|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apologetics Ministries | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
Title: "Paul" Description: Six objection sets with Paul as the focus: Contradictions, Misquotations, Nonquotes, Ill-Conceived Comments, Misinterpretations, and False Prophecies. Side note: Our subject seems to regard Paul to be the author of Hebrews, but it makes no material difference for our purposes, except in one place. Contradictions 1. Deut. 24:16 vs. 1 Cor. 15:3, etc.
6. Heb. 9:27
7. Gen. 2:18 etc.
9. Objection concerning original sin; to be covered in another chapter. 10. Rom. 13:9, etc
13. Eccles 1:4, etc.
18. Rom. 12:14
19. Repeat usage of Paul's sarcasm (as in #16 above). 20. Repeat usage of Paul's sarcasm (as in #16 above). 22. Rom. 7:18, etc.
23. Gal. 3:16-17
24. Acts 13:20
25. Num. 23:21
26. Acts 24:15
27. Ps. 145:15-16
28. Rom. 2:13
29. For conceptual answers, see here, here, and here.
30. Heb. 6:18, etc
31. 1 Cor. 10:1-2
32. Rom. 2:6, Josh. 24:13 (shows that the land did indeed belong to the Israelites)
33. Acts 20:26>
34. Acts 20:22, etc.
35. 1 Cor. 11:14
36. 1 Cor. 14:33, etc. see also here.
37. 1 Cor. 3:16-17 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. It is sarcastically asked if God should destroy Himself, since He killed people, and it is further wondered if God is beyond morality. Aside from the fact that Paul is referring here to self-destructive habits (the Greek word here has the connotation of destruction by moral, not physical influences), we may add that God does indeed transcend the supposed "moral" here, since He is our Creator and has a right of life and death over us. 38. Ex. 1:22 And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive. Ex. 2:2 And the woman conceived, and bare a son: and when she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months. vs. Heb. 11:23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king's commandment. The latter is said to be false because, "If Moses' mother was not afraid, then why did she hide Moses?" Why? Because she did not want her baby killed, of course! Fear is not the same thing as common sense! 39. The standard line about faith vs. works. For more on this complex topic, which, if our subject believes he can deal with in a single paragraph, he is truly out of his gourd; see our response to D terp wiz and Thielman's "Paul and the Law: A Contextual Approach" and essays here and here.
40. Further comments, on following the Law; see references in #39 above. 41. Two-part objection. The first is the old saw about conflicts between Paul's conversion narratives; see our response. The second: 1 Cor. 9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? It is noted that Paul was struck blind, and asked how he could have seen the Lord. Well, what does our subject think it was that Paul saw that CAUSED him to go blind? 42.2 Cor. 3:17 43. Eccl. 3:19, etc
44. Heb. 11:17
45. Rom. 2:11, etc
46. Acts 15:28-9, re the purpose of the decree Misquotations, Nonquotes These two sections may be dealt with together, for they both rest upon misconceptions held by our subject concerning the rabbinic and general use and method of quotations in the ancient world. Precision quotation was unknown, except for in grammar texts. There was great flexibility is use of quotations. Thus, when our subject complains, for example, that Paul misquotes Ps. 68:18 in Eph. 4:8, when he says "received gifts" rather than "gave gifts," he is missing the social-literary context of what Paul is doing and is able to do. For more on this, see Glenn Miller's article on Christian use of the OT. Ill-Conceived Comments 2. Rom. 12:14
3. Col. 1:23 4. 1 Cor. 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. Objected that there were no "princes" that crucified Jesus, only a mob and some soldiers. This wins a Golden Duh Award: The "princes" (archons) of the priesthood and Pilate were the ones that caused the sentence to be enacted. A ruler who makes a decision is responsible for the results of the decision, and this is more specifically so in ANE terminology, where representation is the same as performing an action yourself. (The closest equivalent today would be saying, "The President sent troops to Kosovo" or "Hitler invaded Europe".) In his 11th newsletter, our subject attempts to extricate himself from this situation by claming that Pilate merely assented to the whole affair, pronounced Jesus innocent, and washed his hands of the affair -- as if a Roman procurator really would act as he supposes! Our subject fails to appreciate the political forces that were at work in this situation; for more on this, see our trial piece. (He would dismiss our reports there as mere speculation; we ask in reply how else he expects us to reconstruct history critically! Examining accounts critically and in social context in order to make judgments is a keystone of critical historical study; yet our subject would have us read everything with wooden literalism based upon our own suppositions!) Making himself look even more ridiculous, our subject says in response to the idea that the "rulers" of the Jewish people, the Sanhedrin, had a role in Jesus death, that "The word 'Sanhedrin' never appears in the Bible." (!) Well, what of it?!? Would our subject identify the people described as some other unknown party of Jewish rulers? Elsewhere he asks of a writer: "...could you cite chapter and verse for the following. What verses say: (a) the Sanhedrin killed Jesus, (b) the Sanhedrin ruled the Jews, (c) and Pilate recognized its authority? The Sanhedrin receives a lot of attention in literature. But why? The word 'Sanhedrin' never appears once in the KJ Bible...Perhaps the Sanhedrin was responsible, but the Bible is silent." I think this makes it quite clear that our subject is living in a fantasy realm. 5. Gal. 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. It is asked, "Where does any gospel say Jesus had an apostolic brother named James?" This wins a Triple Golden Duh Award. What exactly is the problem here? Why does any Gospel have to say this for it to be true? Unless a Gospel says, "Jesus had no brothers, especially not one named James," there is simply no issue to discuss. 6. 1 Cor. 10:8
7. Heb. 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. Our subject says that this must be wrong because the gospel was never preached to Paul ("unto us"). Aside from the possibility that this is a collective "us", we may add that Paul was probably not the author of Hebrews! I think it was Luke, and that makes an "us" likely here. 9. 1 Cor. 15:36
10. Heb. 11:26
11. Heb. 11:35
12. Gal. 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: Written: "According to Paul's reasoning, it would appear anyone who was ever crucified or hung on a tree could be a savior." Well, I'd like to see that line of reasoning played out. No such thing "appears" to my sight. 13. Heb. 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God... Our subject quotes only what is before the italic letters, which puts a dent in his idea that this verse means that the doctrines of Christ are not perfection. (The word is better rendered finishing or consummation and refers to that of the hearers, not of the doctrine, as the full context of the verse makes clear.) 14. More blather about Paul's view of the law, failing to grasp the progression of Paul's arguments in Romans; same reference as above. 15. Simplistic complaint about divisions within Christianity. 16. See here; plus no one argues that miraculous signs are God's exclusive province and can't be done by evil forces.
17. Col. 1:15
18. Heb 1:2) 19. Heb. 7:11
20. Gal. 4:22-4 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. Our subject calls this "erroneous history" but conveniently leaves out the places in italics which indicate that it is an allegory. 21. Heb. 7:2-3 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. Observes that the person referred to here, Melchisadec, must have been considered "little short of divine too" - which is indeed a possible interpretation of this verse, suggesting that Melchy was a pre-existent Christ. More likely, however, is that the author is using typical rabbinic exegetical practices and using Melchy as an allegorical example. Again, a little understanding of socio-literary contexts goes a long way. 22. Heb. 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. Says here that Paul is "accusing God of lying" because God broke his promise to Abraham. Our subject fails to mention that the previous verse refers to the promise, which concerns Abe's descendants - where is the broken promise, exactly? It is simply one they could never live to see fulfilled. Our subject's objection here is incomprehensible and nonsensical. 23. 1 Cor. 10:24 Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth. It is said that this verse speaks for itself. The word "wealth" is a KJV supposition; note that it is in italics in the KJV. The verse is translated in more modern terms thusly: Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. 24. 1 Cor. 9:20-23 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law...(etc.) Accuses Paul of being a "religious chameleon" and of "opportunism." Well, considering that Paul was trying to offer people eternal life, and not getting any rewards for it himself, what's the problem here? Is it being a "chameleon" and being "opportunistic" to absorb local customs and behaviors for the sake of viable communication? 25. 1 Cor. 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. Says that Paul here is seeing himself as a law unto himself; our subject fails to recognize the rhetorical argument pattern here: "All things are lawful for me" is a Corinthian claim that Paul is repeating back and then responding to. Once again, it helps to understand ancient literature in its context rather than reading it like a newspaper. 26. Gal. 2:11-12 - The reprimand of Peter, cited against 1 Cor. 9:20-3 above. Our subject fails to separate the contexts: Paul is speaking in a missionary context of himself; against Peter he is referring to a gathering of the brethren. There was no need for Peter to "become as a Jew" here because he was not acting as a missionary and changing his behavior for the sake of clear communication and understanding, but acting as one who was trying to ingratiate himself with others to avoid consequences. 27. Acts 26:23, etc
28, 29. Multiple illicit re-uses of Paul's sarcasm in 2 Cor. 11-12.
30. Eph. 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Touted as incorrect, since the "act of accepting by faith is a work itself." Our subject fails to realize that acts of the will and mind were NOT considered "works" in this time. (The Greek word indicates physical labor or toil.) 31. Acts 9:5 "Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. Asks why Paul would ask to whom he is speaking, since he identified the speaker as "Lord." This wins a Golden Duh Award: Paul knew it was the Lord, but he did not know that the Lord was Jesus! ("Lord" was a title given to God by the Jews of the first century; it was also a way of saying "Sir.") 32. Gal. 5:3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. Cited against the circumcision of Jesus (Luke 2:21), Paul himself (Phil. 3:5) and Timothy (Acts 16:3). Our subject fails to account for the context of the statement in Galatians, where Paul is addressing those who "go backwards" and thinks that Jewish ceremonial law has some role in salvation. As for the three counters, the first two were prior to the new covenant and are irrelevant; the latter was a peace-making gesture out of the context of the Galatian church. (See here for more details.) 33. Allegation of misquote of the OT; see above. 34. Acts 23:6-8 Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead." When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.) Accuses Paul of "cunning" and "deception." Cunning, perhaps, but deception? Paul told no lie here. He was on trial precisely because he believed in a specific resurrection from the dead - that of Jesus. 35. Gal. 1:18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. vs. Acts 9, 22, 26 Contradiction is alleged in that the latter supposedly say that Paul went to Jerusalem shortly after he left Damascus, not three years later. Funny how there are no quotes here - in not one case do we find ANYTHING saying that Paul went to Jerusalem "shortly" after this (9:26, 22:17, 26:20). The time period is unspecified. Misinterpretations In five entries Paul is accused of misinterpreting the OT to his own ends. We need not look at this section in detail; Paul's exegetical practices are little different, indeed rather tamer, than those of others in that day in Judaism. See Glenn Miller's article on Christian use of the OT. False Prophecies Paul is accused of false prophecies that predict a soon end to the world and a quick return of Jesus. On this topic, see here. Go Home! |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
