Dispensationalism, John Darby, etc.

[mike]

Both Ananias and Paul claimed that Christ visited them here on earth, either physically or in a vision. You don't see that anywhere else. And it violates Matthew 24:23-27.

The only other examples I can find of someone having a vision of Christ are Acts 7:55 where Stephen sees Christ in heaven, and the book of Revelation where John hears from the angel in heaven. Both of these have Christ in heaven, not on earth.

So that is the difference. Christ said He would not appear to anyone on earth in private, yet Paul and Ananias think otherwise.


As far as Ananias' vision, the first time the story is told, Ananias is told by Christ in a vision that Paul will be sent to the Gentiles. Acts 9:15

The second time the story is told, Ananias didn't have a vision, but told Paul he would be a witness for Christ, all on his own. Acts 22:12-16. After this, Christ appeared to Paul in a trance in the Temple and told Paul he would be sent to the Gentiles. Acts 22:17-21

The 3rd time the story is told, Paul forgot all about Ananias, the vision of Ananias, or even his own vision while in a trance in the Temple. Rather, Paul said that Christ told him that he would be sent to the Gentiles - right there on the Road to Damascus. Acts 26:15-18

Which story do you like the best?

And, why does the story change each time?

And what do you think is the problem when someone cannot keep their facts straight?

I think you only find lies here because you want to. I think this kind of unreasonable standard would find most historical literature to be replete with lies, and is just not realistic. Do you apply this rigid standard to your own words or writing over your lifetime? The differences between biblical accounts all through the scriptures don't mean the various parties were lying. They were speaking in various contexts and from various human perspectives, and those who recorded them may not have remembered them perfectly or seen the need to repeat every single every time they told the story. Multiple accounts with differing details are evidence of a real event; if every version was cookie cutter the same, we would know there was collusion between the different authors. I don't even close find this to be compelling evidence that Paul or Luke was a liar.

Mike,

Paul and Ananias seeing Jesus right here on earth and not in heaven not only violates what Christ said in Matt 24:23-27, but their experiences also violates what Peter knew to be true:

Acts 3:(20) And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

(21) Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Peter said Christ is in heaven, not on earth. Peter should know.

It's hard for me to keep track of who is to be believed and who isn't, and when, and why. You have said elsewhere that Peter was deceived about Paul. And yet here you quote Peter as being an authority. It's pretty confusing. I don't find your assertions convincing. I have no idea why I should trust anyone's word about Paul above the word of Peter and the testimony of Luke and the historical witness of the church. Christianity is defined by the teaching of Christ and the men he sent, and if we can't agree on who those men are, then there is quite a bit we will not agree on. It's really not worth continuing the discussion at some point.

[mike]

Here are a few examples of early Christians whose words are witness to the church's view of Paul as an apostle, and of his writings as accepted among the scriptures.

The website at that link lists, for example, some quotes from Polycarp, believed to have lived contemporaneous with the apostle John. I am sure John Hurt will just say Polycarp was deceived, but if I remember correctly, he has said that John warned about Paul's errors but not by name. If that is the case, how could a disciple of the apostle John, Polycarp, be so deceived as to list Paul among the apostles - see below:

Polycarp praises Paul as an inspired apostle
Polycarp called Paul an apostle.2

• Polycarp to the Philippians 3:2 — “[None can] replicate the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul. When he was with you he accurately and reliable taught the word of truth to those who were there at the time. And when he was absent he wrote you letters. If you carefully peer into them, you will be able to be built up in the faith that was given you [Ehrman, Apostolic Fathers, Vol 1. (Harvard, 2003)]
• Polycarp to the Philippians 9:1-2 — “…obey the word of righteousness and to pratice all endurance, which you also observed with your own eyes not only in the most fortunate Ignatius, Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others who lived among you, and in Paul himself and the other apostles. … They are with… the Lord, with whom they also suffered.” [Ehrman, Apostolic Fathers, Vol 1. (Harvard, 2003)]

Polycarp quoted Paul as inspired. He cites Paul’s letters 16 times in Polycarp tο the Philippians 1:3; 2:2; 4:1; 5:1, 3; 6:1, 2; 9:2; 11:1, 2, 4; 12:1.

[ohio jones]

[JohnHurt]

I think you only find lies here because you want to. I think this kind of unreasonable standard would find most historical literature to be replete with lies, and is just not realistic. Do you apply this rigid standard to your own words or writing over your lifetime? The differences between biblical accounts all through the scriptures don't mean the various parties were lying. They were speaking in various contexts and from various human perspectives, and those who recorded them may not have remembered them perfectly or seen the need to repeat every single every time they told the story. Multiple accounts with differing details are evidence of a real event; if every version was cookie cutter the same, we would know there was collusion between the different authors. I don't even close find this to be compelling evidence that Paul or Luke was a liar.

Mike,

Paul and Ananias seeing Jesus right here on earth and not in heaven not only violates what Christ said in Matt 24:23-27, but their experiences also violates what Peter knew to be true:

Acts 3:(20) And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

(21) Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Peter said Christ is in heaven, not on earth. Peter should know.

Hebrews also makes this same point that Christ is in heaven:

Heb 9:(11) But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

(12) Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Even if I wanted to make Paul and Ananias' stories about meeting Jesus on earth "fit", I can't because they just do not match the rest of the Bible.

The three accounts of Paul's conversion in Acts 9, 22, and 26 are in there for a reason. And the differences that Paul makes in each of the three stories are not trivial.

Luke is not a liar, he is a historian that wrote down what Paul said. He did not "cover" for Paul, which is why we know what we do.

To "clear Paul" from the charge of lying, you also have to explain how Paul lied to James by his actions in Acts 21:21-26, how he lied to the Sanhedrin about why he was arrested in Acts 23:6 when he claimed he was there because he believed in the resurrection of the dead, and how he lied to Agrippa about why he was arrested in Acts 26:6-8 - when he was arrested for bringing Greeks into the Temple. Acts 21:28-33

It is impossible. If you don't have an open mind on this, you won't see anything. And I won't argue with you.

In the Acts 9 account, Luke records these things as actually having happened. A good historian doesn't just write down what people say happened without verifying it, or if unable to verify he would so state.

You say that Paul was arrested for bringing Greeks into the Temple, but if you would take a moment to actually read the account Luke gives in Acts 21, you would see that the claims made by the Jews were much broader than having brought Gentiles into the Temple. That charge was tacked on after the claim that Paul was teaching against the people, the law, and the Temple. In fact, the Jews were making so many different claims that the chief captain couldn't even figure out what Paul had supposedly done wrong.

Nor is Paul's statement to the Sanhedrin that he was called into question because of the hope and resurrection of the dead in any way inaccurate. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the lynchpin of Christianity. The hope and resurrection of the dead was, in truth, the core issue.

Whatever you want to believe on this is fine with me.

[JohnHurt]

I think you only find lies here because you want to. I think this kind of unreasonable standard would find most historical literature to be replete with lies, and is just not realistic. Do you apply this rigid standard to your own words or writing over your lifetime? The differences between biblical accounts all through the scriptures don't mean the various parties were lying. They were speaking in various contexts and from various human perspectives, and those who recorded them may not have remembered them perfectly or seen the need to repeat every single every time they told the story. Multiple accounts with differing details are evidence of a real event; if every version was cookie cutter the same, we would know there was collusion between the different authors. I don't even close find this to be compelling evidence that Paul or Luke was a liar.

Mike,

Paul and Ananias seeing Jesus right here on earth and not in heaven not only violates what Christ said in Matt 24:23-27, but their experiences also violates what Peter knew to be true:

Acts 3:(20) And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

(21) Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Peter said Christ is in heaven, not on earth. Peter should know.

It's hard for me to keep track of who is to be believed and who isn't, and when, and why. You have said elsewhere that Peter was deceived about Paul. And yet here you quote Peter as being an authority. It's pretty confusing. I don't find your assertions convincing. I have no idea why I should trust anyone's word about Paul above the word of Peter and the testimony of Luke and the historical witness of the church. Christianity is defined by the teaching of Christ and the men he sent, and if we can't agree on who those men are, then there is quite a bit we will not agree on. It's really not worth continuing the discussion at some point.

Peter was an Apostle chosen by Christ, and Paul wasn't. Peter was given the keys of the kingdom by Christ, not Paul. But whatever you want to believe, you can.

[JohnHurt]

Here are a few examples of early Christians whose words are witness to the church's view of Paul as an apostle, and of his writings as accepted among the scriptures.

The website at that link lists, for example, some quotes from Polycarp, believed to have lived contemporaneous with the apostle John. I am sure John Hurt will just say Polycarp was deceived, but if I remember correctly, he has said that John warned about Paul's errors but not by name. If that is the case, how could a disciple of the apostle John, Polycarp, be so deceived as to list Paul among the apostles - see below:

Polycarp praises Paul as an inspired apostle
Polycarp called Paul an apostle.2

• Polycarp to the Philippians 3:2 — “[None can] replicate the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul. When he was with you he accurately and reliable taught the word of truth to those who were there at the time. And when he was absent he wrote you letters. If you carefully peer into them, you will be able to be built up in the faith that was given you [Ehrman, Apostolic Fathers, Vol 1. (Harvard, 2003)]
• Polycarp to the Philippians 9:1-2 — “…obey the word of righteousness and to pratice all endurance, which you also observed with your own eyes not only in the most fortunate Ignatius, Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others who lived among you, and in Paul himself and the other apostles. … They are with… the Lord, with whom they also suffered.” [Ehrman, Apostolic Fathers, Vol 1. (Harvard, 2003)]

Polycarp quoted Paul as inspired. He cites Paul’s letters 16 times in Polycarp tο the Philippians 1:3; 2:2; 4:1; 5:1, 3; 6:1, 2; 9:2; 11:1, 2, 4; 12:1.

Exactly how and when did Paul become an "apostle"?

[JohnHurt]

Does Darby rely on the Doctrines of Christ, or the doctrines of men that came after Christ, for proving dispensationalism?

And I have the same question for Covenant Theology, too. Is it based on the Doctrines of Christ, or the doctrines of men that came after Christ?

And my 3rd question is this: Dispensationalism, from what I understand, negates many of the teachings of Christ as being in a "prior" dispensation which makes them no longer valid, and so we must rely on the doctrines of men that came after Christ.

Does Covenant Theology do the same? Are the teachings of Christ superior to all other men under Covenant Theology, or are the later doctrines of men that came after Christ supreme? I have really never studied Covenant Theology, only Dispensationalism.

[mike]

Exactly how and when did Paul become an "apostle"?

We are not told precisely how or when Paul received that designation, which is simply a term meaning "a delegate, an ambassador of the gospel, or one that is sent." Paul was called by God in such a way that the early church viewed him as an apostle, a term which was not restricted to the twelve disciples of Jesus. If the disciples of Christ and the church accepted Paul as an apostle, then so do I. Barnabas was also spoken of as an apostle. We don't know how or when he received that designation, either. That must mean, according to you, that he is illegitimate also.

[mike]

It's hard for me to keep track of who is to be believed and who isn't, and when, and why. You have said elsewhere that Peter was deceived about Paul. And yet here you quote Peter as being an authority. It's pretty confusing. I don't find your assertions convincing. I have no idea why I should trust anyone's word about Paul above the word of Peter and the testimony of Luke and the historical witness of the church. Christianity is defined by the teaching of Christ and the men he sent, and if we can't agree on who those men are, then there is quite a bit we will not agree on. It's really not worth continuing the discussion at some point.

Peter was an Apostle chosen by Christ, and Paul wasn't. Peter was given the keys of the kingdom by Christ, not Paul. But whatever you want to believe, you can.

I believe what Peter said about Paul.

[silentreader]

It's hard for me to keep track of who is to be believed and who isn't, and when, and why. You have said elsewhere that Peter was deceived about Paul. And yet here you quote Peter as being an authority. It's pretty confusing. I don't find your assertions convincing. I have no idea why I should trust anyone's word about Paul above the word of Peter and the testimony of Luke and the historical witness of the church. Christianity is defined by the teaching of Christ and the men he sent, and if we can't agree on who those men are, then there is quite a bit we will not agree on. It's really not worth continuing the discussion at some point.

Peter was an Apostle chosen by Christ, and Paul wasn't. Peter was given the keys of the kingdom by Christ, not Paul. But whatever you want to believe, you can.

I believe what Peter said about Paul.

And if Paul's teachings are from the Holy Spirit and he is called a liar, is that not similar to what Jesus experienced from His detractors, and does He not give a strong warning of the consequences?