Paul's contradiction about circumcision

[Montalban]

Who cares about circumcision? Seriously? Does it change what Christ taught? Has anyone gone through this kind of thing as an adult? I have. And who cares if it is for religious reasons or health reasons. Geez....we get so caught up in things that don't matter in regards to spirituality.

You've hit the nail on the head. St. Paul didn't care, insofar as for him, the act would save him.

But the people he was going to speak to, did care. So, it was no big deal for him and Timothy (except for the physical pain; which goes to show how much a Christian would go through, just to spread the word of God!)

 

[saiful-Islam-Khattab]

Read about St. Pauls conversion on the Road to Damascus. (Acts 9) Who spoke to him?

I have, no one heard anything nor saw anything.He tells one story to the people and another to King Agrippa. Strange isn't it.

 

[Montalban]

I have,

Not the 'pop-up' version!

no one heard anything nor saw anything

Except St. Paul!
Oops, and Ananias!
Ananias had a vision from the Lord saying to expect a man; Saul (who became St Paul).
You've missed that.

He tells one story to the people and another to King Agrippa. Strange isn't it.

Where? (see below). Before you go to that, I've a question for you, which verses are as they were when the revelation was given, and which have been changed? (As a Muslim you believe some verses of the Bible have been changed, or are incomplete.) Which verses are which?


When Paul saw the light, did all fall to the ground or not?
Acts 9:3-4 and Acts 26:13-14


(Acts 9:3-4) - "And it came about that as he journeyed, he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; 4and he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?"
(Acts 26:13-14) - "at midday, O King, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining all around me and those who were journeying with me. 14"And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’

Of course, there is no contradiction here at all. If all fell to the ground, then Paul who was with the group of men, fell to the ground also. Just because one verse says all and the other mentions only Paul does not mean there is a problem.
http://www.carm.org/diff/Acts9_4.htm

Did the men with Paul hear the voice or not?
Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9


They heard the voice
(Acts 9:7, NASB) - "And the men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no one."
(Acts 9:7, NIV) - "The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone."
(Acts 9:7, KJV) - "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man"
They did not hear the voice
(Acts 22:9, KJV) - "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."
(Acts 22:9, NASB) - "And those who were with me beheld the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me."
(Acts 22:9, NIV) "My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me."

This is an interesting difficulty to tackle. As you can see from the different translations above, at attempt has been made to harmonize the difficulty by translating Acts 22:9 as "did not understand the voice," (NASB & NIV) where the KJV states "... they heard not the voice.." Literally, the Greek in 22:9 says, "they did not hear the sound." So, did they or did they not hear the sound?
Various explanations have been offered but the most common is summed up in the following quotes.

"Literally, that clause in 22:9 may be translated, “They did not hear the sound.” The NIV correctly translates the verse, because the verb “to hear” with the genitive case may mean “to hear a sound” and with the accusative case “to hear with understanding.” The genitive case is employed in 9:7, and the accusative is used in 22:9. So the travelers with Saul heard the sound (9:7) but did not understand what Christ said (22:9)." (Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.)

Thus in Acts 9:7, “hearing the voice,” the noun “voice” is in the partitive genitive case [i.e., hearing (something) of], whereas in 22:9, “they heard not the voice,” the construction is with the accusative. This removes the idea of any contradiction. The former indicates a hearing of the sound, the latter indicates the meaning or message of the voice (this they did not hear). “The former denotes the sensational perception, the latter (the accusative case) the thing perceived” (Cremer). Vine, W. E., Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, (Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell) 1981.
http://www.carm.org/diff/Acts9_7.htm

 

[saiful-Islam-Khattab]

Not the 'pop-up' version!

Except St. Paul!
Oops, and Ananias!
Ananias had a vision from the Lord saying to expect a man; Saul (who became St Paul).
You've missed that.

Where? (see below). Before you go to that, I've a question for you, which verses are as they were when the revelation was given, and which have been changed? (As a Muslim you believe some verses of the Bible have been changed, or are incomplete.) Which verses are which?


When Paul saw the light, did all fall to the ground or not?
Acts 9:3-4 and Acts 26:13-14


(Acts 9:3-4) - "And it came about that as he journeyed, he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; 4and he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?"
(Acts 26:13-14) - "at midday, O King, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining all around me and those who were journeying with me. 14"And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’

Of course, there is no contradiction here at all. If all fell to the ground, then Paul who was with the group of men, fell to the ground also. Just because one verse says all and the other mentions only Paul does not mean there is a problem.
http://www.carm.org/diff/Acts9_4.htm

Did the men with Paul hear the voice or not?
Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9


They heard the voice
(Acts 9:7, NASB) - "And the men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no one."
(Acts 9:7, NIV) - "The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone."
(Acts 9:7, KJV) - "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man"
They did not hear the voice
(Acts 22:9, KJV) - "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."
(Acts 22:9, NASB) - "And those who were with me beheld the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me."
(Acts 22:9, NIV) "My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me."

This is an interesting difficulty to tackle. As you can see from the different translations above, at attempt has been made to harmonize the difficulty by translating Acts 22:9 as "did not understand the voice," (NASB & NIV) where the KJV states "... they heard not the voice.." Literally, the Greek in 22:9 says, "they did not hear the sound." So, did they or did they not hear the sound?
Various explanations have been offered but the most common is summed up in the following quotes.

"Literally, that clause in 22:9 may be translated, “They did not hear the sound.” The NIV correctly translates the verse, because the verb “to hear” with the genitive case may mean “to hear a sound” and with the accusative case “to hear with understanding.” The genitive case is employed in 9:7, and the accusative is used in 22:9. So the travelers with Saul heard the sound (9:7) but did not understand what Christ said (22:9)." (Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.)

Thus in Acts 9:7, “hearing the voice,” the noun “voice” is in the partitive genitive case [i.e., hearing (something) of], whereas in 22:9, “they heard not the voice,” the construction is with the accusative. This removes the idea of any contradiction. The former indicates a hearing of the sound, the latter indicates the meaning or message of the voice (this they did not hear). “The former denotes the sensational perception, the latter (the accusative case) the thing perceived” (Cremer). Vine, W. E., Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, (Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell) 1981.
http://www.carm.org/diff/Acts9_7.htm

To hear and not understand is the same as not to hear. Would a testimony of one who heard and did not understand and of one who did not hear, stand up in a court of law. At the end of the day they did not understand what was said and who said what. That is not evidence. As far as Ananias vision, who wrote the Book of acts, who worte most of the Bible from who's epistle. to Aggrippa who a gentile he says Jesus sent him to the Gentile while Jesus all his life preached to the Lost tribe of Israel alone not to the Gentiles.

 

[Bevlina]

I have, no one heard anything nor saw anything.He tells one story to the people and another to King Agrippa. Strange isn't it.

No. It is not strange. What right have you, a muslim, to come to CHRISTIAN FORUMS and insinuate the appointed Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, was a liar.
Paul was appointed by the very Jesus Christ, the SON of God. And, he HAD witnesses.

 

[peaceful soul]

The Greek work akou (English) - to hear - needs to be explained. I have posted this as a part of a larger response somewhere else, but it bears repeating.

In the original Greek, however, there is no real contradiction between these two statements. Greek makes a distinction between hearing a sound as a noise (in which case the verb "to hear" takes the genitive case) and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying message (in which case it takes the accusative). Therefore, as we put the two statements together, we find that Paul's companions heard the Voice as a sound (somewhat like the crowd who heard the sound of the Father talking to the Son in John 12:28, but perceived it only as thunder); but they did not (like Paul) hear the message that it articulated. Paul alone heard it inteligibly (Acts 9:4 says Paul ekousen phonen--accusative case); though he, of course, perceived it also as a startling sound at first (Acts 22:7: "I fell to the ground and heard a voice [ekousa phones] saying to me," NASB). But in neither account is it stated that his companions ever heard that Voice in the accusative case.
-- Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, by Gleason L. Archer, p. 382.

I hope that we can rest now!

 

[Starcrystal]

Totally agree thanx mate for clarifying
Ro 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Ro 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

2Ti 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:
thanx
Saiful-Islam-Khattab

Yeah, that is interesting how he says "MY" gospel. Isn't it supposed to be "the" gospel or Christs gospel. Paul of course is master at correcting his own errors. In Galatians 1 he tells of "another gospel" and how some would pervert the gospel of Christ. If we read all of Pauls letters with an unbiased approach we find that Paul often will build up an argument promoting a certain twist in theology, then tear down the same argument elsewhere.

Is the Gospel of Mary Magdalene authentic and if so why is it apocrypha?

It is quite old, at least around the third century. I like it. Mary was the very first to see the risen Jesus, she went to the tomb while it was still dark, and was the FIRST person Jesus sent to tell others that he had risen. Why is it apocrypha? The document is incomplete and is in fragments. But I don't think that's the real reason. Patriarchal suppression would be my guess.
I think spiritual revelation can be verified. Long before I ever heard of the gospel of Mary I received revelation from angels that basically said the same thing about the matter and energy:

"The Savior said, All nature, all formations, all creatures exist in and with one another, and they will be resolved again into their own roots.
For the nature of matter is resolved into the roots of its own nature alone." ~ Gospel of Mary

"The universe will resonate upwards into higher planes as all matter shifts towards its Creator. The 3rd dimension will become empty and void, without form. It will collapse in upon itself, imploding, becoming the outer darkness, a place of nothingness into which all negative forms must descend and be crushed by the collapsing of this present plane into nonexistence. At that time the light of the ONE THAT IS will be among the people and within them in full brilliance. Eternity will envelope what is material substance of the 4th plane. Eternity will gradually consume time, and all will ascend upwards until the 7th realm is achieved. " ~ Orion Files 1999

The "roots" could have a twofold meaning: that matter will be broken down into it's tiniest elements and all impurities destroyed, then that which is pure will be brought into alignment with God, who is the "root" of all pure matter created. At least that's what I get out of it.

 

[Montalban]

To hear and not understand is the same as not to hear. Would a testimony of one who heard and did not understand and of one who did not hear, stand up in a court of law. At the end of the day they did not understand what was said and who said what. That is not evidence. As far as Ananias vision, who wrote the Book of acts, who worte most of the Bible from who's epistle. to Aggrippa who a gentile he says Jesus sent him to the Gentile while Jesus all his life preached to the Lost tribe of Israel alone not to the Gentiles.

Your question has been answered by myself, and peaceful soul.
Importantly you failed to answer my question. Which parts of the Gospels are maintaing the 'inspiration' or Al-lah?

You seem to be in a bit of a bind now by rejecting ALL of it!

 

[markie]

Jesus said iin the bible that one cannot serve two masters.

Mt 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Lu 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
So either one follows Jesus or follow Paul but you cannot serve both at one time.Both Teachings contradict.
Saiful-Islam-Khattab

If we followed Paul and Paul wasn't following Jesus then we wouldn't be following Jesus, but since Paul was following Jesus we are following Jesus. He said to follow Jesus like he was following Jesus. I know you don't believe he was doing that but we do, and he was. He was using himself as an example of following Jesus.

 

[markie]

Well that is contradictory because today that is exactly what peole are doing following Paul and not Jesus.Jesus said that he came to fulfill the the law not abolish.
Mt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Paul abolished the word of Jesus and the law Jesus came to Fulfill.Had these laws needed to be destroyed or abolished Jesus would have said so he would not contradict himself by saying one thing and Paul doing another.
Saiful-Islam-Khattab

If the law was fulfilled it wasn't abolished. Jesus said he came to meet the of requirements of the law, that's fulfilling the law not abolishing it. As for your last post about Mary magdaleene, she was a disciple of Jesus so wwas barnabus and a number of other people. Just because their name is on it doesn't mean they wrote it. The gospel of barnabus contradicts your oown koran why do Islamic sites recommend it? I read there was a Gnostic gospel of barnabus and *** was lost, but this one even contradicts your own teachings about Jesus and says that Mohammed is the messiah.