Amaleq13

Why do you characterize it as a conscription? Because Paul didn't really have a choice after Jesus appeared to him?

sschlichter

a position being in defense of itself is simply a pointless accusation. your position is also apologetic.

As far as the bible, no, I believe the bible to be the word of God. that is not necessarily a case for inerrancy but that is the position I hold. I do however beleive the bible, with the church became corrupted with variants, some due to sloppiness, some due to the willingness to alter the text due to the pressure of oral tradition and some due to theological concerns.

However, this came later and there is mounting evidence that this was not the practice of the early church. We are closer now to the original text than and getting closer, not farther away. To answer your question more specifically, Luke 23:34 is one example of something that may or may not have been said, but was likely not in the original version. None of these appear to me to have impact on matters of theological importance.

However, most accusations of interpolations are not based on textual criticism. they are girded by imagination, presuppositions, and the faith in the dating of NT mss by those who beleived the NT to be written in the 2nd and 3rd century. if you presuppose that Jesus never existed then you apologetically cast off the biblical and secular data that overwhelmingly indicates that he does. This is called faithfulness to your position. you exhibit as much as anyone here.

sschlichter

What are you after?

spin

For some reason you think people follow your lead and don't actually read the text?

You misunderstand what is happening here. He comes, hoping to get support for his gospel, and gets the kiss off. Here's 2:6 again --

But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me

There was no communion of minds here. They were apparently not interested in his gospel at all because he continues to attack them and their adherence to the law. These people who Paul didn't respect at all shook his hand and sent him off to the gentiles. Paul has tarted up the event.

I ask you again:

Would you call Mani a christian or would he be the starter of a new religion?

Your inability to read the text you cite is certainly either self-serving or worse.


spin

spin

A straight response.

sschlichter

(Gal 2:6) But from those who were influential (whatever they were makes no difference to me; God shows no favoritism between people ) - those influential leaders added nothing to my message.

This could mean they had squat to say about his message but it is clear from the context that it does not mean that. Paul is clarifying his message of justifcation by faith in christ...

(Gal 2:16) yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified

this message has not been added to at all. i.e. the pillars of the church that Paul is submitting himself to is confirming that no other act or work is required for justification, no additional requirements.

(Gal 2:7) On the contrary, when they saw that I was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised just as Peter was to the circumcised
(Gal 2:8) (for he who empowered Peter for his apostleship to the circumcised also empowered me for my apostleship to the Gentiles)

In fact, they not only confirmed my message but acknowledged that I was also commissioned to preach that same gospel (outlined in Gal 2:16) to the gentiles by the risen christ, the same risen christ that commissioned Peter.

(Gal 2:9) and when James, Cephas, and John, who had a reputation as pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we would go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

Now, those pillars of the movement that I joined have extended their hand in a partnership in our shared mission.

No doubt that you play with the words but the meaning always seems to be hidden from you.

sschlichter

Paul could have chosen to do anything. He would only have chosen that which God ordained him to choose.

Amaleq13

Exactly. Why does it have to be like pulling teeth?

OK, then you used the wrong word to describe it since "conscripted" implies a lack of choice. That's all I wanted to know. Thanks.

sschlichter

I used the word I meant to use. you are welcome.

Deus Ex

The last part sounds like Paul did not have a choice?