biblical inerrancy

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

As for the question itself...

Of course I accept that the Bible is inerrant in spirit.  I even believe that it is inerrant in specific text.  The question is, how do we interpret said text, in a contextual understanding, and how to we apply those lessons to our world.  This is where the strict, fundamentalist argument implodes.

P.S.  Well, that and the fact that they are ridiculously selective in what they chose to apply their "absolute literalism" model, to the point of absolute hypocrisy.

Well, if you can’t interpret the scripture for yourself, how do you verify that the leadership of your church is interpreting it correctly?  Did not Jesus assume his followers would be able to see for themselves and ordered them not to put up with blind teachers, even if those teachers belonged to sects that could legitimately claim a historical connection to what God established and even if they were the keepers of the scriptures?

Matthew 15:14 [regarding the Pharisees] “Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”

As the scripture says to the laity:

1John 2:27 “As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him”

Also, it is obvious the leadership of the early church expected believers to be able to interpret scripture, else the leadership would not have bothered to use the scripture to back up what they taught.

Instead of predetermining what is literal and what is not, why not simply use scripture to interpret scripture?  If a passage claims to be an historical account and the rest of scripture interprets it as an historical account, then why not view it as an historical account?  And where there is no clear parallel passage to use as an interpreter, then why not just admit that the meaning is unclear? Seems pretty simple to me.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Hi Jmfcst,
I was wondering if you could explain to me the criteria in determining which books are to be considered cannonical. I know there are numerous documents fromt the times of the early church that were at times considered to be legitimate scripture but were ultimately left out of the NT cannon. IIRC, what is generally accepted as cannon today was compiled by bishops councils in the 4th century.

Please keep in mind I'm rather new to this subject.

In short, there is no criteria.  When Moses was alive, there was no criteria for determining if what he wrote was the word of God or whether he made it up himself.  And not all the Israelites accepted the leadership of Moses.  And even those who accepted it would later fragment into different sects having different doctrines and sometimes even different canons.

And the process of building of canon started long before the 4th century, and it has been a never ending debate since the time of Moses wrote down God’s word and placed it inside the ark of the covenant.  Even during the life of Jesus, the Jews were still in disagreement about what was to be considered scripture and what wasn’t, as well as different methods of interpreting scripture (it is to be interpreted with absolutely literalism, or is it to be interpreted through the use of oral tradition).

But Jesus never wasted time arguing over such things, rather he always took the middle course and was able to use the logical structure of scripture to derive meaning, instead of using only strict interpretation, and accepted scripture as the guide to morality instead of allowing oral tradition to make a mockery of scripture.

Also, the early New Testament church used the Old Testament as their basis of proof and were able to teach the concepts of Christianity solely from the Old Testament.  And, in fact, there are no doctrines in the NT that don’t have a basis in the Old Testament – scripture is basically very interdependent and repetitive.

If someone doesn’t believe BookABC belongs in the bible, then fine, throw it out.  I guarantee you the doctrines of BookABC are echoed throughout other books of the bible.   In fact, whole books of the NT are nothing more than a scriptural dissertation based upon other scriptures (e.g. the book of Hebrews).  The bible is too repetitive to waste time arguing over individual books.  In fact, the first five book of the bible is the blueprint for the entire bible.

The way I personally determine which cannon to follow is to see if they are doctrinally in agreement with the rest of scripture.   But if someone wants to disagree, then I use the least common denominator, just as Jesus did when he was faced with differences of opinion, because my beliefs are NOT based upon a specific canon.

Another hot topic is which translation to use.  Again, I’ll use the least common denominator because my doctrine does NOT hinge off of a specific translation, rather my doctrines are broadly based and are able to mesh (are repetitive) with the whole context of scripture.  I have yet to see a translation that is so messed up that it causes scripture not to mesh with itself.

[victorola]

Hi Jmfcst,
I was wondering if you could explain to me the criteria in determining which books are to be considered cannonical. I know there are numerous documents fromt the times of the early church that were at times considered to be legitimate scripture but were ultimately left out of the NT cannon. IIRC, what is generally accepted as cannon today was compiled by bishops councils in the 4th century.

Please keep in mind I'm rather new to this subject.

In short, there is no criteria.  When Moses was alive, there was no criteria for determining if what he wrote was the word of God or whether he made it up himself.  And not all the Israelites accepted the leadership of Moses.  And even those who accepted it would later fragment into different sects having different doctrines and sometimes even different canons.

And the process of building of canon started long before the 4th century, and it has been a never ending debate since the time of Moses wrote down God’s word and placed it inside the ark of the covenant.  Even during the life of Jesus, the Jews were still in disagreement about what was to be considered scripture and what wasn’t, as well as different methods of interpreting scripture (it is to be interpreted with absolutely literalism, or is it to be interpreted through the use of oral tradition).

But Jesus never wasted time arguing over such things, rather he always took the middle course and was able to use the logical structure of scripture to derive meaning, instead of using only strict interpretation, and accepted scripture as the guide to morality instead of allowing oral tradition to make a mockery of scripture.

Also, the early New Testament church used the Old Testament as their basis of proof and were able to teach the concepts of Christianity solely from the Old Testament.  And, in fact, there are no doctrines in the NT that don’t have a basis in the Old Testament – scripture is basically very interdependent and repetitive.

If someone doesn’t believe BookABC belongs in the bible, then fine, throw it out.  I guarantee you the doctrines of BookABC are echoed throughout other books of the bible.   In fact, whole books of the NT are nothing more than a scriptural dissertation based upon other scriptures (e.g. the book of Hebrews).  The bible is too repetitive to waste time arguing over individual books.  In fact, the first five book of the bible is the blueprint for the entire bible.

The way I personally determine which cannon to follow is to see if they are doctrinally in agreement with the rest of scripture.   But if someone wants to disagree, then I use the least common denominator, just as Jesus did when he was faced with differences of opinion, because my beliefs are NOT based upon a specific canon.

Another hot topic is which translation to use.  Again, I’ll use the least common denominator because my doctrine does NOT hinge off of a specific translation, rather my doctrines are broadly based and are able to mesh (are repetitive) with the whole context of scripture.  I have yet to see a translation that is so messed up that it causes scripture not to mesh with itself.

Thanks for the reply. I was wondering how people could believe in "scripture alone" given the multitude of scriptures.( Unless of course they took someone elses word for it), it just never crossed my mind to think of it that way but it seems to be logicaly sound.

If there is no criteria for putting scripture in the cannon you appear to of provided criteria for excluding scripture. If it contridicts the general messages of the whole body of scripture then it goes, right?

However your explanation raises some more questions
You appear to rely on the first five books as indisputable. Why is this? or did I misinterpret you?
It would seem that you need something to be absolutely authoritative.

In regards to my reading what I have is a New American Bible that has been on my shelf since I don't know when. I've only recently taken an intrest in it.   So I can't at this time independently verify much on my own.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

By the same argument, that Acts ends where its does, is not proof of when it was written.  It is quite possible that the author wrote, or intended to write, a third book which continued the story of Luke-Acts but which was either never written or has been lost. Said third book would probably cover the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, and possibly continue on to cover the destruction of Jerusalem.  The death of Luke the Evangelist is traditionally held to have happened in 84 AD, so if he is the author, he certainly could have continued the story if the tradition is accurate (and even if it missed his date of death by a good decade).

That’s pure conjecture and a bunch of rubbish, as both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts are unabridged – The Gospel of Luke stated its goal (see Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1-2) and completed it, therefore Acts is NOT meant to be simply a continuation of the Gospel of Luke (the history of the actions of Jesus), rather the book of Acts has a completely different focus (the history of the church)…and since Luke did NOT leave the reader hanging at the end of Gospel of Luke, there is no argument to be made that Luke all the sudden decided to leave the reader hanging at the end of the book of Acts.

I agree it's conjecture, but not that it is rubbish.  Unless all of the tradition concerning Luke is woefully inaccurate, he had plenty of time to finish the story had he written Acts in the period you believe Acts had been.  Of course, it is possible that Luke-Acts was written by someone other than Luke, but that doesn't throw any light on the question of dating.

Acts has a style consistent with the second book of a trilogy.  If Luke had planned on writing a hypothetical third book centered on the ministry and martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Rome, it would explain both why Paul's personal history ends where it does and why Peter disappears in the middle of Acts.

Even if one accepts your conjecture that Luke had not intended to end Acts abruptly, that does not prove that it was written c. 60 AD.  If Luke's death in 84 AD halted his writing, that too would explain what you consider an abrupt ending.

There are a number of details in Acts that call into question its accuracy and especially the date of its composition as being before the destruction of the Temple.  The most telling is these with respect to the date issue is the reference to the Roman province of Cilicia in Acts 6:9.  That province did not exist during the period 27 B.C. to 72 A.D.

Again, I don’t understand your point, but let me give it a try…the province of Cilicia had been under Roman control for a hundred years, then for about 30 years some of it was divided up among various client kings, all subject to Rome, and with the rest of the province falling under the governor of Syria who was also subject to Rome …and you think that greater Cilicia was NOT still commonly referred to as the province of Cilicia during that brief interlude, as if people just turned on a dime and instead of referring to greater Cilicia, started listing instead all the individual pieces in order to refer to the sum total, even though it still remained under Roman control?!  That hasn’t been my experience with people.

But, hey, I guess I have to make a note to stop calling the upper northeastern part of the United States by the name “New England”, since it hasn’t been an official confederation for a couple of hundred years, and therefore no one is going to know what geographical area I am talking about….although it is completely clear the reader would understand what geographical area to which Luke referred.

Sorry, but that is a very dumb argument you just made and is contrary every day experience.

The period of Cicilia being divided up was ten decades, not three, but that is beside the point.  While looking to buttress my argument, I see my problem was in relying upon the translation in the NIV, which stresses that Cicilia was a province, a stress not found in the original.  Absent that stress, I withdraw that point, as your point about regional names remaining in use is quite valid.

There are other problems with assuming that the dating of Acts absolutely must be before the destruction of the Temple, but none that I think would convince you that it could have been written post-Jewish revolt.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Thanks for the reply. I was wondering how people could believe in "scripture alone" given the multitude of scriptures.( Unless of course they took someone elses word for it), it just never crossed my mind to think of it that way but it seems to be logicaly sound.

If there is no criteria for putting scripture in the cannon you appear to of provided criteria for excluding scripture. If it contridicts the general messages of the whole body of scripture then it goes, right?

However your explanation raises some more questions
You appear to rely on the first five books as indisputable. Why is this? or did I misinterpret you?
It would seem that you need something to be absolutely authoritative.

In regards to my reading what I have is a New American Bible that has been on my shelf since I don't know when. I've only recently taken an intrest in it.   So I can't at this time independently verify much on my own.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry, just a random movie quote.  Back to our discussion….

I was saved by reading the book of the Galatians out of a Kings James Version of the bible given to me years earlier at a Baptist church, not by reading the first five books of the bible.  But having studied the entire bible, I have come to understand that the first five books of the bible are the blueprint for the rest of the bible.  (And it should be noted that I am indebted to the King James version and to the Baptist church that gave me the bible, but I did [late edit] don't view the King James nor the Baptist church as being without flaw and I currently go to an interdenominational church and I rarely use the KJV.)

As to how one gets introduced to the word of God, there is no set pattern except that God uses imperfect people to relay his perfect word.  God could use preacher like John the Baptist to lead you to Christ within a church service, or God may choose to use the testimony of an adulterous woman on the street who has been married 5 times and is now shacking up with outside of marriage to lead you into a belief in Jesus…the word of God is simply passed down from one person to another.

As far as absolute authority, apart from God himself, that question has to be taken in two parts.:

Part 1: during Old Testament times there never was such a concept, for the OT church leadership was never considered to be inerrant (just look how the leadership of the Old Testament church rejected Jesus as the Messiah).

In fact, God warned them about religious leaders who would stray from the word and made the people responsible to the message they chose to listen to:

Jer 5:31 “The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way. But what will you do in the end?”

Part 2: as to the New Testament church…
To nonbelievers, the leaders of the New Testament church used scripture in order to prove what they were saying was true.  They made a statement, backed it up with scripture, and placed the message along with the scriptural proof into hands of their listeners and left it to God to open the eyes of the unbeliever.

To believers, the leaders of the New Testament church did the same thing, they supported what they taught with scripture and left it in the hands of their audience.  But they also encouraged believers to jump fully into the scripture and to stop relying on the leadership to spoon-feed them the word of God.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

In regards to my reading what I have is a New American Bible that has been on my shelf since I don't know when. I've only recently taken an intrest in it.   So I can't at this time independently verify much on my own.

sorry, didn't notice this point.  You could go to biblegateway.com if you want another translation, but I have an NAB myself and I see nothing wrong with the Catholic NAB. 

[Derek]

The bible is full of literary errors in translation if that's what is meant by inerrancy.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The bible is full of literary errors in translation if that's what is meant by inerrancy.

if that were the case, then the each translation would be very different in content.  But, as it is, they are so equivalent that my doctrine is not impacted by any version I choose.

And, no, inerrancy is not meant to apply to translations, as there are undoubtedly translational errors here and there, but not enough to impact doctrine that is broadly based.

[Derek]

Each translation is different. I've never had more than 2 professors agree on the translation of a particular verse. The entire Bible is up for debate on translation.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Each translation is different. I've never had more than 2 professors agree on the translation of a particular verse. The entire Bible is up for debate on translation.

Amen.  Just watch some of these shows on TV where there are a half-doze Theology Professors......none of them fully agree.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Each translation is different. I've never had more than 2 professors agree on the translation of a particular verse. The entire Bible is up for debate on translation.

Amen.  Just watch some of these shows on TV where there are a half-doze Theology Professors......none of them fully agree.

their disagreements have NOTHING to do with translation, otherwise I myself would have to choose a translation and stick to it, as it is I can read any translation and come up with the same conclusion.  Rather their differences have to do with interpretation and the manner in which they are formulating their doctrines

[Derek]

interpretations yes, doctrines no if you're talking about professors. There are even clergy who cannot agree on anything. They may agree on the points of the story, but not translations and interpretation.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

interpretations yes, doctrines no if you're talking about professors. There are even clergy who cannot agree on anything. They may agree on the points of the story, but not translations and interpretation.

other than wacko sects like the Mormons, give me some examples of doctrinal differences between sects based off of disagreements of translation

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Ernest,

Sorry I am just getting back to you, I typed a long reply last night but I was kicked off the computer by my family....here were my basic comments:

Thanks for conceding historical account don’t have to be technically and legally 100% accurate in order to be considered 100% accurate. In turn, I will concede that nothing “forces” Acts to have been written prior to 70AD.  But the overwhelming evidence is that it was written by an eyewitness as suggested by:

1)   the repeated use of the pronoun “we” throughout the latter half of the book.
2)   The unsurpassed accuracy of the enormity of its historical details across the Mediterranean world of the mid first century.

And because it is so incredibly accurate, the eyewitness nature of the book cannot be seriously argued.  For it is not logical that someone not living in the mid first century could have the historical resources to accurately compile such wide ranging scales of accuracy involving minute details across such a large geographical area.

In fact, the book of Acts contains so many unique descriptions found nowhere else in recorded history, that it has repeatedly been the sole guiding source over the last couple of hundred years that has led to many great archeological discoveries, and the descriptions within the book of Acts have been an exact match to what was uncovered by the digs.  It is simply an incredible piece of recorded history and the ONLY reason why it is not given its due credit is because of its religious claims.  But, it should be noted that the accuracy of the book of Acts has convinced many historians and archeologists to become Christians.

As to the reasons why the book of Acts leaves off where it does, it may simply be due to the fact that Paul’s trial was drawing near and the writer (who accompanied Paul on his travels and stayed with him throughout his two years of arrest in Rome while Paul awaited trial) thought the outcome of trial could endanger his own life and so ended his historical account at that point and “mailed” the letter near the beginning of the trial.  In fact, the 2 year wait gives plenty of time for historical reflection and the writing of BOTH the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts during those 2 years, with the Gospel of Luke being written first (see Acts 1:1), is very plausible and writing both from the same location makes perfect sense of why both are addressed to the same recipient.

On the other hand, a later date of writing fails to explain why the burning of Rome (64AD) is not mentioned since it was followed by blaming the Christians for the fire and an extremely intense persecution of Christians was ordered throughout the Roman world that impacted the entire church…yet neither the fire or the following persecution is mentioned in the book of Acts.

Also – the facts presented in this paragraph should be fairly obvious - the reason why the first half of the book of Acts is centered around Peter’s ministry and the second half is centered around Paul’s ministry, has NOTHING to do with planning a trilogy.  Rather it has everything to with the  facts that 1) Peter was the Apostle to the Jews and Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, and thus the writer is simply giving the them equal billing, and 2) the first half of the book is prior to the authors conversion and also prior to Paul’s conversion, so it couldn’t have been about Paul in the first place, and the later chronology of the book coincided roughly with the conversion of both the author and Paul.  So the author was able to take the eyewitness accounts of others that made up the first half of the chronology and then add-on his own eyewitness account for the second half of the chronology and since he was a companion of Paul, the second half naturally is centered on Paul’s ministry.  Again, this should be obvious and has nothing to do with planning a trilogy.

Also, a later date of composition doesn’t explain why the death of Paul (approx 66AD) is not mentioned.  Also it does not explain why the conquest of Jerusalem (70AD) is not mentioned, because the book of Acts demonstrates over and over that the Apostles kept track as best they could as to what was happening among the churches and especially the church at Jerusalem, and also they made constant contact with Jewish  synagogues, who also kept tabs on Jerusalem,  so some mentioned would have been made of the news of Jerusalem’s destruction.

So, in the end, there is only one “simple” explanation that explains it all without jumping through a bunch of hoops:  the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were both written prior to Paul’s trial with the gospel of Luke being written first and the book Acts being finished just prior to Paul’s trial.  That obviously doesn’t mean Acts absolutely could not have been written at a later date, but it does easily explain everything in the most plausible of a scenario.

But, most importantly, regardless if it was written around 60AD or around 80AD, the extreme accuracy does prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the source of the accounts were eyewitnesses and therefore is NOT a forgery put together by a later generation.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

interpretations yes, doctrines no if you're talking about professors. There are even clergy who cannot agree on anything. They may agree on the points of the story, but not translations and interpretation.

other than wacko sects like the Mormons, give me some examples of doctrinal differences between sects based off of disagreements of translation

Derek,

I will concede Mormons base large portions of doctrine off of a single translation of a single verse, which is why they are on Pluto compared to mainstream Christianity, but I know of no other sectarian differences in doctrine that are due to a difference in translation.

I am willing to admit I am not a student of doctrinal differences between  the sects, but I think I have encountered a pretty good representative sample of different doctrines, but I have yet to encounter cases (except at the extremes like Mormonism) where the difference is based off of a translational dispute.  Every difference I have encountered has been based off of tradition and/or interpretation.

Basically, the only arguments I have heard have been based on interpretations, so I need some examples of translational based doctrinal differences.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

jmfcst, your reply exemplifies why I declined to further attempt reasoning with you on this issue.  You view the uncorroborated aspects of Acts as proof of its "unsurpassed accuracy" when such aspects prove nothing.  Even where we do have corroboration, there are problems. At this distant remove, we can only judge Acts as an eyewitness to history by comparing it with other contemporary writings (and I mean history, not architecture or geography).  Acts has discrepancies with both Josephus's writings and the Pauline epistles, mainly concerning the order in which certain events occurred. (And no matter what I think of Paul himself, I do not doubt he lived and that most of the epistles attributed to him were written by him.)

As for your objections to my conjecture that Acts was intended as the second work of a trilogy, I find your particular rebuttal totally without merit. While Paul claimed for himself the title Apostle to the Gentiles, he never was the only apostle to preach to them, nor did Peter restrict himself to be just the Apostle to the Jews. Nor can I see why the Author of Acts would believe in such a dichotomy.  In Acts 9 Paul confines his preaching to the Jews.  In Acts 10, the first conversion of a Gentile is recorded as being that of Cornelius by Peter, not by Paul.  In Acts 11 it is Peter, not Paul who is required by the Church at Jerusalem to explain why he as been converting Gentiles without first converting them to Jews.  At the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, it is Peter and not Paul who first speaks in defense of including Gentiles in the Church, and then asks Barnabas and Paul to speak of their ministry.  When James renders his judgment, he refers to Simon Peter's testimony.  Whatever may have been the intent of the author of Acts, portraying Peter as Apostle to the Jews and Paul as Apostle to the Gentiles is refuted by the very text of Acts itself.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

ernest I can't reply right now but bear with me and I will easily show you how the book of acts is in complete agreement with the not only pauls letters but with the rest of the nt

[Derek]

interpretations yes, doctrines no if you're talking about professors. There are even clergy who cannot agree on anything. They may agree on the points of the story, but not translations and interpretation.

other than wacko sects like the Mormons, give me some examples of doctrinal differences between sects based off of disagreements of translation

Derek,

I will concede Mormons base large portions of doctrine off of a single translation of a single verse, which is why they are on Pluto compared to mainstream Christianity, but I know of no other sectarian differences in doctrine that are due to a difference in translation.

I am willing to admit I am not a student of doctrinal differences between  the sects, but I think I have encountered a pretty good representative sample of different doctrines, but I have yet to encounter cases (except at the extremes like Mormonism) where the difference is based off of a translational dispute.  Every difference I have encountered has been based off of tradition and/or interpretation.

Basically, the only arguments I have heard have been based on interpretations, so I need some examples of translational based doctrinal differences.

I don't know of any doctrinal differences based on translations. I don't remember arguing that there are. If I did I must have typed the wrong word. If you look at the RSV and NRSV there are explicit differences and the same could be said for the NIV version. To me translations aren't important for my faith or doctrine, but for interpreting a story, translations are everything. I think we're basically agreeing.

[J. J.]

There is already a biblical precedent for God not waiting for everyone to agree to a single canon – in fact, within the 4 gospels it is recorded that the Sadducees and the Pharisees and the Samaritans had different canons and different doctrines, but Christ was brought into the world anyway and people were held accountable for accepting the truth, demonstrating  that God’s timetable is not hindered by differences of opinion.

So, saying that you’re not going to accept the bible until there is agreement to what is in it doesn’t make sense.

They had different doctrines, but the Pentateuch was followed by all.  We don't have that in the examples you gave.

I accept Jesus, but I don't worship a book.  It is a form of idolatry. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

There is already a biblical precedent for God not waiting for everyone to agree to a single canon – in fact, within the 4 gospels it is recorded that the Sadducees and the Pharisees and the Samaritans had different canons and different doctrines, but Christ was brought into the world anyway and people were held accountable for accepting the truth, demonstrating  that God’s timetable is not hindered by differences of opinion.
So, saying that you’re not going to accept the bible until there is agreement to what is in it doesn’t make sense.

They had different doctrines, but the Pentateuch was followed by all.  We don't have that in the examples you gave.

You do understand that the Pharisees had a much larger canon than simply the Pentateuch, don’t you? How do you not understand that the Sadducees only accepted the doctrinal authority of first five books of the bible but the Pharisees accept a much larger selection of books for doctrinal authority, which is why the Pharisees had no problem in accepting the resurrection of the dead?  Also, the Samaritans only acknowledge the first five books.

So, there was some commonality in accepted scriptures, just like today, but there was also differences, just like today.   And God did not wait for them to come to agreement, nor is he going to wait for us.

---

I accept Jesus, but I don't worship a book.  It is a form of idolatry.  

So, those that obey scripture are idolaters?!  That would come as news to any writer of the bible since Moses.  As it is written:

2Thes 3:14 “If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed.”

So, it seems we have nothing left to talk about.  Adios.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

jmfcst, your reply exemplifies why I declined to further attempt reasoning with you on this issue.  You view the uncorroborated aspects of Acts as proof of its "unsurpassed accuracy" when such aspects prove nothing.    Even where we do have corroboration, there are problems. At this distant remove, we can only judge Acts as an eyewitness to history by comparing it with other contemporary writings (and I mean history, not architecture or geography).  Acts has discrepancies with both Josephus's writings

Actually, I was pointing out where archeological digs have corroborated parts of Acts not found elsewhere in written history.  But please feel free to list the discrepancies with Josephus’s writings.

---

[Acts has discrepancies with the Pauline epistles, mainly concerning the order in which certain events occurred. (And no matter what I think of Paul himself, I do not doubt he lived and that most of the epistles attributed to him were written by him.)

Again, please feel free to list them, for one thing I have done is stitched together the book of Acts with the rest to of the New Testament.

---

As for your objections to my conjecture that Acts was intended as the second work of a trilogy, I find your particular rebuttal totally without merit. While Paul claimed for himself the title Apostle to the Gentiles, he never was the only apostle to preach to them, nor did Peter restrict himself to be just the Apostle to the Jews. Nor can I see why the Author of Acts would believe in such a dichotomy.  In Acts 9 Paul confines his preaching to the Jews.  In Acts 10, the first conversion of a Gentile is recorded as being that of Cornelius by Peter, not by Paul.  In Acts 11 it is Peter, not Paul who is required by the Church at Jerusalem to explain why he as been converting Gentiles without first converting them to Jews.  At the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, it is Peter and not Paul who first speaks in defense of including Gentiles in the Church, and then asks Barnabas and Paul to speak of their ministry.  When James renders his judgment, he refers to Simon Peter's testimony.  Whatever may have been the intent of the author of Acts, portraying Peter as Apostle to the Jews and Paul as Apostle to the Gentiles is refuted by the very text of Acts itself.

First, let me list the points I agree you with on and then I will show how Acts is in agreement with Paul’s claims::
1)   I agree that Peter won the first Gentile convert (Acts 10), but that does NOT contradict or preclude Paul from becoming the premier Apostle to the Gentiles
2)   I agree that Paul’s custom when entering a town was to first preach the Gospel to the Jews before preaching it to the Gentiles (Acts 9:20; 13:5;14:1;17:1,10; 18:19; 19:8 ) but Paul explains why in his own writings (Rom 1:16; 2:9-10; 11:13)... and that does NOT contradict or preclude Paul from becoming the premier Apostle to the Gentiles
3)   I agree that James, as leader of the Jerusalem church, after listening to both Paul and Peter speak, used Peter’s testimony to win over the crowd, BUT….the reason James did this was that the Jewish crowd was already arguing with Paul’s version of the gospel and insisted that the Gentiles be circumcised (Acts 15:1-5), and it was Peter who spoke up (Acts 15:6-11) and calmed the crowd by reminding them that he himself had converted Gentiles without the Law in order to quiet the crowd and allow Paul an audience to tell his accounts of Gentile conversion (Acts 15:12).  And as soon as Paul finished, James immediately spoke up (Acts 15:13) and used the testimony of Peter (whom the crowd knew and respected) to agree with EVERY aspect of Paul’s version of the Gospel preached among the Gentiles and sent Paul back to the Gentiles to continue preaching the Gospel (Acts 15:22).   And not only does that NOT contradict Paul’s writings, but it is in EXACT agreement with Paul’s version of the events in Gal 2:1-10….James was wise to pivot off of Peter’s testimony because the Jewish believers in Jerusalem at the time didn’t know nor trust Paul and were arguing with Paul, yet they knew and trusted Peter and would not dare argue with him, so both Peter and James simply used the testimony of someone (Peter) whom the Jerusalem crowd trusted and couldn’t argue with, but both Peter and James agreed with Paul 100%… and nothing in here contradicts or precludes Paul from becoming the premier Apostle to the Gentiles


---

Now to prove by using the book of Acts that Paul had indeed become the premier “Apostle to the Gentiles” as Paul claimed in Rom 11:13; Gal 1:16; 2:8:

1) First and foremost is the commission Paul received upon his conversion as recorded in the account in Acts:  “This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel.” (Acts 9:15)

That one single point should end the whole argument, but I am going to give you more proof:

2) Notice in the account of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, which occurred 14-17 years after (based upon Gal 1:18 and Gal 2:1) Paul’s conversion, Paul is able to give long testimonies about his conversion of Gentiles (Acts 15:4 and Acts 15:12), but when it came time for Peter and James to speak, they could only point to Peter’s initial Gentile conversion – they couldn’t match the volume of Paul’s stories of Gentile conversions…showing that Paul was already much more familiar with converting Gentiles than the rest of the Jewish believers put together.  And, obviously, if Peter or James had had lots of experience converting Gentiles, then there wouldn’t have been any need for the Jerusalem Council for there wouldn’t have been an argument between Paul and the Jewish believers from Jerusalem in the first place.

3)   Notice that it was decided at the Jerusalem council that Paul and Barnabas were to continue the ministry to the Gentiles (Acts 15:22). Judas and Silas who were members of the Jerusalem Church were sent along with them to provide a stamp of approval from the Jerusalem mother church, but Judas and Silas later returned to the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:33), but Paul and Barnabas remained to preach to the Gentiles…this EXACTLY matches Paul’s own account (Gal 2:9) that he was recognized as the main apostle to the Gentiles.

4)   Notice in the book of Acts, Peter is always orbiting within a short travel distance from Jerusalem, but Paul is up and down and all around the countries of the Mediterranean…again showing that Paul is the primary apostle who is pushing the Gospel into Gentile territory.

Now for the boatload of evidence from the rest of the New Testament:
5)   All 13 of Paul’s letters, making up half of the New Testament, are addressed to distinct Gentile churches (or the distinct Gentile leaders of Gentile churches) and address specific problems within whatever specific church he is writing to….proving that Paul was intimately active and familiar with the problems within those churches and proves Paul was indeed the apostle most active in spreading the gospel to the Gentiles.
6)   Unlike Paul’s 13 letters, Peter’s 2 letters are general in nature and were meant to be circulated across a broad area…proving that Peter wasn’t intimately familiar or active within the churches located in Gentile lands.
7)   Unlike Paul’s letters, the book of Hebrews and James are addressed to Jewish Christians, not Gentiles.  And John’s letters and Jude are also general letters, just like Peter’s
8 )   The only hint of another Apostle stepping in and addressing specific problems within specific Gentile churches is in the book of Revelation, written by John after Paul was long dead.

So, not only the book of Acts, but all the NT epistles testify to the fact that Paul became the primary apostle responsible for spreading the Gospel among the Gentiles.  And Paul held that role until he died and then John, being the longest surviving Apostle as predicted by Jesus in John 21:20-23, stepped in to help oversee the Gentile churches after Paul was dead. (Peter may have filled this role but didn't live long after Paul.  And, in fact, tradition states that John did move to Ephesus and oversaw the Gentile churches in the area, the same churches he writes to in the book of Revelation)

In closing, my point that the book of Acts is not organized for a trilogy but rather splits the book between the ministries of Peter and Paul in order to give the Apostle to the Jews and the Apostle to the Gentiles equal billing is backed up by every thread of the New Testament: from the Gospels’ account of Jesus choosing Peter to the be the leader of the church, through Peter’s leadership in the first half of the book of Acts, through Paul’s commission to be the apostle to the gentiles in Acts 9, through the Jerusalem’s Council choice to have Paul continue the ministry to the Gentiles, to Paul’s missionaries to the Gentiles throughout the rest of the book of Acts, through all 13 of Paul’s letters to Gentile churches, through Hebrews and James being addressed to Jews, through both Peter’s letters being general in nature as well as John’s and Jude’s being general, through Revelation addressing problems within specific Gentile churches after the death of Paul in order to help fill the void left by the death of Paul.

So, not only does the book of Acts trace the early history of the church and demonstrate how they implemented Jesus’ teachings, but Acts also provides context for all the epistles that follow.  So, aside from its historical accuracy and complete agreement with the rest of the New Testament, the book of Acts is the very bridge that connects the four gospels with the epistles.

So, not only is Acts not organized for a trilogy, there is no need for a trilogy, for the book of Acts functions profoundly and perfectly just the way it is.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Now to prove by using the book of Acts that Paul had indeed become the premier “Apostle to the Gentiles” as Paul claimed in Rom 11:13; Gal 1:16; 2:8:

1) First and foremost is the commission Paul received upon his conversion as recorded in the account in Acts:  “This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel.” (Acts 9:15)

That one single point should end the whole argument, but I am going to give you more proof:

Agreed, it should end the argument, but you insist on twisting everything to conform to your preconceived viewpoint.

No where in Acts 9:15, or anyplace else in Acts, is Paul identified as the premier apostle to the Gentiles.  Taking the text literally, all it says is, "I am accepting Paul to speak of me to everyone."  It contains no emphasis on Gentile or Jew.

2) Notice in the account of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, which occurred 14-17 years after (based upon Gal 1:18 and Gal 2:1) Paul’s conversion, Paul is able to give long testimonies about his conversion of Gentiles (Acts 15:4 and Acts 15:12), but when it came time for Peter and James to speak, they could only point to Peter’s initial Gentile conversion – they couldn’t match the volume of Paul’s stories of Gentile conversions…showing that Paul was already much more familiar with converting Gentiles than the rest of the Jewish believers put together.  And, obviously, if Peter or James had had lots of experience converting Gentiles, then there wouldn’t have been any need for the Jerusalem Council for there wouldn’t have been an argument between Paul and the Jewish believers from Jerusalem in the first place.

I agree that James and church at Jerusalem had placed no effort into converting Gentiles.  I note that you are entirely ignoring Barnabas' role in the matter. "The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them." (Acts 15:12)  That sentence, in which Paul shares the credit for what he had done with Barnabas, is all that is recounted of his testimony at the Council of Jerusalem while Peter gets 5 full verses.

Indeed, based on the perceptions of the Gentiles, one would think that in that period, Barnabas was considered preeminent over Paul, since Barnabas was identified with Zeus, while Paul was identified with Hermes (Acts 14:12).  So why not call Barnabas (the) Apostle to the Gentiles?

Given your assumptions that Acts was written by someone who traveled with Paul (most likely Luke, tho that identification comes from tradition rather than the text itself) and in preparation for Paul's trial, the emphasis upon Paul is most easily explained not because the author thought he was the primary apostle to the Gentiles, but because that was who the author had first hand knowledge of, and that once a person no longer became important in describing Paul's background, the author no long had need of that person.

3)   Notice that it was decided at the Jerusalem council that Paul and Barnabas were to continue the ministry to the Gentiles (Acts 15:22). Judas and Silas who were members of the Jerusalem Church were sent along with them to provide a stamp of approval from the Jerusalem mother church, but Judas and Silas later returned to the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:33), but Paul and Barnabas remained to preach to the Gentiles…this EXACTLY matches Paul’s own account (Gal 2:9) that he was recognized as the main apostle to the Gentiles.

Even in his letter to the Galatians, the self-aggrandizing Paul has to admit that a charge preach to the Gentiles was given to him and Barnabas, not just himself.

"James, Peter, and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. " (Gal 2:9)

This dichotomy between a mission to the Gentiles and a mission to the Jews is not found in Acts.

4)   Notice in the book of Acts, Peter is always orbiting within a short travel distance from Jerusalem, but Paul is up and down and all around the countries of the Mediterranean…again showing that Paul is the primary apostle who is pushing the Gospel into Gentile territory.

I agree that Paul was the more widely traveled, which contributed to the survival of Pauline Christianity after the First and Second Jewish Wars.

Now for the boatload of evidence from the rest of the New Testament:
5)   All 13 of Paul’s letters, making up half of the New Testament, are addressed to distinct Gentile churches (or the distinct Gentile leaders of Gentile churches) and address specific problems within whatever specific church he is writing to….proving that Paul was intimately active and familiar with the problems within those churches and proves Paul was indeed the apostle most active in spreading the gospel to the Gentiles.

It proves Paul was a prolific letter writer and engaged in self-promotion as evidenced by the seven to ten letters of his preserved in the Bible.  (I agree with those who argue that the Pastoral Epistles were not written by Paul, and of the other three disputed epistles I have no set opinion.)

6)   Unlike Paul’s 13 letters, Peter’s 2 letters are general in nature and were meant to be circulated across a broad area…proving that Peter wasn’t intimately familiar or active within the churches located in Gentile lands.
7)   Unlike Paul’s letters, the book of Hebrews and James are addressed to Jewish Christians, not Gentiles.  And John’s letters and Jude are also general letters, just like Peter’s
8 )   The only hint of another Apostle stepping in and addressing specific problems within specific Gentile churches is in the book of Revelation, written by John after Paul was long dead.

So, not only the book of Acts, but all the NT epistles testify to the fact that Paul became the primary apostle responsible for spreading the Gospel among the Gentiles.  And Paul held that role until he died and then John, being the longest surviving Apostle as predicted by Jesus in John 21:20-23, stepped in to help oversee the Gentile churches after Paul was dead. (Peter may have filled this role but didn't live long after Paul.  And, in fact, tradition states that John did move to Ephesus and oversaw the Gentile churches in the area, the same churches he writes to in the book of Revelation)

Paul was quite good at tooting his own horn.  Given what happened in the Jewish Revolts, it is not at all surprising that Christianity survived among the Gentiles and died off among the Jews.  Given that, it is not surprising that the man who sought to aggrandize himself among the Gentiles in the name of Jesus gained such high preeminence in the surviving canon.  That is true no matter what intent one ascribes to Paul for his actions.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

yeah, yeah, yeah, Paul was only about self promotion, right?....if that were so, Paul's letters would have never survived because he would have been regarded as a fraud and his letters would have been burned.

(And to think I wasted an hour explaining the book of Acts in return for such a reply?!)

What is so ironic is that the true frauds made the same accusations against Paul as you just did, so I'll let Paul speak in his own defense:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

sounds to me like Paul poured himself out for people out of love for Christ and asked for  and received little in return

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I agree that Paul was the more widely traveled, which contributed to the survival of Pauline Christianity after the First and Second Jewish Wars.
 

“Pauline” Christianity, you mean the Christianity that Paul preached , the EXACT same message that Peter and James agreed 100% with at the Jerusalem Council in Acts ch 15, was “Pauline” Christianity?  

Now, that’s an odd statement.  But, if that were true, then why did  Peter and James agree 100% with what Paul was teaching?

Also, if you want to thrown forth some examples where “Pauline” Christianity differed from what Peter and James taught, please do so.

[John Dibble]

I agree that Paul was the more widely traveled, which contributed to the survival of Pauline Christianity after the First and Second Jewish Wars.
 

“Pauline” Christianity, you mean the Christianity that Paul preached , the EXACT same message that Peter and James agreed 100% with at the Jerusalem Council in Acts ch 15, was “Pauline” Christianity?  

Now, that’s an odd statement.  But, if that were true, then why did  Peter and James agree 100% with what Paul was teaching?

Also, if you want to thrown forth some examples where “Pauline” Christianity differed from what Peter and James taught, please do so.

You could argue that Paul, Peter, and james agreed on their beliefs and you may well be right, but you are neglecting the fact that there were other early Christian sects. For instance there was Marcionism, or the Ebionites. I'm sure you're also aware of the other writings and books of early Christians that did not make it into the Bible. So when he says "Pauline" Christianity he's either referring to what made it into the canonical Bible or something of that nature.