conclusion to his earlier statements, especially when Christians claim these words are “INSPIRED” from a perfect God.

This is typical Pauline fashion. He stresses the fact that apostleship coes from God, and Paul is so-called. He points out that he didn't meet any other apostles for 3 years, meaning of course they were not the ones to give him authority. The fact that he meets a few apostles is an appeal to a weak proof of apostles recognising one another. This is to point out that although he claims his apostleship is from God, he is not saying it is from God because no famous and respected apostles want anything to do with him. He does the same in Collosians, bragging about his circumcision and all his excellence in the Judaistic law then claiming none of it matters. Both times he brings it up so the opposition can't claim it's only because he is not respected by the trusted apostles or not circumcised. It's the same argument a celibate might argue for celibacy. "Yep I never have sex. To honour God. Not that I couldn't get any if I wanted to..." This argument is an answer to the untrusting skeptic who casts suspicions upon the claims of the apostle- that he is calling on divine authority because he couldn't get it any other way.

One of the hardest things for evangelicals and fundamentalists to grasp is that the early Christians were human beings with human virtues and human failings.

Like an innocent's view of America's founding fathers, Paul, too, is supposed to be above reproach. Despite the fact of Paul's all-too-human confessions in many of his epistles, most believers still see him as some sort of a divine channeler who handed the unbroken tradition of Jesus down from Calvary and delivered it to the rest of the world.

And despite some 11th -hour revisions and wishful thinking in recent evalgelical apologetics, Paul has almost nothing to say about the earthly Jesus depicted in the gospels. Paul certainly wrests a meaning from Jesus' ignoble death on the cross but goes no deeper than a syncretistic concept of a dying, rising and saving Hellenistic deity. Perhaps Paul is too literal-minded to be bothered by the parables and the paradoxes of the synoptic Jesus. After all, Paul of Tsarsus is on a sales trip: a political lobbyist working for a little-known candidate losing in the early polls.

[This message has been edited by aikido7 (edited May 09, 2001).]

Jesus was alive after Paul was executed. Mary Magdalene left Jesus and he remarried. St. Paul married one of the daughters born to Jesus and Mary. When Jesus was not a puka called "the Word of God" he was very alive.

thanks,
offa

Galations says :1:18-22 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;
And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ.
1. After 3 years to Jerusalem 2. Met Peter & James only
Acts says:
And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.
But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.
And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.
And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him.
Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus.
Then had the churches rest throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied
1. After 3 years to Jerusalem. 2. Met all disciples and was with them in and out at Jerusalem.

So, which is it? Did Paul meet only James and Peter or did he stay with all the disciples and go in and out with them?

There is one pseudepigraphal book, and the name escapes me at the moment, that paints Paul as a not-so-nice character who tries to run things his way and even pushes James down the temple steps. It's spurious, of course, but revealing. It seems that there were plenty of folks in the early christian movement who didn't think Paul had any business passing himself off as one of authority.

While I don't doubt that there were some in the early Church who questioned Paul's credentials, I don't think that the Psuedo-Clementine sheds any light on the subject.

Our best evidence on this subject is Paul's own letters. Our strongest secondary evidence is Acts. Both attest that Paul's leadership and mission to the Gentiles, at least, were accepted by Peter, James, and John.

With Paul’s stumbling words and poor argument set-up for proving his Apostleship, do we really believe that these ill used words, this poor (laughable) argument structure, is really the “Inspired” word of God? Does Inspired really mean, that the author can stumble around and even make mistakes (as Paul did here) but that the deep-rooted meaning is all that is from God. Leading us to believe that there are many mistakes and indeed the whole Bible could be just one giant mistake without any real proof of what message is truly from God.

OR…is each and every word written in the Bible, directed from God, thereby this type of mistake could only be thought of as a TRAP placed in the Bible, by God, to fool people into thinking the Bible isn’t the inspired word of God so that God may TEST each individual to see if they can drop all reasoning abilities and just have FAITH that this book is Gods own words.

Which is it?