*In Galatians we see that the salvation of the Gentiles was Paul's mission in life, Peter's was to the Jews. Paul believed he was commissioned to go preach about Jesus to the Gentiles by Jesus himself, in visions and disembodied voices. He believed that following the law of moses couldn't make a person unsinful (righteous). Faith in Jesus is what did that. Therefore, no one, especially not Gentiles, was obligated to follow the law of moses, including circumcision. The gentile part was agreed upon by Peter, James and John after a council in Jerusalem, with no exceptions but remembering to take care of the poor. They agreed that they would go to the Jews and Paul and Barnabas would go to the Gentiles.
*In Acts, we see both Paul and Peter being commissioned by visions to go to the Gentiles. They both tell their stories to the Jews in Jerusalem, who accept them. Also in Acts 11:20, some Greeks are spreading the "good news" about Jesus to the Gentiles in Antioch. Then Barnabas is sent by the Jews in Jerusalem to check out the believers in Antioch. He was pleased by what he saw, so he went to Tarsus to fetch Paul, where he had presumably been staying since he was sent there by the Jerusalem Jews back in Acts 9:30, a different story than the one Paul tells in Galatians. Paul and Barnabas then worked together in Antioch teaching great numbers of people. Eventually, the circumcision question arises, Paul and Barnabas go to Jerusalem, a council is held, and it is agreed that Gentiles don't have to follow any of the law of moses...except for refraining from eating blood, meat sacrificed to idols, and engaging in sexual immorality.
*Here we have two versions of how Gentiles came to become believers in Jesus, along with many
Jews. Which version is the true one? Or did it happen a totally different way? We know for a fact it had to have begun somehow because the majority of christians today are Gentiles, yet christianity has its roots in Judaism. These stories led me to wonder, what would have happened if Paul and Peter had not supposedly claimed to have had personal revelations concerning the Gentiles? If Jesus actually existed, would his teachings as recorded in the gospels alone have been sufficient to create the worldwide phenomenon of Gentile christianity? What did Jesus have to say about and to Gentiles? Did he advocate eventual disposing of the law of Moses? Why was it necessary for Paul and Peter to get special messages? Was Jesus's message while he was alive not clear on the subject? Over the next few posts, we will look at Jesus's words in the gospel to se if we can answer some of these questions.
Monday, January 16, 2017
Friday, January 13, 2017
Galatians chapter 2 part 2
*Starting in verse 11 we learn that Peter had been in Antioch with Paul, had been eating with the Gentiles, and had been living like a gentile. In Acts, Peter is not said to have ever been to Antioch, indeed never very far from Jerusalem. In Acts 10, we find a story of Peter experiencing a vision from God which makes it clear that "God accepts men from every nation" including their eating habits. Then Peter goes to Jerusalem and explains his vision to the apostles and other believers. The "circumcised believers" drop all objections to accepting Gentiles. They praise God, saying "So, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life." (Acts 11:18) That sounds like the gentile question is settled, right? This supposedly takes place before Paul and Barnabus go to
Jerusalem in Galatians.
*It is also interesting to note that Acts has Paul and Barnabus travelling to Jerusalem once before the circumcision question arose, in order to take money to the saints in Judea as famine relief during the time of Claudius, which had supposedly been prophesied in Antioch by a man named Agabus. (Acts 11:27-30) while writing Galatians, Paul seems to have forgotten that he had been to Jerusalem with Barnabus before.
*Getting back to Galatians, we see Paul saying that while Peter was in Antioch "certain men came from James." When these Jews arrived, Peter separated himself from the gentiles and attached himself to the Jews because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. Other Jews, and even Barnabas followed Peter's example. Paul rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy in front of everyone. Why was this even an issue if the passages in Acts 11 about Peter's vision and the Jerusalem Jews acceptance of the gentiles is true? Are these men from James the false brothers that Paul mentions in verse 4? And which James is this? In Acts 12, James the brother of John was executed, some time before the circumcision debacle and the following council in Jerusalem, found in Acts 15. Acts has Peter being bold and visionary, a friend and advocate of the Gentiles. Paul in Galatians has Peter being wishy-washy. There, Paul is the true friend and advocate of the Gentiles.
*The rest of the chapter, presented as part of Paul's speech rebuking Peter, is a doctrinal statement. Paul says no one will be justified by observing the law (of moses). Justification is by faith in Christ Jesus. But what is justification, and why is it necessary? Apparently, there are differing opinions on the subject, but they all seem to center around being made "righteous," after some kind of recognition that every individual is a sinner. Then we have to define righteous, which is another kettle of fish. Basically, we will think of it as unsinful.
*Verse 19 says,"through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God." Huh? Verse 20 begins a passage that has been familiarized in christian songs as a kind of mantra. " I have been crucified with Christ (?) and I no longer live, but christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." I think it is normal to question Paul's sanity here. Is he speaking metaphorically, or does he believe that Jesus actually lives inside him? Is he speaking for himself or suggesting that this is the case for all believers? Remember that the only knowledge of Jesus that Paul claimed to have was through personal revelation by visions and disembodied voices.
*Last, Paul says he does not set aside the grace of God (christianese for a gift of mercy that you don't deserve), for if a state of unsinfulness could be reached by the law, christ died for nothing. Weeeellll.
First of all, you have assume that there is such a thing as a state of sinfulness to begin with. Then you have to believe that the death of a god born by a woman can fix that somehow. Of course, you must first believe that gods born by women can exist and that their deaths have the power to cancel out sins. Then you have to believe that one actually died. But, yeah, if a dude named Jesus died for the sins of the world, it may have been for nothing.
Jerusalem in Galatians.
*It is also interesting to note that Acts has Paul and Barnabus travelling to Jerusalem once before the circumcision question arose, in order to take money to the saints in Judea as famine relief during the time of Claudius, which had supposedly been prophesied in Antioch by a man named Agabus. (Acts 11:27-30) while writing Galatians, Paul seems to have forgotten that he had been to Jerusalem with Barnabus before.
*Getting back to Galatians, we see Paul saying that while Peter was in Antioch "certain men came from James." When these Jews arrived, Peter separated himself from the gentiles and attached himself to the Jews because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. Other Jews, and even Barnabas followed Peter's example. Paul rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy in front of everyone. Why was this even an issue if the passages in Acts 11 about Peter's vision and the Jerusalem Jews acceptance of the gentiles is true? Are these men from James the false brothers that Paul mentions in verse 4? And which James is this? In Acts 12, James the brother of John was executed, some time before the circumcision debacle and the following council in Jerusalem, found in Acts 15. Acts has Peter being bold and visionary, a friend and advocate of the Gentiles. Paul in Galatians has Peter being wishy-washy. There, Paul is the true friend and advocate of the Gentiles.
*The rest of the chapter, presented as part of Paul's speech rebuking Peter, is a doctrinal statement. Paul says no one will be justified by observing the law (of moses). Justification is by faith in Christ Jesus. But what is justification, and why is it necessary? Apparently, there are differing opinions on the subject, but they all seem to center around being made "righteous," after some kind of recognition that every individual is a sinner. Then we have to define righteous, which is another kettle of fish. Basically, we will think of it as unsinful.
*Verse 19 says,"through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God." Huh? Verse 20 begins a passage that has been familiarized in christian songs as a kind of mantra. " I have been crucified with Christ (?) and I no longer live, but christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." I think it is normal to question Paul's sanity here. Is he speaking metaphorically, or does he believe that Jesus actually lives inside him? Is he speaking for himself or suggesting that this is the case for all believers? Remember that the only knowledge of Jesus that Paul claimed to have was through personal revelation by visions and disembodied voices.
*Last, Paul says he does not set aside the grace of God (christianese for a gift of mercy that you don't deserve), for if a state of unsinfulness could be reached by the law, christ died for nothing. Weeeellll.
First of all, you have assume that there is such a thing as a state of sinfulness to begin with. Then you have to believe that the death of a god born by a woman can fix that somehow. Of course, you must first believe that gods born by women can exist and that their deaths have the power to cancel out sins. Then you have to believe that one actually died. But, yeah, if a dude named Jesus died for the sins of the world, it may have been for nothing.
Monday, January 9, 2017
Galatians chapter 2, part 1
After reading chapter 2:
*The chapter starts with the words "Fourteen years later." Depending on Paul's intended starting date, his first revelation of Jesus or last visit to Jerusalem, it is 14-17 years from the time he was "converted" and started preaching to Gentiles. Remember, in chapter 1 he claims not to have had any personal contact with the churches in Judea, except for Peter and James, contrary to what we read in the Acts accounts. Now, he has had another revelation telling him to go to Jerusalem to privately tell the leaders (of the church?) what he was preaching to the Gentiles, hoping to be validated. Apparently, he had some doubts. He took Barnabus and Titus along.
*Titus was an uncircumcised Greek. This apparently had been an issue raised by what Paul calls "false brothers" who wanted to "make them slaves", presumably to the law of moses. The false brothers had to have been Jews. These Jews had the appearance of authority, but Paul puts them in their place by telling them that he is entrusted with preaching the gospel to the Gentiles just as Peter is to the Jews. Titus is not mentioned in Acts, only in the books of Galatians, 2 Corinthians, and of course, Titus. Many Christians assume that Titus was present in other passages, just not mentioned.
*This episode is presumed to be the same as the one mentioned in Acts 15. There Paul and Barnabas, while in Antioch, dispute with Men from Judea who try to insist that circumcision is essential to salvation. Paul and Barnabas are appointed (no revelation) to go to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles and elders about this. There, some believers who were pharisees said the Gentiles had to obey the law of moses. Then Peter gets up and makes a lovely speech about God accepting the Gentiles without the burden of the law. In Acts, Peter also had a revelation about preaching to the Gentiles. This speech and Peter's actions in Acts contrast to what we will read about Peter in the second part of Galatians chapter 2. Acts is much kinder to Peter and the apostles in Jerusalem than Paul is in his letter to the Galatians.
*The result, in either case, is that Paul's work with the Gentiles is accepted by Peter, James, and John in Galatians. In Galatians, Paul is only admonished to remember the poor. In Acts, a delegation of authorities from Jerusalem is sent back to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, including a letter which states that the only requirements they insisted on were abstaining from food sacrificed to idols, blood from the meat of strangled animals, and sexual immorality. That is not mentioned in Galatians.
*The chapter starts with the words "Fourteen years later." Depending on Paul's intended starting date, his first revelation of Jesus or last visit to Jerusalem, it is 14-17 years from the time he was "converted" and started preaching to Gentiles. Remember, in chapter 1 he claims not to have had any personal contact with the churches in Judea, except for Peter and James, contrary to what we read in the Acts accounts. Now, he has had another revelation telling him to go to Jerusalem to privately tell the leaders (of the church?) what he was preaching to the Gentiles, hoping to be validated. Apparently, he had some doubts. He took Barnabus and Titus along.
*Titus was an uncircumcised Greek. This apparently had been an issue raised by what Paul calls "false brothers" who wanted to "make them slaves", presumably to the law of moses. The false brothers had to have been Jews. These Jews had the appearance of authority, but Paul puts them in their place by telling them that he is entrusted with preaching the gospel to the Gentiles just as Peter is to the Jews. Titus is not mentioned in Acts, only in the books of Galatians, 2 Corinthians, and of course, Titus. Many Christians assume that Titus was present in other passages, just not mentioned.
*This episode is presumed to be the same as the one mentioned in Acts 15. There Paul and Barnabas, while in Antioch, dispute with Men from Judea who try to insist that circumcision is essential to salvation. Paul and Barnabas are appointed (no revelation) to go to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles and elders about this. There, some believers who were pharisees said the Gentiles had to obey the law of moses. Then Peter gets up and makes a lovely speech about God accepting the Gentiles without the burden of the law. In Acts, Peter also had a revelation about preaching to the Gentiles. This speech and Peter's actions in Acts contrast to what we will read about Peter in the second part of Galatians chapter 2. Acts is much kinder to Peter and the apostles in Jerusalem than Paul is in his letter to the Galatians.
*The result, in either case, is that Paul's work with the Gentiles is accepted by Peter, James, and John in Galatians. In Galatians, Paul is only admonished to remember the poor. In Acts, a delegation of authorities from Jerusalem is sent back to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, including a letter which states that the only requirements they insisted on were abstaining from food sacrificed to idols, blood from the meat of strangled animals, and sexual immorality. That is not mentioned in Galatians.
Tuesday, January 3, 2017
Paul's early life and mission as found in Acts, part 4
Welcome to the new year! 2017 marks my 3rd anniversary as a nonbeliever. Now let's get back to the story of Paul, his conversion, and commission. The last place we will look before we return to Galations is Acts 26. There Paul is supposedly on trial before King Agrippa in Ceasarea, and gets to speak on his own behalf.
*Paul starts out in verse 4 saying all the Jews know about him and the way he has lived since he was a child in his own country. The country is not named. It is interesting to note that, just as with Jesus, there are no contemporary extrabiblical Jewish accounts of Paul from the time he was living, not from any of the spots he supposedly travelled to either. Paul also says:
1. He was a pharisee- not found elsewhere in Acts or Galatians, but mentioned in Philippians 3.
2. He persecuted followers of Jesus of Nazareth, in Jerusalem and other places, on the authority of the chief priests- found in Acts 9 and 22, no details given in Galatians.
3. On the road to Damascus he saw a bright light, fell to the ground, and heard a voice- found in all the Acts accounts but not in the epistles. This is the only account that says the voice spoke in Aramaic.
4. The voice claimed to be Jesus- in all the Acts accounts but not found in the epistles.
5. The voice gave him his mission to go to the Jews and Gentiles and open their eyes so they can recieve forgiveness of sins and sanctification by faith in Jesus. Nowhere else was this speech given by the disembodied voice on the road to Damascus. In the other Acts accounts Paul was told to go to Damascus where he would be told what to do.
6. He preached in Damascus then Jerusalem and all Judea- no mention of Arabia, Tarsus, or other locations in the gentile world, where he supposedly conducted missionary journeys. No mention of any events in the decades of time that passed between his conversion and this trial.
7. He claims his preaching was no more than what the prophets and Moses said would happen- that the christ would suffer and as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and the Gentiles. Well, in the gospels others rose from the dead, came out of their graves, and walked around Jerusalem, before Jesus did. Didn't Jesus raise a few people from the dead as well? Also the books of the bible attributed to moses say nothing about a suffering christ being raised from the dead. Some of the books of the prophets do have references to a person who will be a light to the Jews and Gentiles, namely Isaiah. Like most prophesies, they are cryptic and open to interpretation.
*There is no mention of Paul's temporary blindness in this account.
We will continue on with Galatians next.
*Paul starts out in verse 4 saying all the Jews know about him and the way he has lived since he was a child in his own country. The country is not named. It is interesting to note that, just as with Jesus, there are no contemporary extrabiblical Jewish accounts of Paul from the time he was living, not from any of the spots he supposedly travelled to either. Paul also says:
1. He was a pharisee- not found elsewhere in Acts or Galatians, but mentioned in Philippians 3.
2. He persecuted followers of Jesus of Nazareth, in Jerusalem and other places, on the authority of the chief priests- found in Acts 9 and 22, no details given in Galatians.
3. On the road to Damascus he saw a bright light, fell to the ground, and heard a voice- found in all the Acts accounts but not in the epistles. This is the only account that says the voice spoke in Aramaic.
4. The voice claimed to be Jesus- in all the Acts accounts but not found in the epistles.
5. The voice gave him his mission to go to the Jews and Gentiles and open their eyes so they can recieve forgiveness of sins and sanctification by faith in Jesus. Nowhere else was this speech given by the disembodied voice on the road to Damascus. In the other Acts accounts Paul was told to go to Damascus where he would be told what to do.
6. He preached in Damascus then Jerusalem and all Judea- no mention of Arabia, Tarsus, or other locations in the gentile world, where he supposedly conducted missionary journeys. No mention of any events in the decades of time that passed between his conversion and this trial.
7. He claims his preaching was no more than what the prophets and Moses said would happen- that the christ would suffer and as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and the Gentiles. Well, in the gospels others rose from the dead, came out of their graves, and walked around Jerusalem, before Jesus did. Didn't Jesus raise a few people from the dead as well? Also the books of the bible attributed to moses say nothing about a suffering christ being raised from the dead. Some of the books of the prophets do have references to a person who will be a light to the Jews and Gentiles, namely Isaiah. Like most prophesies, they are cryptic and open to interpretation.
*There is no mention of Paul's temporary blindness in this account.
We will continue on with Galatians next.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)