Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Peter Kirby · 09-22-2003, 04:56 AM

There are two different types of possible contradiction concerning Paul, the theological and the narrative. Theological contradictions would include the question of how people are saved, while two different indications of where Paul was at a certain time would be a narrative contradiction, for example. Both can be discussed here.

It is frequently said that the Acts of the Apostles and the letters of Paul disagree with each other, but I would like to know the content of their disagreements and the possible reasons for their existence--and whether each point amounts to probable contradiction in the first place.

A good way to start this is to compile as large a list of problems as we can find, which can be pared down later. When I asked Toto about this a while ago, he referred me The Paul Paradox web page. This web page often concerns the four gospels, or even disagreements within Acts, with which I am not concerned here. I will extract the ones with reference to Acts and the letters of Paul.

2. Ac 9:26-29 || Gal 1:17-2:1
Did Paul then travel immediately� or seventeen years later!� from Damascus to Jerusalem in order to meet with the entire Apostolic circle?

5. Ac 1:15 || I-Cor 15:6
How can Christ have appeared to over 500 Brothers at a time (prior to the ascension) when the entire Discipleship numbered only 120?

9. Lk 24:36-43; Jn 11:43-44, 20:27; Ac 1:9-11; Ph 25 || I-Cor 15:50
The evangelists proclaim an incarnate resurrection and parousia (second coming), whereas Paul on the contrary takes an anti-corporeal, frankly gnostic position.

10. Lk 4:5-8; Jn 18:36, 19:18; Ac 4:26 (Ps 2:2) || Rom 13:1-5
The celestial kingdom is described in the Gospels as of another order from the entire realm of the nations, which are ruled by Satan and whereby Christ was crucified. On the other hand, the secular authorities with all their weaponry (including Mk 15:16 ff.??) are stated by Paul to be God's own army.

30. Gen 49; Jud 2:16 ff.; Mt 19:28; Ac 1:13-26; Rev/Ap 2:2, 21:14 || I-Cor 9:1-2; II-Cor 11:5-13
Finally, we must observe the fact that the permanent tally of the Apostles was established by the Savior at exactly twelve (for obvious reasons of historical symbolism� note the symmetry at Rev/Ap 21:12-14), and moreover that Paul was never numbered in that circle (see also the Epistle of Barnabas 8:3).

I can supplement this a bit with my own reading. Here is what Luke Timothy Johnson writes (The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 269-270):

Quote:

Precisely the impressive and central staging of this event we have come to call the "Jerusalem Council," however, has raised questions concerning its historical character. Once more, the reader faces the problem posted by multiple sources and their disagreement. In this case, Acts tells a story that in some respects agrees with and in other respects comes into conflict with the version found in Paul's letters. The most important overlap and divergence is found in Gal 2:1-14, which describes both a conflict in Antioch and a meeting in Jerusalem, but in terms quite different than Luke's. A second, less direct, conflict is suggested by the lengthy discussion in 1 Cor 8-10 concerning the propriety of eating food that had been sacrificed to idols, a discussion in a letter surely written after this putative council, by a major participant in it, dealing with the same subject, yet which never in any way alludes to the "apostolic decree" supposedly issued by that council.

The problem in assessing the historical character of these events is rendered more difficult by the fact that neither Paul nor Luke are disinterested observers; each has a purpose to telling the tale the way he does. If the version in Acts cannot be taken as reliable in every respect, neither can that in Galatians. The discrepancies are many and the questions they pose real. Was there only one meeting, concerning which the sources disagree, or were there several? Do the sources refer to the same or different meetings? When Paul went up (after fourteen years) to Jerusalem with Barnabas (Gal 2:1), did he go as part of an Antiochean delegation (Acts) or in response to a "revelation" (Gal), or both? Did he bring Titus along (Gal 2:3), and was Titus among the anonymous "certain others" (Acts 15:2)?

More critically, did this meeting follow a harsh encounter involving Paul and Barnabas in Antioch (Acts) or precede such an encounter (according to the usual way of reading Gal 2:11)? Was that encounter, in either case, between Paul and Barnabas (on one side) against anonymous members of the Pharisaic party, as Acts 15:1 would have it, or was it a conflict primarily between Paul and Cephas (with Barnabas siding with Cephas) stimulated by the arrival in Antioch of "certain men from James" (as in Gal 2:11-13)? Was this encounter the real reason for the split between Barnabas and Paul, rather than the personal dispute over John-Mark reported by Luke (Acts 15:36-40)? Was James, in fact, a figure of reconciliation (as in Acts) or a provocateur (as possibly in Galatians)? Of historical importance for understanding Paul's later career is the issue of whether the meeting closed an issue in amicable fashion (Acts), or whether it only opened the issue and further disagreement (Gal).

The disagreements touch also on other critical aspects of Paul's career. Did the meeting issue in decrees concerning the basic requirements of Gentile converts (Acts)? If so, why did Paul not refer to them in his discussion of the issue in 1 Corinthians? Is it because those decrees had application only to the areas cited in the apostolic letter (Antioch, Syria, Cilicia [Acts 15:23]), and not in Achaia? Is it because Paul disagreed with the council's decision and ignored it in his own churches? Or is it because there never were any such decrees? Was the outcome of the meeting the conditions for table fellowship among Jewish and Gentile Christians at all (Acts) or perhaps an agreement concerning the division of the mission between Peter and Paul (Gal 2:7-8) and a commitment from Paul to raise a collection for the Jerusalem Church (Gal 2:10)?

By the way, this commentary on Acts was published in 1992 and is entirely rational, though certainly not a best seller. Johnson's book The Real Jesus was published in 1996.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer writes on the theological differences noted by Vielhauer (The Gospel according to Luke, p. 50):

Quote:

In recent times it has been especially the thesis of P. Vielhauer ("On the 'Paulinism' of Acts," in Studies in Luke-Acts, 33-50) that has provoked the skepticism about the ancient tradition of the author of the Third Gospel and Acts. Building on the work of earlier interpreters such as F. C. Baur, M. Dibelius, R. Bultmann, and F. Overbeck, Vielhauer summarized the major differences between Paul's own theology and the "Paulinism" of Acts (i.e. what Luke attributes to Paul in speeches and theological statements) under four headings: natural theology, the Law, christology, and eschatology. Vielhauer compares the natural theology of Paul's speech on the Aeropagus (Acts 17:22-30) with Paul's own words on the inexcusable ignorance of God among pagans (Rom 1:18-21). The speech in Acts 17 is a sample discourse of Paul's proclamation to the Gentiles, a Lucan composition with a Stoic cast that emphasizes not their ignorance of God, but the fundamental knowledge of him that they actually have. Vielhauer further contrasts Paul's attitude toward the Law in Acts with that in the letters: in Acts Paul is utterly loyal to the Law, does not insist on freedom from the Law, does not contrast Christ and the Law, and does not preach justification by faith alone. Again, Vielhauer contends that the christology attributed to Paul in his speeches before Jewish audiences (Acts 13:17-41 and 26:22-23) is adoptionist, neglects the value of the cross, and really is neither specifically Pauline nor Lucan, but rather derived from the primitive community. Finally, Vielhauer maintains that in Acts Paul's eschatology has disappeared, since it becomes peripheral to his speeches, a mere hope in the resurrection or faith in the return of Christ; it has been removed from the center of faith and become one of the last things. Vielhauer summed up his contention thus: In his christology the author of Acts is pre-Pauline; in his natural theology, idea of the law, and eschatology, he is post-Pauline. He has presented no specifically Pauline ideas. He has rather depicted Paul in his zeal for the worldwide evangelization of the Gentiles. He considers the theological distance between Luke and Paul to be such as to raise the question whether there was not also temporal distance between them, i.e. whether one may really consider Luke, the physician and travel companion of Paul, as the author of Acts (p. 48).

Does anyone have other potential discrepancies between Acts and the epistles to post? Or perhaps some comments on the problems noted above?

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan · 09-22-2003, 05:34 AM

Yes.

The Pauline epistles are full of conflicts between the various Churches in which Paul plays a variety of roles, in Acts these conflicts are downplayed or disappear.

Eisenman notes that in 1 Cor 15 there are 12 apostles, but there were in fact only 11 at the time, as Acts avers.

Eisenman notes a great many conflicts in several places in JtBoJ:

Galatians has no vision on the way to Damascus, but Acts does. Eisenman points out that in both Gal 1:17 and 2 Cor 11:32, nearby Paul claims he does not lie. In Gal 1:15 Paul says he was called from his mother's womb.

In Acts 9 Paul goes to the house of Judas on the Straight street, where he meets Ananias. In Acts 9:17 he gets a commission from this fellow to the Gentiles, not from God directly.

15But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."
17Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord--Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here--has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 18Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

There's no mention of the trip or flight to Arabia as in Gal 1:17. Eisenman also adds that Damascus was not particularly Jewish at the time, and there is no reason to speak of "synagoges" in the plural.

Acts then says Paul returned to Jerusalem where Barnabas introduced him to the Apostles. Barnabas says Paul saw the Lord on the way and spoke to him, echoing, of course, Jesus being seen on the way to Emmaus. But Galatians says that Paul went up after three years, made Peter's acquaintance, and saw no other apostles except James. And finishes by saying that he does not lie. Is this letter replying to the claims of Acts? The two appear to conflict here.

James is an apostle in Acts, but not a member of the 12 in 1 Cor.

In the Pauline letters Peter is a real person, in Acts he and the other apostles are ghostly figures whose origins and fate are unknown.

Bernard Muller · 09-22-2003, 11:01 AM

Peter Kirby wrote:

2. Ac 9:26-29 || Gal 1:17-2:1
Did Paul then travel immediately� or seventeen years later!� from Damascus to Jerusalem in order to meet with the entire Apostolic circle?

Obviously, "Luke", who did not know about Galatians, either embellished (assuming she knew what happened then in Jerusalem) or fantasized. Luke referred to the meeting as described in Gal1:18-19, where Paul only meet Peter & James, Jesus' brother, but not the rest of the apostles. I do not know why you are considering a meeting 17 years later, because Ac9:26-29 & Gal1:17-2:1 place the meeting at the same relative time, that is at the first Paul' visit to Jerusalem following Paul's conversion.

5. Ac 1:15 || I-Cor 15:6
How can Christ have appeared to over 500 Brothers at a time (prior to the ascension) when the entire Discipleship numbered only 120?

My explanation is that the whole of 1Co15:3-11, is a later Christian interpolation, written around 100, when 3 letters to the Corinthians got put together before republishing.
Full explanation here:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/co1c.shtml#adc

9. Lk 24:36-43; Jn 11:43-44, 20:27; Ac 1:9-11; Ph 25 || I-Cor 15:50
The evangelists proclaim an incarnate resurrection and parousia (second coming), whereas Paul on the contrary takes an anti-corporeal, frankly gnostic position.

I do not think Paul's position is Gnostic, mostly Platonic. Philo of Alexandria, certainly not a Gnostic, has the same position than Paul. Furthermore, Paul's position is not so clear and allows for the existence of some heavenly immortal "bodies" which resemble the human ones (the man from heaven).
GMark does not have an incarnate resurrection of Jesus either.

10. Lk 4:5-8; Jn 18:36, 19:18; Ac 4:26 (Ps 2:2) || Rom 13:1-5
The celestial kingdom is described in the Gospels as of another order from the entire realm of the nations, which are ruled by Satan and whereby Christ was crucified. On the other hand, the secular authorities with all their weaponry (including Mk 15:16 ff.??) are stated by Paul to be God's own army.

What's that? Since when the celestial Kingdom is ruled by Satan?
None of the quote you give says that. I thought the gospels stated Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem.
But yes, it looks that Paul thought Satan was the "god of this age", ruling the mind of the unbelievers down below, that is on earth, and who will be crushed (that is at the event of the Kingdom, presumably).

30. Gen 49; Jud 2:16 ff.; Mt 19:28; Ac 1:13-26; Rev/Ap 2:2, 21:14 || I-Cor 9:1-2; II-Cor 11:5-13
Finally, we must observe the fact that the permanent tally of the Apostles was established by the Savior at exactly twelve (for obvious reasons of historical symbolism� note the symmetry at Rev/Ap 21:12-14), and moreover that Paul was never numbered in that circle (see also the Epistle of Barnabas 8:3).

I do not know what's your point here.

However later, you seem to quote some scholar about the confusion on the meetings in Jerusalem.
This is what I have on one of my page:
>> e) According to 'Acts', the "Council at Jerusalem", (when the "Nazarenes" allowed conversion without circumcision among the Gentiles (Ac15:1-19) ) was right before Paul's visit to Philippi (50C.E). But from the more trustworthy Galatians letter (2:1-10), this meeting occurred years later (52C.E.), after Paul's
first visit to Macedonia (details about dating in Appendix B and Paul's Third Journey).
It seems "Luke" "arranged" for Paul to have the blessing of the "Nazarenes" before going to Macedonia & Philippi. <<

Best regards, Bernard

Rick Sumner · 09-22-2003, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
Galatians has no vision on the way to Damascus, but Acts does. Eisenman points out that in both Gal 1:17 and 2 Cor 11:32, nearby Paul claims he does not lie. In Gal 1:15 Paul says he was called from his mother's womb.

I'm curious where you're going with the "I do no lie."

Being called from his mother's womb doesn't mean that there were no other experiences in his call. It means he was selected before birth.

To draw a parallel, take a look at Jer.1.5. Jeremiah has been set apart since before birth, he still needed the miraculous call.

Quote:

James is an apostle in Acts, but not a member of the 12 in 1 Cor.

What leads you to conclude that James the Just is an apostle in Acts? And how do you know he's not a member of the 12 in Gal? Both are rather speculative.

Quote:

In the Pauline letters Peter is a real person, in Acts he and the other apostles are ghostly figures whose origins and fate are unknown.

You base this on what? Peter has more action in Acts than he does in Paul's letters. If anything, he is the ghost in the Pauline corpus, where Peter is far more character foil than man.

Regards,
Rick

Rick Sumner · 09-22-2003, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bernard Muller
I do not think Paul's position is Gnostic, mostly Platonic. Philo of Alexandria, certainly not a Gnostic, has the same position than Paul. Furthermore, Paul's position is not so clear and allows for the existence of some heavenly immortal "bodies" which resemble the human ones (the man from heaven).
GMark does not have an incarnate resurrection of Jesus either.

Are Gnosticism and Platonism mutually exclusive?

Regards,
Rick

Toto · 09-22-2003, 11:35 AM

If you want to understand Acts, you need to read Richard Pervo's Profit with Delight. The simplistic theological ideas in Acts are part of its literary purpose - it is an entertaining adventure story that incorporates elements from popular Hellenistic literature, and which slips in some moral lessons for the edification of the reader, like a sugar coated vitamin pill. It cannot be read as straight history or sophisticated theology.

I may post some more on this book when I have more time.

Bernard Muller · 09-22-2003, 12:33 PM

Quote:

rickmsumner wrote:
Are Gnosticism and Platonism mutually exclusive?

May be not, in all cases, but

Was Plato a Gnostic?
Was Philo a Gnostic?
Are many Christians nowadays Gnostic (because they believe heaven is the domain of the invisibles, such as souls, God, spirits, angels)?

I think it is rather harsh to say Paul had a Gnostic view of the heavens.
And I am not so sure all 2nd century Christian Gnostics were ethereal about the celestial world. Some, such as Basilides, had all kind of different "bodies" in them, some as father/son. Actually Docetists thought Jesus had a "made in heaven" body when on earth.
Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller · 09-22-2003, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Peter wrote:
Precisely the impressive and central staging of this event we have come to call the "Jerusalem Council," however, has raised questions concerning its historical character. Once more, the reader faces the problem posted by multiple sources and their disagreement. In this case, Acts tells a story that in some respects agrees with and in other respects comes into conflict with the version found in Paul's letters.

OK, so far

Quote:

Peter wrote:
The most important overlap and divergence is found in Gal 2:1-14, which describes both a conflict in Antioch and a meeting in Jerusalem, but in terms quite different than Luke's. A second, less direct, conflict is suggested by the lengthy discussion in 1 Cor 8-10 concerning the propriety of eating food that had been sacrificed to idols, a discussion in a letter surely written after this putative council, by a major participant in it, dealing with the same subject, yet which never in any way alludes to the "apostolic decree" supposedly issued by that council.

I wrote already about "Luke" advancing (literarily speaking!) the so-called "Jerusalem council" by a few years, so Paul would convert the Gentile Philippians (and others) after James & the pillars give their agreement.
Acts (18:22) relates to a visit to Jerusalem corresponding to the one in Gal2:1-14, but nothing of importance seems to happen then (that is according to "Luke"!).
According to my dating, "the council of Jerusalem" happened before any of the Corinthians letters were written, but the dispute with Peter in Antioch (and indirectly against James and his men) came right after the "council", which, in great part, nullified the accord of Jerusalem. Back in Ephesus, Paul had other problems. He learned that many Corinthians had deserted him in favor of Peter &, more so, Apollos. So the "council", marred by the conflict with Peter was not the big issue of the day, more so because Peter had followers in Corinth.
I do not think the issue about NOT eating knowingly idol food **had to come** from the council.

Quote:

Peter wrote:
The problem in assessing the historical character of these events is rendered more difficult by the fact that neither Paul nor Luke are disinterested observers; each has a purpose to telling the tale the way he does. If the version in Acts cannot be taken as reliable in every respect, neither can that in Galatians. )?.

Not really. Paul wrote to the Galatians not long after the "council" & the dispute (about five years). The Galatians likely knew (by some other hostile sources) about them, so that's why Paul had to address the issue and give his version of the events. Paul is very terse about it, chooses his words carefully, looks more like a polititian than a preacher, walks softly the tight rope and has to reveal things he probably wished he did not have to.
But "Luke", writing one or two generations later, could afford to make changes, embellish, minimize any dissension between Paul & the pillars (most of the time the situation is described as ideal), etc., etc.
So for me, Galatians is a lot more trustworthy than Acts, even if it is likely Paul stetched his relationship with the "Nazarenes" better than it was, but within reason (he could not outrightly lie, just give the best spin on it).
But "Luke" did not have to contend with contemporaries who knew about events which happened some 30-40 years earlier.

Quote:

Peter wrote:
The discrepancies are many and the questions they pose real. Was there only one meeting, concerning which the sources disagree, or were there several? Do the sources refer to the same or different meetings? When Paul went up (after fourteen years) to Jerusalem with Barnabas (Gal 2:1), did he go as part of an Antiochean delegation (Acts) or in response to a "revelation" (Gal), or both? Did he bring Titus along (Gal 2:3), and was Titus among the anonymous "certain others" (Acts 15:2)?

So many questions! I gave answers to that already, not only on this thread, but also in some of my pages (& with a lot of details), more so:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/appb.shtml
and
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/appp.shtml

Best regards, Bernard

Rick Sumner · 09-22-2003, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bernard Muller
Was Plato a Gnostic?

Of course not, Platonism helped develop Gnosticism. But the Gnostics apparently thought he was.

Quote:

Was Philo a Gnostic?

Nah, Philo was just an apologist and a preacher.

Quote:

I think it is rather harsh to say Paul had a Gnostic view of the heavens.
And I am not so sure all 2nd century Christian Gnostics were ethereal about the celestial world. Some, such as Basilides, had all kind of different "bodies" in them, some as father/son. Actually Docetists thought Jesus had a "made in heaven" body when on earth.
Best regards, Bernard

Which, again, is pretty clearly the descendent of Plato.

I'd agree, I don't think Paul was quite Gnostic. But he wasn't exactly Orthodox either.

Regards,
Rick

Layman · 09-22-2003, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
There are two different types of possible contradiction concerning Paul, the theological and the narrative. Theological contradictions would include the question of how people are saved, while two different indications of where Paul was at a certain time would be a narrative contradiction, for example. Both can be discussed here.

I think these are important distinctions Kirby. But what do you see as their significance for understanding Luke/Acts?

Quote:

2. Ac 9:26-29 || Gal 1:17-2:1
Did Paul then travel immediately� or seventeen years later!� from Damascus to Jerusalem in order to meet with the entire Apostolic circle?

I think it's clear that Luke has no interest in accounting for Paul's Arabic ministry and so simply omits it.

And Luke doesn't say "entire Apostlic circle" does he?

Quote:

5. Ac 1:15 || I-Cor 15:6
How can Christ have appeared to over 500 Brothers at a time (prior to the ascension) when the entire Discipleship numbered only 120?

I think this reads more into Acts than is there. Does Acts say there were only 120 followers in existence?

Quote:

9. Lk 24:36-43; Jn 11:43-44, 20:27; Ac 1:9-11; Ph 25 || I-Cor 15:50
The evangelists proclaim an incarnate resurrection and parousia (second coming), whereas Paul on the contrary takes an anti-corporeal, frankly gnostic position.

Flat wrong. Paul believed in a physical Jesus and a physical resurrection of both Jesus and the believers.

http://didjesusexist.com/resbody.html

Quote:

10. Lk 4:5-8; Jn 18:36, 19:18; Ac 4:26 (Ps 2:2) || Rom 13:1-5
The celestial kingdom is described in the Gospels as of another order from the entire realm of the nations, which are ruled by Satan and whereby Christ was crucified. On the other hand, the secular authorities with all their weaponry (including Mk 15:16 ff.??) are stated by Paul to be God's own army.

I'm with Bernard on this one. What?

Quote:

30. Gen 49; Jud 2:16 ff.; Mt 19:28; Ac 1:13-26; Rev/Ap 2:2, 21:14 || I-Cor 9:1-2; II-Cor 11:5-13
Finally, we must observe the fact that the permanent tally of the Apostles was established by the Savior at exactly twelve (for obvious reasons of historical symbolism� note the symmetry at Rev/Ap 21:12-14), and moreover that Paul was never numbered in that circle (see also the Epistle of Barnabas 8:3).

Paul and Luke use the term "apostle" differently. Why? The most likely explanation is that Luke was influenced more by the Palestianian Christians and their traditions (remember, he claims by use of the first-person plural, to have visited the Jerusalem Church for some time) on this point than by Paul. What does this tell us about the relationship of Luke and Paul? Just that Luke was more independent of Paul than many assume. It certainly does not foreclose their having ministered together.

Remember, Luke was not a convert of Paul. He's not a "spiritual son" as was Timothy or Titus. He was likely a Christian with his own ideas when he first met Paul. That they labored together and Luke thinks highly Paul does not mandate identical theologies.

Quote:

Does anyone have other potential discrepancies between Acts and the epistles to post? Or perhaps some comments on the problems noted above?

The most commonly cited discrepancy is between Galatians and the Jerusalem Council. Since I think Galatians was written before the Jerusalem Council I see no problem here.

09-22-2003, 05:34 AM	#2
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Yes. The Pauline epistles are full of conflicts between the various Churches in which Paul plays a variety of roles, in Acts these conflicts are downplayed or disappear. Eisenman notes that in 1 Cor 15 there are 12 apostles, but there were in fact only 11 at the time, as Acts avers. Eisenman notes a great many conflicts in several places in JtBoJ: Galatians has no vision on the way to Damascus, but Acts does. Eisenman points out that in both Gal 1:17 and 2 Cor 11:32, nearby Paul claims he does not lie. In Gal 1:15 Paul says he was called from his mother's womb. In Acts 9 Paul goes to the house of Judas on the Straight street, where he meets Ananias. In Acts 9:17 he gets a commission from this fellow to the Gentiles, not from God directly. 15But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name." 17Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord--Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here--has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 18Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19and after taking some food, he regained his strength. There's no mention of the trip or flight to Arabia as in Gal 1:17. Eisenman also adds that Damascus was not particularly Jewish at the time, and there is no reason to speak of "synagoges" in the plural. Acts then says Paul returned to Jerusalem where Barnabas introduced him to the Apostles. Barnabas says Paul saw the Lord on the way and spoke to him, echoing, of course, Jesus being seen on the way to Emmaus. But Galatians says that Paul went up after three years, made Peter's acquaintance, and saw no other apostles except James. And finishes by saying that he does not lie. Is this letter replying to the claims of Acts? The two appear to conflict here. James is an apostle in Acts, but not a member of the 12 in 1 Cor. In the Pauline letters Peter is a real person, in Acts he and the other apostles are ghostly figures whose origins and fate are unknown.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-22-2003, 11:01 AM	#3
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	Peter Kirby wrote: 2. Ac 9:26-29 \|\| Gal 1:17-2:1 Did Paul then travel immediately� or seventeen years later!� from Damascus to Jerusalem in order to meet with the entire Apostolic circle? Obviously, "Luke", who did not know about Galatians, either embellished (assuming she knew what happened then in Jerusalem) or fantasized. Luke referred to the meeting as described in Gal1:18-19, where Paul only meet Peter & James, Jesus' brother, but not the rest of the apostles. I do not know why you are considering a meeting 17 years later, because Ac9:26-29 & Gal1:17-2:1 place the meeting at the same relative time, that is at the first Paul' visit to Jerusalem following Paul's conversion. 5. Ac 1:15 \|\| I-Cor 15:6 How can Christ have appeared to over 500 Brothers at a time (prior to the ascension) when the entire Discipleship numbered only 120? My explanation is that the whole of 1Co15:3-11, is a later Christian interpolation, written around 100, when 3 letters to the Corinthians got put together before republishing. Full explanation here: http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/co1c.shtml#adc 9. Lk 24:36-43; Jn 11:43-44, 20:27; Ac 1:9-11; Ph 25 \|\| I-Cor 15:50 The evangelists proclaim an incarnate resurrection and parousia (second coming), whereas Paul on the contrary takes an anti-corporeal, frankly gnostic position. I do not think Paul's position is Gnostic, mostly Platonic. Philo of Alexandria, certainly not a Gnostic, has the same position than Paul. Furthermore, Paul's position is not so clear and allows for the existence of some heavenly immortal "bodies" which resemble the human ones (the man from heaven). GMark does not have an incarnate resurrection of Jesus either. 10. Lk 4:5-8; Jn 18:36, 19:18; Ac 4:26 (Ps 2:2) \|\| Rom 13:1-5 The celestial kingdom is described in the Gospels as of another order from the entire realm of the nations, which are ruled by Satan and whereby Christ was crucified. On the other hand, the secular authorities with all their weaponry (including Mk 15:16 ff.??) are stated by Paul to be God's own army. What's that? Since when the celestial Kingdom is ruled by Satan? None of the quote you give says that. I thought the gospels stated Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem. But yes, it looks that Paul thought Satan was the "god of this age", ruling the mind of the unbelievers down below, that is on earth, and who will be crushed (that is at the event of the Kingdom, presumably). 30. Gen 49; Jud 2:16 ff.; Mt 19:28; Ac 1:13-26; Rev/Ap 2:2, 21:14 \|\| I-Cor 9:1-2; II-Cor 11:5-13 Finally, we must observe the fact that the permanent tally of the Apostles was established by the Savior at exactly twelve (for obvious reasons of historical symbolism� note the symmetry at Rev/Ap 21:12-14), and moreover that Paul was never numbered in that circle (see also the Epistle of Barnabas 8:3). I do not know what's your point here. However later, you seem to quote some scholar about the confusion on the meetings in Jerusalem. This is what I have on one of my page: >> e) According to 'Acts', the "Council at Jerusalem", (when the "Nazarenes" allowed conversion without circumcision among the Gentiles (Ac15:1-19) ) was right before Paul's visit to Philippi (50C.E). But from the more trustworthy Galatians letter (2:1-10), this meeting occurred years later (52C.E.), after Paul's first visit to Macedonia (details about dating in Appendix B and Paul's Third Journey). It seems "Luke" "arranged" for Paul to have the blessing of the "Nazarenes" before going to Macedonia & Philippi. << Best regards, Bernard

09-22-2003, 11:35 AM	#6
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	If you want to understand Acts, you need to read Richard Pervo's Profit with Delight. The simplistic theological ideas in Acts are part of its literary purpose - it is an entertaining adventure story that incorporates elements from popular Hellenistic literature, and which slips in some moral lessons for the edification of the reader, like a sugar coated vitamin pill. It cannot be read as straight history or sophisticated theology. I may post some more on this book when I have more time.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.