BIBLICAL FALLACIES

IS GOD THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION? GALATIANS 1:20 In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie! GALATIANS 1:15-17 Paul says when it pleased God to reveal his Son in him, "immediately" he conferred not with flesh and blood; but went away into Arabia. ACTS 9:1-26 contradicts Paul and says immediately after the revelation, rather than going to Arabia and not conferring with flesh and blood, Paul was told he must enter Damascus, for there he would be told what he is to do. Not only must the Paul of Acts (Saul) confer with flesh and blood to find out what he is to do; but even receives the Holy Spirit from one of flesh and blood! According to Acts, Paul doesn't go to Arabia at all, but remained in Damascus until he was forced to flee to Jerusalem. GALATIANS 1:15-17 Paul says in the revelation God revealed to him that he was chosen to preach Jesus "AMONG" the Gentiles. ACTS 9:20-22 contradicts this in saying that rather than going among the Gentiles to preach Jesus as he was told, Paul was determined to preach Jesus not among the Gentiles, but in the synagogues! For the Paul of Acts confounds the Jews of Damascus as he goes from synagogue to synagogue, proving in them that Jesus is the Messiah. Not once while in Damascus does Acts say that Paul sought to preach to those who were not of the synagogues - THE GENTILES! For Acts says it wasn't a revelation of God that sent Paul among the Gentiles, but that he was caused to go among the Gentiles because his message was rejected in the synagogues, see Acts 18:5-19. GALATIANS 1:18-24 Paul says three years after returning to Damascus from Arabia, he went to Jerusalem to visit Cephas. And after visiting for 15 days, he simply left Jerusalem and went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. ACTS 9:22-31 contradicts Paul's account and says that rather than just going on a journey to visit Cephas, Paul was forced to escape from Damascus and flee for his life. And that Paul didn't go to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, but was seeking to join the disciples of the Jerusalem church. And unlike Paul's account in Galatians of simply leaving Jerusalem on his own accord, the Paul of Acts escapes and fled from Jerusalem. THE COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM AND APOSTOLIC DECREE GALATIANS 1:18-24 & 2:1-1 Paul says that during this period of his ministry he went but twice to Jerusalem. ACTS 9:6-30 & 11:27-30 & 12:25 & 15:1-4 contradicts this and says Paul went to Jerusalem not twice, but three times during this period. GALATIANS 2:1-2 Paul says his second journey to Jerusalem was in response to a revelation. And in a private meeting, with only the leaders of the Jerusalem church, he set before them the gospel he preached among the Gentiles. ACTS 15:1-6 says rather than going to Jerusalem because of a revelation, Barnabas and Paul were sent to Jerusalem by the church in Antioch to receive instructions in settling a dispute over circumcision. And contradicting Paul's account of revealing his gospel in a private meeting with just the leaders of the Jerusalem church, Acts says immediately upon entering the Jerusalem church, Barnabas and Paul reported everything to the entire assembly concerning all their work among the Gentiles. GALATIANS 2:3-9 Paul says while in Jerusalem circumcision became an issue of contention during his private meeting with the leaders of the Jerusalem church, for spies had discovered that Titus was uncircumcised. ACTS 15:1-19 contradicts Paul and says that the dispute over circumcision arose not in Jerusalem, but in Antioch. And that it was for this very reason, rather than a revelation, that Paul was sent to Jerusalem in the first place! And according to Acts there were no spies in Jerusalem, nor false brethren; only "believers" who demanded that the Gentiles be required to observe the Law, as did they; for the so-called Jerusalem church was in reality a synagogue! GALATIANS 2:9-13 Paul says there was an agreement made in Jerusalem that he should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. For it was made clear to James, Cephas, and John that God had entrusted Paul with the gospel to the uncircumcised; just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised. Paul says only one thing was asked of him regarding his ministry to the Gentiles: "To remember the poor!" Yet there was deceitfulness in the Jerusalem agreement, and Paul was forced in Antioch to rebuke Cephas because of the treachery of the Judaizers, which came via Judas and Silas. ACTS 15:20-33 says there was much more to the Jerusalem agreement than simply remembering the poor. For Acts says that even though it was agreed that the Gentiles would not be required to tinker with their penis, they would nevertheless be required to observe other Mosaic laws. For James declares that these other laws are required by Moses of all who preach "him," for he is read every "Sabbath" in the "Synagogues!" And true to form, the wimpy Saul of Acts remains silently obedient as the Gentiles are plac d under the yoke of observing ritual legalisms as the means of obtaining righteousness before God. In Acts, Paul is portrayed as a wimpy hypocrite who says one thing, but does otherwise! In the following example compare Paul's own words to the character of the alleged Paul of Acts. GALATIANS 5:2-3 Listen! I, Paul am telling you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. (3) Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the entire law. ACTS 16:3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and had him circumcised because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew his father was a Greek. (What? There were no Jews in Jerusalem? Titus wasn't Greek? See Galatians 2:3) GALATIANS 3:10-12 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law." (11) Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law; for "The one who is righteous will live by faith." (12) But the law does not rest on faith; on the contrary, "Whoever does the works of the law will live by them." ACTS 21:23-25 ".... DO WHAT WE TELL YOU. We have four men who are under a vow. (24) Join these men, go through the rite of purification with them, and pay for the shaving of their heads. THUS ALL WILL KNOW THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN TOLD ABOUT YOU, BUT THAT YOU YOURSELF OBSERVE AND GUARD THE LAW. (25) But as for the Gentiles who have become believers, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is st angled and from fornication." THIS CONDENSED VERSION OF CHAPTERS ONE AND TWO, AND REMAINING SEVEN CHAPTERS OF: "THIS IS THE HOUSE OF BONDAGE-THIS IS THE LAND OF EGYPT" ARE LOCATED AT: http://www.cjnetworks.com/~quixote

I graduated from high school and immediately went to college I graduated form high school, spent the summer at home, then left for colege in the fall... these are not contradictions with the normal uses of language but seriously Wayne but I do not see this as the chronological quagmire you do... so let me emphasise some things I already said most of...if you think about what's going on in Acts, the writer is doing a number of things at once, and probably more things than this list, namely: 1) he shows how the good news goes from Jerusalem to Judea to the rest of the world 2) at the same time, he is weaving in a defense of the the idea that the good news is by grace and good works including keeping the law, keeping kosher or being circumsized are not prerequisites to salvation although good works are a result and in a sense proof of salvation are not the cause of salvaiton which is by grace 3) at the same time, he is weaving in a comparison of Peter with Paul to defend Paul as the apostle to the gentiles. He starts the book with a focus on Peter ends with a focus on Paul and switches gears back and forth between the two in the middle and I'm unconvinced he synchonizes the accounts of the two the way a 21st century journalist might as he switches back and forth showing many of the things Peter did as an apostle are repeated in Paul So, Wayne, I honestly think that all three scenarios of matching Gal 2 with Acts 11,12 (which a number of commentators would say) or Acts 15 (which a commentator like Matthew Henry would say) or a meeting not reported at all in the book of Acts are possible and not really in contradiction. since Luke is shifting back and forward between Peter and Paul his emphasis may be more topic and less timing, so Wayne you may be reading his book as if Luke was in 21st century journalism style and since Paul could very well have skipped mentioning Acts 11,12 and meant another meeting happening later because the purpose of the visit has to deliver help for a famine not a discussion of the gospel, either Acts 15 or an unmentioned meeting could have been in mind in Galations 2 It is also very believable that Luke skipped mentioning a meeting where Paul challenged Peter because it didnt fit in with the purpose of the book of Acts, but did fit in the purpose of the book of Galations In the end, neither Peter, Paul, Luke, nor anyone around at the time raised an apparent chronology snafu as you claim and given the high amounts of opposition at the time, many at the time would have enjoyed jumping on the chance but didn't so... level with me Wayne... what do you believe. so Wayne ... why does Tekton call you Mr Purple clouds... I don't get it http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_PCM.html " ... The simple answer to this is that Wayne's complaint is meaningless. As noted in articles linked above, Luke has placed all matters concerning circumcision in Acts 15 according to a topical scheme. This is a normal historiographical practice for the period, for historians like Josephus, Tacitus, and others; but don't expect Wayne to understand this, because he knows no better than reading the Bible like it was a newspaper delivered to his door (and all he does do to this point is dismiss it as fantasy, never mind doing the needed legwork). ..." Now Wayne... how did you get these people so annoyed ... what could you possible say to tick them off so much?? ok ok ok Wayne... I think from looking at what you wrote on your website and last night and briefly glancing at it today I understand you better now... so lets see... you beleive in the Bible... but see a few sections of the Bible such as the book of Acts as a deceptive fraud based on your understanding of a few things percieved contradictions here and there... you also believe in God and some things Jesus said but feel Jesus is not the only begotten Son of God and said some dumb things... In the end can we say...you pick and choose what you want? and interesting approach.... I'm thinking to myself, if I came up with something that no one or virtually no one in 2000 years has agreed with should I pause and consider I may be wrong... I think the answer is yes. Let me put it to you another way... Paul the writer of Galations and Luke the writer of Acts were good friends... Paul speaks highly of Luke in his letters... Paul gets help from Luke and asks for Luke as desribed... Peter calls Pauls letters "scripture" ... so how likely is it that Luke is actually undermining the church sneakily writing nasty things in the book of Acts without Paul or Peter noticing or saying anything.... should this give you pause... perhaps that you may be... whats the word Wayne... wrong? Let's press on and let me give a few of your own examples and look at some discussions from a reference or a discussion http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/ChristBearer72/answers.html quote AC 9:7 Those present at Paul's conversion heard the voice but saw no one. AC 22:9 They saw a light but did not hear a voice. 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. A: Look carefully at the verses; In ACTS 9:7, those present heard a voice, Saul's voice, but didn't see who he was talking to and there's no indication that they heard any other voice except his. There was "no man" around that he could have been talking to. So if there was "no man," what did they see? In ACTS 22:9, "they that were with me saw indeed the light" (no man, just a light) and, again, didn't hear who Saul was speaking to. 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. Again, they didn't hear WHO Saul was speaking to, only saw that he was speaking to a light and that frightened them. There is also the possibility that they heard the "voice" of Christ in 9:7 but that in Acts 22:9, we are being told that they didn't "hear" (i.e. understand) that it was Christ who Saul had been speaking to. Without actually being there, we can't be sure which of those two scenarios took place but either way, the verses are reconciled. They either "heard" but didn't understand what they were hearing or only heard Saul's voice speaking to a light. Result: No contradiction. AC 9:7 Those present at Paul's conversion stood. AC 26:14 They fell to the ground. 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. A: If someone was to tell you to "hold your tongue" rather then speak at a particular moment, would you literally "hold your tongue" or would you simply stop talking? If you were told "Man, you really floored me with that joke." Would that mean that the person was literally knocked to the floor by your joke? stood speechless: A: astonished and amazed, they didn't have the power to speak one word, or to rise from the ground, and move one step forward; it was as if they were thunderstruck, and fastened to the earth; for this standing is not opposed to their being fallen to the earth and only expresses the surprise and stupidity that had seized them. Whether they were figurative "floored" by what was happening or literally couldn't find the power of speech (stood speechless) makes no difference. Result: No contradiction. The verses are literally or figuratively reconciled. unquote If you want my opinion Wayne, your putting far too much weight in a few apparent contradictions, that in fact have good likely explainations. There are many cases of apparent contradictions in the gospels, some of them boil down to a style of reportingg where the author brings up the things they want for emphasis... one denial or three... one person, two or a group... and should not be read as if written by a 21st century journalist There are also another set due to the differences in audience... Matther to the Jews, Mark to Romans and Luke to Greeks... they all have different time keeping and 3PM may be called the 3rd hour in one or 9th hour in another and may be different because of how its culturally understood so Wayne... I honestly think you may be throwing the baby out with the bath water but I do see something else on your website... the purple cloud... yes you saw a vision of a purple cloud and see yourself likely in comparision with Saul and his Damascus journey... so thats why Tekton calls you Mr Purple cloud... ok here's where I have to raise a last observation. You are not at all like Paul... Pauls vision was of Jesus talking... but you believe Jesus says some rather stupid things... Paul completely believed the Old Testament and was friends with Luke... you don't... you see yourself as like Paul interestingly... but disagree fundamentally with almost everything Paul believes... interesting... could it be that your.... wrong? so ... lets see if I can bottom like this for you Wayne... you see yourself as having a Road to Damascus "purple cloud" experience like Paul and have been somewhat drawn to write about subjects surrounding Paul's Damascus experience... mostly not believing htem and don't believe in the God of Paul, the Jesus of Paul, the Bible of Paul, or the gospel of Paul... so... its not really Acts vs Galations is it... it's Galations vs Wayne I appologize for overly laboring this point Wayne ... but...I think you shouls rethink your position Wayne... honest... I do I guess you go around the country posting your views... but in case you should read this...I will point out two additional things First and more important... when you decide if something is true or false you look at all information related to it and come to a conclusion, giving appropriate weight to the data. In the case of the New Testament, you claim, much of it is is largely fraud fabricated by a bunch of priests and addiitonally you claim that many of the things Jesus says are just plain stupid. Creative claims... if not interesting... The problem is you're picking arguments that are nits. For example...Luke is reporting one place they heard a voice (in a sense) and in another context says they didn't hear (in another sense?) In a case like this you have to look at all the informaiton together and give it appropriate weight. The important issues would be - Did Jesus raise from the dead - Was Jesus fortold by the proohets - Did Jesus do Miracles - Did the apostles do miracles - Were there credible eyewitnesses If Jesus, for example rose from the dead, having said heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not pass away... perhaps its a misunderstanding of His words that leads you to say "Jesus says some rather stupid things" on your website. So all in all you have to consider the informaiton giving it appropriate weight. Second, you have a misunderstanding of inerrancy. It's true that many Christians believe the Bible is true in the sense claimed in the original writing in the normal sense of the literature. It is important to understand the style of the writer and how the listeners would understand it, the idioms of the day, the use of language of the day... There are some occations where there may be real scribal errors, although I think they are few, also and although something is inerrant in the original doesnt necessarily mean the copies and the translations are perfect. The point is they shouldn't be disgarded because you don't like how a phrase here or there was carried to English. .. so the question are there inconsistencies has bearing but... Is something inconsistent in the exact same sense both times, not attributed to style or use of language or literary style. I would say no. The Bible says "deep calls to deep", a call to depth... but Wayne I'm afraid when I look at your website I see alot of shallowness... but it's not too late to "dive in" the waters fine... but you wouldn't be the first person to wallow in ecentric shallowness if thats where you want to live... but you'll pass over real truth and real joy for your own ecentricities and you might find yourself standing before God someday folding with a hand full of Jokers You said Wayne, that " One such term most favored by apologists is exegesis, a crafty device used for scriptural interpretations.In other words, this ploy allows them to read things into scriptures that will uphold their desired interpretation or agenda. " I'm sorry Wayne but you don't even know what these words mean, but your describing isogesis not exogesis. exe-gesis - drawing truth out of scripture based on the normal sense of the literature (ex out) this is good not bad as you claim and amounts to forming your views from scripture iso-gesis - reading an opinion into scripture (iso into) this is bad, superimposing your own opinions into scripture I realize you had a purple cloud vision where Jesus tried to kill you but god did not let him... have you considered that it could be a false visision? you know what scares me Wayne, when you run accross someone who is both so proud and lazy that he can run around accross the country trying to draw attention to his eccentric ideas and is too lazy to learn the A-B-C's of what he's talking about. Wayne, you actually think the book of Acts written by a gentile Luke is written by nasty jewish priests from Jerusalem trying to undermine the apostle Paul's mninistry???... this is bizarre... the book of Acts is written in part as a strong defense of the apostleship of Paul...and written by a friend of Paul and someone Paul speaks highly of and in Timothy CALLS A QUOTE FORM THE BOOK OF LUKE SCRIPTURE... hello??? Colossians 4:14 Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings. 1 Timothy 5:18 For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,"[ 5:18 Deut. 25:4] and "The worker deserves his wages."[ 5:18 Luke 10:7] uh ... Wayne... Luke's writing refered to as scripture.... 2 Timothy 4:11 Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry. Philemon 1:24 And so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke, my fellow workers. the sad thing Wayne is you see yourself with your purple cloud vision as Paul like... but you profoundly disagree with the real Paul .... yep sad indeed sadder still and it pains me to point out... you're too lazy to even learn the basics about what you're talking about but don't mind preaching that "Jesus said alot of really stupid things" ... well here's one thing he said "I have come to seek and to save that which was lost" That be you Paul himself who said "it's a trustworthy statement that Christ died to save sinners amongst whom I am foremost"