Biblical Historical Authenticity Questions
- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 6 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Hi Tim and All
I’ve personally been tackling the arguments against the authorship of the books of the Bible for my own benefit. Seems to me the attacks against the authenticity has increased or due to social media and YouTube I’m just more aware of the attacks.
At any rate I’d like some feedback from you and any other that have input on some of the issues. One argument that is bothering me now is this.
Why the theological change or is it a change? The argument is that the Paul of Acts is different from the Paul of the epistles. And Luke and Acts are supposedly by the same author Luke who accompanied Paul.
In Acts 21:15-26 Paul is told to put the new christian believing Jews who are zealous for the law, minds to rest by making temple sacrifices and purification rites.
Then in Galatians 2:12-16 We read Paul claiming to confront Barnabas and Peter over doing a similar action to please law zealous Jewish Christians by calling it hypocrisy.
One commentator said this, “ Paul of the Epistles makes it clear that sometimes advancing the gospel requires conciliation and concessions:
“To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.” —1 Corinthians 9:20
As for the differences in theology, most scholars would argue that the difference is actually the theological emphasis, not the theology itself, which can be attributed to each book’s unique purpose.”I’d like to hear your thoughts on this.
-
Michael,
In Acts 21 Paul was in Jerusalem for two purposes. The first was to deliver the special collection he had taken from many of the Gentile churches for the persecuted Jewish believers in Judea (Rom. 15:25-28), intending to deliver the gift on Pentecost (Acts 20:16).
His second reason was to complete his Nazarite vow, a vow he made while at Cencreae (Acts 18:18). The Nazarite vow is described in Numbers 6. It involved shaving the head at the beginning, then not cutting the hair during the entire time of the vow, and finally bringing an animal sacrifice offering to the Temple, shaving the head again, and throwing the hair into the fire with the burn offering.
When Paul arrived in Jerusalem and met with the church, there were others who had also made a Nazarite vow and were also preparing to conclude it on Pentecost.
This in no way conflicts with Paul’s practice which was to live as a Jew when among Jews, and as a Gentile when among Gentiles.
When Paul rebuked Peter in Gal. 2, it was because of what Peter did was among a MIXED congregation of Jews and Gentile believers, especially after he had already eaten non-kosher with Gentiles when he was at Cornelius house (Acts 11:3). Because of Paul’s teaching on UNITY of Jew and Gentile in Christ, the Jews in the Antioch church viewed eating “kosher” as optional, not a requirement since they were no longer under the Law of Moses. Paul rebuked Peter because his actions were creating a division between the Jewish and Gentile believers, which was destroying unity and Paul’s message.
Grace & Peace, Tim
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.