Galatians versus Acts

In an effort to try and rescue Acts from its contradictions of Galatians, apologists seek to confound the confused by dazzling them with lofty sounding terms. One term that is most favored by them is exegesis; a crafty device used for devious scriptural interpretations. In other words, with claims of drawing out the meaning of a scripture they simply use this ploy to read things into it that will uphold their desired interpretation or agenda. It is through exegesis that they seek to dismiss an obvious contradiction, where Paul says he went but twice to Jerusalem after his conversion, yet Acts claims he went three times.

Apologists, who rightly acknowledge that Galatians 1 & 2 and Acts 9 & 15 are concerned with the same matters, try to rescue Acts by claiming that Paul simply felt the third visit mentioned in Acts 11 was not relevant to his argument and thus, he didn't mention it. Whereas, others, who are embarrassed by the many contradictions between Galatians 2 and Acts 15, are trying to claim that Galatians 2 equals Acts 11, and Acts 15 occurred at a later date. However, it is an absurd claim, for it has Paul being converted before the death of Jesus!

Faith in God does not require one to crucify their mind and deny what is before their very eyes! Acts is contradicting virtually everything that Paul is swearing to in Galatians. To see a complete list of the contradictions go here: http://members.cox.net/galatians/house1.html

Before dialoguing with you about some of this, I wonder why you think Biblical exegesis is such a bad thing. After all, almost all commentary on Scripture is really exegesis.

Faith in God does not require one to crucify their mind and deny what is before their very eyes!

I'm not sure I understand your point. Something is supposed to be crystal clear, but it's been a topic of controversy?

What is your proposed resolution to this contradiction, which I must confess I've not been aware of all along?

The argument that I have placed on your site is not dependent upon the Jerusalem trips alone. The preponderance of the evidence that Acts is a contradiction of Galatians needs to be considered first in order to understand why the Jerusalem events are important.

Servant, is the issue for you got to do with the reliability of Scripture in general?

Through the years, I've come to place less and less emphasis on the literal, historical aspects of Scripture, realizing that record-keeping back then was a most inexact science and that providing faith-related content was more to the point.

Fools call me a God hater, not because I say hateful things about God, but because I question the validity of Biblical claims that say God commanded the butchery of men, women and children; that God endorsed the enslavement of the conquered; that God ordered the robbery of the treasuries of others and the theft of their lands. After all, with a god like that who needs a devil to blame?

Throughout history man's belief that there is a God has been universal, yet the fruit of what they have believed of God has been responsible for the persecution and slaughtering of one another in the name of God. Thus, in the end it matters little that men believe that there is a God, for what matters is what do they believe of God? For it is what one believes of God that determines what they shall sow, be it good or evil.

Although man's knowledge of God is an ever-evolving knowledge, the ways of God are fixed. His ways are perfect, and being perfect in His ways, His ways do not change. Yet the Bible portrays a deity who is an evolving deity, one of circumstances whose morality changes with the times.

Prophet: One who interprets the things of God

If one is said to be a prophet of God and evil is done as a result of what he has said is inspired of God, it is then self-evident that what he has said is not inspired of God, but of his own self. God inspires no evil. And evil cannot be the results of what is inspired of God. Whatsoever is inspired of God sows only good. Neither the New Testament nor the Old Testament can be truthfully said to be the inerrant word of God, for both Testaments have been used to justify evil in God's name. Common sense should tell one that God weighs and measures His words more carefully than a man; and thus, the words that He would inspire one to say could not be used for evil, for God would know the effect of His own words upon one generation to another.

I think any good and reasonable person would agree that butchering people is evil. Yet this evil is done in God's name throughout the Bible, and the irony is that many of these very same people unquestioningly believe that God commanded men to do that very evil. Having put all common sense aside they do not realize that if God had wanted the end of a people He would not need men to do the dirty work.

In my writings I often refer to 1 Samuel 15:2-3 as an example of what is perversely said of God. It is by no means the only vile thing the Bible claims of God, nor is it the vilest; but it serves my purpose. Any man who claims that God has personally told him that 1 Samuel 15:2-3 speaks truthfully of God is a liar! And anyone claiming to love one who would command such things is either a liar or is depraved himself.

Dung is dung regardless of where it is found; those who claim to be called of God yet preach that God commanded things such as 1 Samuel 15:2-3 are self-called. They hinder the truth of God by foolishly thinking that if God had any new thing to say on this matter surely God would have told them first! Many of them know that it was not God who told them to feed the sheep, but would rather continue preaching such things than to have to admit that they have falsely claimed to be called of God.

I have found that the more religious one is the less likely they are to listen to sound reason, or to think logically in matters concerning their religion. Yet maybe through embarrassment or shame they'll be forced to honestly confront what 1 Samuel 15:2-3 is saying of God. For I am convinced that no child of God can truthfully claim to love that perverse one of 1 Samuel 15:2-3, nor can they truthfully claim that God Himself has personally affirmed to them that the things of 1 Samuel 15:2-3 were commanded by Him. The only truthful thing that they can say on this matter is that they have believed it because they are afraid not to, which is the bondage that I preach against.

Know this: It is through false claims made against the goodness of God that others have and are encouraged to justify their own evil in God's name. For those that will willingly believe that God commanded the Hitlerian-like atrocities in 1 Samuel 15:2-3 would do evil themselves.

1 SAMUEL 15:2-3 Thus says the Lord of hosts, 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. (3) Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, CHILD AND INFANT, ox and sheep, camels and donkey, and stomp on the ants!

How can any sane person not see the utter depravity of saying God commanded the slaughter of men and women, which of itself is evil enough, but that He even commanded the slaughter of their children? What can be said of the mentality and spirituality of those who will say that mocking 1 Samuel 15:2-3 with my ants is a sin, yet consider it to be righteous of them to believe that God commanded the slaughter of children? What I have mocked and will mock throughout my writings has cried out for generation after generation to be mocked! For who but a fool or a servant of Satan would say that God commanded the butchery of defenseless defeated men, women and children.

How does it serve God that men are taught to think that faith in God requires belief in the unbelievable? Faith in God does not require one to crucify their mind and deny what is before their very eyes. God is not the God of primitive mumbo jumbo, but of logic and reality. Any belief of God that must be upheld with demands and threats is unbelievable to begin with. And any religion that demands that one cast aside sound thinking in order to believe what they would otherwise consider to be ridiculous is not of God.

Those of you that have read these words shall no longer be able to claim that you never heard one preaching that God is not that butcher of 1 Samuel 15:2-3.

Harrington Sites - Revealing the Spiritual duality of the Bible.

http://members.cox.net/galatians/

Faith in God does not require one to crucify their mind and deny what is before their very eyes. God is not the God of primitive mumbo jumbo, but of logic and reality. Any belief of God that must be upheld with demands and threats is unbelievable to begin with. And any religion that demands that one cast aside sound thinking in order to believe what they would otherwise consider to be ridiculous is not of God.

servant, I don't know what kind of response you werre expecting here, but I can go along with much of what you say. I've checked out the link you left and found some of the articles interesting.

Thanks for making a round.