storytime

[

Thank you. That is, of course, the partically correct answer. The if can be dispensed with as no proof is available from the textual story itself. You get 10 points.

Not again, as this is the first time you've answered with any sense-ability. Can I tell you how it is that Peter is lying when he is concuring with Isaiah 19? Sure I can. He isn't. Isaiah 19 is the prophet speaking about Judah and Israel and cursings of Egyptians, Assyrians, and any other peoples that the prophet condemned. Isaiah saw visions and burdens and spoke out of his own hatred and militant behavior. The entire OT runs along the same theme of jealousy. All nations and peoples are portrayed as the oppressors and according to the opinion of the writer, they are doomed. Isaiah is an ancient propagandist in his campaigning for Israel and Judah. He's in full attack mode against all the world[middle eastern countries]. He pumps-up his god and declares that all the world will submit to his name as the only name with any authority. Later Isaiah ventures to Babylon and lays their land waste, destroys its people and makes his god the victor. A novel ideal if he could make everyone believe it, but he couldn't.

Perhaps Peter and Isaiah were both liars, you ask?

With all the evidence available, why would you think the story is truth?

Doug Shaver

I haven't closely read all the posts in this discussion, so please forgive me if I'm missing some context, but this looks like that apologetic chestnut about how if the Bible's authors weren't telling the truth, they had to have been lying.

No. What most of us skeptics believe, when we disagree with something in the Bible, is that the author was mistaken. We think that the Christian writers, canonical or otherwise, who claimed support in Jewish scriptures for their beliefs about Jesus were wrong, but we do also suppose that they believed every word of what they wrote. And if they believed it, then they were not lying.

I know that some skeptics say otherwise. I do urge you to disregard them. They are not worth your time.

sschlichter

You keep telling me what the old testament says but never with the words of the OT. Why not just explain to me how the verses I supplied match your view of history.

I gave you many examples why I beleive the story is true. Isaiah and Peter concur. if they were not separated by hundreds of years and the fulfillment of the passages I supplied then I would have no problem. You describe full attack mode, I supply a verse that says otherwise. You say he has nothing to do with gentiles, I supply the goal of the covenant and it's relationship to other nations. the text is unarguable and it does not say what you say. If you want to prove otherwise then start with the examples I gave you.

~Steve

storytime

You make a concerned point, but how do you know that the writers were not intentionally deceiving people? Or making it known to the readers that they were intentionally deceiving the readers of the story? If we examine the story, we see Peter knew his Jewish laws as he was brought up in Judaism. He even tells Cornelius that it is not permitted for a Jew to speak to a Gentile. Jesus had previously told his disciples to stay away from Gentiles and Samaritans and that they would in future be making testimony against governors, kings and the Gentiles.

Did Peter intentionally lie when he said salvation is come to the Gentiles also? What authority did Peter have to declare such a proclamation? There's nothing in the OT that says uncircumcised and lawless people would be part of the kingdom of God. Jesus excluded Gentiles when he stated that he was sent to none but the lost sheep in the house of Israel.

The OT god said dreamers of dreams and those who saw visions have seen nothing.

The evidence is against Peter in his blasphemy of speaking against the word of God. Did Peter intentionally lie to the Jews and the Gentiles? Evidently he did, for he knew his laws and commandments concerning those things that bound him to them. Those things he could not loose unless he went against the word of God.

Peter lied.

sschlichter

actually, it was storytime that brought the chestnut by claiming that Peter was lying. Thanks for the advice.

~Steve

storytime

With all due respect Steve, I think you believe the story is true because you want it to be true.

In the NT, Peter takes the sayings of Isaiah or whatever other prophet and reconstructs those prophet sayings to fit his message, "so that the scripture might be fulfilled", from old prophet sayings. Jesus did the same in declaring himself God in the flesh, or when he was condemning the Pharisees. Jesus referenced the old prophets to/for his self serving purpose of being the one who was to come to his people, "so that the scripture might be fulfilled" as declared by Isaiah the prophet, or Jeremiah or Elijah or others.

Were the references to old prophet sayings correct? No, its evident that they were not. No particular person is named or used by the prophets as a would be future savior or king or messiah. And God condemns Gentiles in the OT so why would he approve of them in another testimony? If God does not change, Gentiles remain excluded in their uncircumcision of flesh and heart and their lawlessness.

bacht

As I understand it there were two camps in the early Christian movement, the Torah-following Jews and Torah-free Gentiles. Galatians is a presentation of this conflict, as is the description of the apostolic conference in Acts. James is supposed to be representative of the Jewish position, and Paul is supposed to be representative of the Gentiles, with Peter somewhere between.

By the 2nd C the Gentiles had become the majority, and didn't want to be tied to the old Law.

A more radical position would be that Christianity was always a gentile movement, and simply pretended that it was started by Jews by forging appropriate documents as evidence. In this scenario the Christians freely interpreted the Septuagint to rationalize the gentile takeover, co-opting OT prophecies without regard to the original contexts.

storytime

[QUOTE=bacht;5584133]As I understand it there were two camps in the early Christian movement, the Torah-following Jews and Torah-free Gentiles. Galatians is a presentation of this conflict, as is the description of the apostolic conference in Acts. James is supposed to be representative of the Jewish position, and Paul is supposed to be representative of the Gentiles, with Peter somewhere between.

By the 2nd C the Gentiles had become the majority, and didn't want to be tied to the old Law.

That sounds more plausable to me, mainly because Jesus was Jewish and maintained his Judaism as the way, truth and life of Jews/Israel. Jesus would not have been called a Christian and he would not have taught a doctrine of freedom from Jewish laws.

sschlichter

and I expect you do not want them to be true, but that is quite a moot point.

This is your 3rd reply without answering any of the questions about the text I supplied.

Why is your view of what the OT reveals about the God of the OT so different from the God that is actually revealed in the OT? Specifically, in regards to Gentiles? I think it was Isa 9, 19, 29, 53, 64, Jonah (whole book), the purposes of the Abrahamic covenant, Gen 3, and general considerations for gentiles in the law (about 70 of them).

You are critiquing Jesus and Paul's use of the OT but cannot provide any reasons without pretending the text says something different than what it says.

~Steve

sschlichter

If this was decided by vote, then this makes sense. it isn't though, it is decided by what is true. Why don't you provide some support for why you find this more plausible. The only record you have of Jesus is from the disciples that spent their lives (literally) bringing his message to Jews and Gentiles. There is absolutely no substance to what you are saying.

Even the example you gave is a mis-representation of Jesus.

(John 14:6) Jesus replied, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus is referring to himself, not the law. He is the head of the Christians, not one of them. He does not follow himself.

~Steve