A New Testament “Contradiction By Omission”?

[readyforchange]

Greetings.  This is my first posting to ExChristian.net.  I apologize in advance if I may be unaware of any posting protocols or procedures.  I think that I am in the right area.  Also, let me say that I do not know if anyone else here may have previously posted a similar potential contradiction, or if this topic might have been addressed earlier. 

 

There may be a (potential) contradiction between two New Testament sources.  And in attempting to find out if there is an explanation or rationale for this (potential) contradiction, it seems, at least based on my knowledge of what exists in the realm of Biblical scholarship and Christian apologetics, that this could be a (potential) contradiction that has never been addressed.  If anyone has a source that provides an explanation or rationale, please share.

 

I use the term “Contradiction by Omission”, because it is not a typical (potential) contradiction.  The (potential) contradiction is in two otherwise unrelated passages, but it is such to where the object of what is described in one passage appears to be missing something crucial that is stated in a different passage.  What also stands out, at least to this point, is that viewing the (potential) contradiction from the perspective of the spread of the Christian faith after Jesus’ death appears to be rather striking.

 

I’ve been trying for a few days to think of potential explanations or rationale, but I am finding it hard to come up with something of any type of substance that can explain or rationalize this (potential) contradiction. This is based on the following reasons:

• Two of the largest, most comprehensive Christian apologetic websites, CARM and Tekton, do not appear to mention it anywhere.  There are various other apologetic defenses of different aspects of the same passages, but those are unrelated to this (potential) contradiction. 
• The (potential) contradiction, if it stands, is striking to me because of what might be some broader implications of this (potential) contradiction - thinking of the timeframe in which it occurs, along with the individuals involved. 
• I think the (potential) contradiction, if it stands, could actually be seen as a (potential) contradiction that goes beyond the New Testament itself , because the (potential) contradiction could have impacted the salvation of nearly every Christian, from those who lived in the past to those who live today.

Because I do not know if this (potential) contradiction has ever been addressed, I will do something a bit different here.  Instead of me telling you what the (potential) contradiction is, I will present this in a way such that you have the opportunity to identify it yourselves.  If you are familiar with various Facebook, Instagram, or other social media postings or photos that go viral (e.g., the “dress that changes color”, or the “When is Cheryl’s birthday?” math problem”), I think that the beauty of these types of posts or photos is that they present an image or a question that is not answered within the post or photo, itself.  I think this allows the reader or recipient the opportunity to become part of a shared conversation and dialogue with others, to active engage in the process to provide or formulate the answer. 

 

So in that spirit, here is what I think is a (potential) New Testament “Contradiction by Omission”:

 

Read Acts 15:22-35 (The Letter for Gentile Believers).  Then read the passage again, this time with a focus on verses 28 - 29.  Next read Matthew 12:22-37 (Jesus and the Prince of Demons).  Then read the passage again, this time with a focus on verses 31 - 32.

 

Was the letter that the apostles and elders wrote to the Gentile believers complete?

 

[WarriorPoet]

I read the passages, but I am not sure what your angle is here.  Just guessing, I am thinking that what you are pointing out is that in Acts, they didn't include a warning about blaspheming the holy spirit.  If that is the case, I think that you are misunderstanding the purpose of the letter.  In the 1st century, jewish xians still believed that they needed to follow the entire law of Moses but they realized that gentiles need not do so.  The purpose of the letter was to inform the gentile believers what portions of jewish law that the jewish believers thought should be applicable to gentile believers as well.  If I am understanding the point of your post than I don't think that this is a contradiction because the gentiles would already theoretically be trying to follow the commands of jesus but would possibly be confused by all the stuff in the o.t.

 

If the assumption I made is wrong, or if I am missing something, please let me know.

[readyforchange]

Thanks WarriorPoet.  I follow your explanation, and you are correct.  The letter was only intended to inform the Gentile believers what portions of the Jewish law should still be applicable to the Gentile believers.  Yes, the Gentile believers would be in theory following the oral commands of Jesus.  I forgot about the oral stories aspect, that Jesus' sayings were still transmitted orally at that point in time, when the letter was written.  And the letter was only written to specifically address the Jewish law question.  Thanks again!

[bornagainathiest]

Hi Ready!  

 

How about this for an NT contradiction?

 

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91771&page=5

 

In post # 71 Elia points out multiple errors made by the martyr Stephen in his speech to the Sanhedrin.

(See Acts 7) He quite rightly wonders how so many mistakes can be made by a true Christian speaking via the power of the Holy Spirit.  Isn't the Spirit supposed to guide Christians into the truth?

.

.

.

Personally, I find the repercussions of Stephen's (allegedly) divinely-inspired (but error-laden) speech to be very significant. Why?  Because of verse 58.  Stephen's martyrdom sets the Biblical stage for the arrival of Saul of Tarsus.  Saul who would later become Paul.  Paul, who next to Jesus, was the most influential person in the New Testament.

.

.

.

Your thoughts?

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[readyforchange]

Hi BAA.  I see that those types of viral posts/pics resonate with you, too!

 

Thanks for the link.  I checked out the post you referenced.  I have not read Stephen's speech closely in a long time, but I really like the points made by Eila there regarding the age of Abraham's father and the number of souls of the house of Jacob.  Seems like those are errors Stephen made during his speech (or maybe the spirit was "fleeting" for him, coming and going?) that should not be there if it is the Holy Spirit dictating his words.  The account of Stephen's martyrdom at the end of Acts 7 is something that I have not paid close attention to before.  But in reading it now, I think I see a few "interesting" things.  Please let me know if I am on the right track:

 

Verse 57 says that they (the Jewish leaders) put their hands over their ears...rushed at him.  Verse 58 says that as Stephen was stoned, the official witnesses took off their coats and laid them at the feet of Saul.  Well...wasn't Saul one of the official witnesses?  I see in version 8:1, Saul was one of the official witnesses at the killing of Stephen.  So if Saul was one of the official witnesses, seems like he would have been one of the people taking off his coat.  Or, maybe Saul only became an official witness after Stephen died?  But then, I think that's an oxymoron - Stephen is already dead at that time, so he would have only witnessed the deceased body...

 

The start of verse 57 is also odd to me:  "Then they put their hands over their ears..".  Ok.  So, all these official witnesses / Jewish leaders just sat idly and listened to this really long speech by Stephen, but only at the very end they did not like what he was saying enough in order to cover their ears?  Then, it seems like it would be hard to both cover your ears with both of your hands, shout, and rush towards someone all at the same time.  I would have a challenging time just walking, much less rushing, towards someone with both of my hands over my ears.  I used to really try hard to make things in the Bible like this work and not think too hard about the story, but boy, seems really hard not to see that as a fictional tidbit. 

 

You know, the whole account of the speech given by Stephen in Acts always seemed "off" to me.  I think I remember reading somewhere that Stephen's speech in Acts is the longest uninterrupted speech given in the entire New Testament.  But the author of Acts is traditionally considered to be Luke.  But Luke, to my knowledge, did not come on to the scene until after Paul had his conversion and when they later became traveling companions.  If so, then Luke had to have someone as his source for the content of Stephen's speech (aside from the "Holy Spirit").  Stephen himself died right after his speech - don't think he had any time to relay the account himself.  So, if Luke's source was Paul, then Paul must have had a really good memory to recall that much uninterrupted speech verbatim!  Anyone, for that matter. 

[Jeff]

Man. It's like they just made this stuff up or something

[readyforchange]

Ditto Jeff.

 

WarriorPoet, if you are still here, I just think I realized why I was thinking that there was a potential contradiction between the letter to the Gentile believers in Acts 15 and with Jesus' statement in Matthew 12 that every sin or blasphemy can be forgiven, but that blasphemy against the holy spirit would never be forgiven (either in this world, or in the world to come).  Right now, this is just me typing out my thoughts as I think through this on the fly.  So it might be hard to follow, but I'll try to walk through this if I can:

 

So, the reason I thought I saw a potential contradiction was not related to the reason why the apostles and elders wrote the letter to the Gentile believers.  I am still learning how to post and reply with quotes here, but was the purpose of the letter to the Gentile believers:

 

"The purpose of the letter was to inform the gentile believers what portions of jewish law that the jewish believers thought should be applicable to gentile believers as well.  If I am understanding the point of your post than I don't think that this is a contradiction because the gentiles would already theoretically be trying to follow the commands of jesus but would possibly be confused by all the stuff in the o.t."

 

The reason I thought I saw a potential contradiction had to do with just the mere fact that a letter was written in the first place. 

 

I'll see if I can elaborate.  I know there a various estimates on when the author of Luke wrote Acts.  I think that what is generally accepted is that the same author of the Gospel of Luke wrote Acts, so Acts was actually composed by the author after the Gospel of Luke was written.  The most common dating on the Gospel of Luke I've seen is that it was composed after the Roman destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD.  So when Luke is writing Acts, he is writing after that point in time.  However, if we consider the actual timeframe for when the events that Luke is describing in Acts occurred in history, at the time that the apostles and elders actually composed the letter to the Gentiles, the most (if not all?) of the stories about the life of Jesus and his sayings would have still been transmitted orally.  Most (if not all?) of the stories about Jesus' life and what he said were, at the time in history the apostles and elders composed that letter to the Gentile believers, were still being transmitted orally.  So, the earliest surviving accounts about the life of Jesus were written by Paul (45 - 65 AD, perhaps?).  Paul was present when the letter to the Gentile believers was composed, so unless the letter to the Gentile believers was composed after 45 AD, the letter to the Gentile believers might have been the first written document related to Jesus (at least that survives to this day).  I might be wrong about that, though, I'm not sure.  But, let's say the letter to the Gentile believers was the earliest written account related to Jesus, for the sake of argument.  If that is true, then this is why I thought I saw some type of contradiction.  Again, this is NOT about the actual reason, but sort of the sense of "priority" of what you COULD write a letter about:

 

Why, if you are the apostles and elders, would you feel the need to write a letter to the Gentile believers instructing them that there are only four portions of the the Jewish law that the needed to follow to be ok as Jewish converts to Christianity - when that letter is describing four requirements that the Gentile believers needed to abstain from (i.e., they should NOT do these four things) - but you do NOT ever write a letter to Gentile belivers to tell them about the ONE sin that JESUS said can NEVER be forgiven?

 

Any thoughts?

[readyforchange]

So, in other words, they feel the need to write a letter about four sins that CAN still be forgiven by God/Jesus/Holy Spirit, but they never write a letter to the Gentile believers about the one sin that they cannot be forgiven for?  And also, considering the length of the letter to the Gentile believers, could not that information have been relayed to the Gentile believers orally, anyway? 

 

If this does not make any sense, I understand.  But I think this is why I was thinking something was off with the timing of the letter. 

 

Thanks - any thoughts appreciated. 

[readyforchange]

So, I thought back to the reason why the letter to the Gentile believers was written, and that it was only to address those questions about the Jewish law.  And that everything Jesus said was still being transmitted orally at the time.  So I think it still make sense on that level for me.  I guess I am thinking about the oral communication aspect of Jesus saying that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit would never be forgiven.  Jesus would have made that statement somewhere around 30 - 33 AD, correct?  Matthew did not actually write his gospel until after ~70 AD, from what I understand.  The letter to the Gentile believers might have been written somewhere before ~45 AD?  So, for those Gentiles who heard the gospel and believed in Jesus, from the time they first believed until the time they died, they were subject to being condemned for blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, right?  If that's true, then isn't there a significant risk to these new Gentile believers?  All of them must hear an oral account relayed by a 3rd party to orally tell them that they cannot ever blaspheme against the Holy Spirit.  So how do we know that ALL Gentile believers actually did have a 3rd party orally transmit that message to them?  Can we be sure about that?  If not, what about the ultimate salvation of these Gentile believers if ANY of them happened to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit before they died before that message from Jesus got transmitted by a 3rd party to them? 

[readyforchange]

Sorry for the multiple posts!  So, I just thought about this further.  Ok, the Gospel of Matthew was written, maybe, ~70 - 75 AD.  But, think about this:  How many people actually had ACCESS to that manuscript?  Not just back around the time Paul was spreading the Gospel, but all the way from back the time of Paul through maybe the invention of the printing press, which I think was invented in the 1500s or 1600s?  Because the first time that most lay people actually had direct ACCESS to the Gospel of Matthew was after the invention of the printing press.  Before that (and please correct if I am wrong), the copies of Bible manuscripts were only directly accessible by the leaders of the Catholic Church and local bishops, priests, etc.  Again, I may not be recalling this accurately, so if not, just let me know. 

 

So...from the time Jesus stated that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit could not be forgiven (~30 - 33 AD), up until when a printed version of the Bible became available to common people, the only way Gentiles all throughout history could have known NOT to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit would have been ONLY if that information got relayed to the Gentile via a 3rd party, oral transmission, and not by the Gentile believer himself having access to the Gospel of Matthew to read for himself?

 

If that could be the case (again, please let me know if I'm missing something), until a Gentile believer got direct access to a printed version of the Bible, and then, unless that Gentile believer actually 1) decided to read the Bible closely, and 2) actually read, comprehended, and fully understood the verses in Matthew when Jesus said you cannot blaspheme, don't we have to hope and trust that all these Gentile believers actually heard orally from a 3rd party that they could never be forgiven if they ever blasphemed against the Holy Spirit?

 

Again, my apologies for the multiple posts, but I think this was the aspect that was not making sense to me. 

[bornagainathiest]

Hi Ready!

 

If it's ok with you, can I confine the content of my reply to the subject of Acts 7?

 

It's just that you've posted a lot of interesting stuff and I can't really do justice to any more than a part of it.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[WarriorPoet]

Hey Ready, yes I'm still around.

 

You raise some interesting points, but I still think that the purpose of the letter in Acts is simply a clarification of what the jewish believers thought that the gentiles should do regarding o.t. law.  The gospels that we have today were written far after the events of Acts occurred, but these people had to have heard about the teachings and actions of jesus before that to have become believers in the first place.  They had already been told the stories and had the words of jesus passed on to them.  There may be a case to be made that the "unforgivable sin" should have been included, but I think that something that you are forgetting is that the stories and letters that are present in the current bible were not the only communications that would have been sent between all the new churches and groups of believers in the 1st century.  It is a fairly safe assumption that the composers of the letter in acts would have every reason to believe that the gentile believers knew about this.

 

I'm really not trying to rain on your parade here.  I just feel that if you want to engage in counter-apologetics, there are far better points to be made.  If you can't show that there is a good reason to think that the recipients of the letter wouldn't have been familiar with jesus' teachings then you can't justify this being a contradiction.  I think that if you try to raise this point against an apologist, they would be able to wiggle a way out of it far to easily.

[readyforchange]

Hi BAA.  Sure, no problem at all.  Totally fine. 

 

Hey WarriorPoet.  Thanks a lot for your reply, and yes, I follow you.  I actually see that there is no contradiction between Acts and Matthew.  I apologize, as I probably should have said this up front, but the series of replies I sent earlier today were actually the complete transition of my thought process away from that Acts/Matthew question to something else entirely.  Which is just only the Matthew passage (just totally forgetting about Acts and the letter).  Any thoughts on my post #10?  Or actually, if you just take the portion of your post #12 reply that only deals with the Matthew passage about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, that's kind of where you can say I transitioned to.  In just trying to figure out how I got thrown off about the letter earlier, I now think that the letter was just the impetus for me questioning the Matthew passage.  It's actually not anything more to do with the letter at all.  It's now only about what Jesus said about not blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, more from a philosophical standpoint.  Which is:  How can we be sure that every Gentile believer who both lived after Jesus made this statement about not blaspheming and before an actual printed copy of the Bible (after the invention of the printing press) got into the actual hands of Gentiles (so that they could read Matthew for themselves) actually were told (orally) that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin?  I guess it's just more of something I just wonder about in general and maybe not anything to it at all. 

[readyforchange]

Sorry, one more thought occurred to me, too:  Are not many currently Christians living TODAY also at risk of missing salvation?  Think about how many Christians (whether people you know or maybe communicate with online) today access the Bible, or how many may read the Bible closely?  Because most of the time, I think the focus of the Matthew passage, when it is discussed orally in church, is much more about what happened with the demon-possed man.  How many Christians, if we were to poll them and ask, "Can all sins be forgiven by Jesus if you believe in your heart that He died and was raised from the dead to forgive all of your sins?" would CONFIDENTLY answer that question as "yes"?  I say that in reflecting on my own experience.  As an currently-identifying agnostic, what's amazing to me is that I actually now read the Bible FAR more often and FAR more closely now than I ever did when I could say I was a 100% believer.  And in all the years when I was a 100% believer, I do not ever recall hearing a pastor/minister/elder specifically say that there is an unforgivable sin.  Now granted, I may have heard something of some context before or "sort of heard something" once or twice.  But never did I actually hear about this unforgivable sin and fully comprehend the consequences of committing it.

 

So...let's just take me for instance.  If one day, back when I was a 100% believer, I had NEVER orally heard, or even if I did "sort of heard something" once or twice, but NEVER FULLY COMPREHENDED the MAGNITUDE of what I did hear.  And I also never paid attention to those two verses in Matthew about blasphemy as the unforgivable sin...

 

One day I am walking in my house and I stub my toe really hard against a door, then I, without thinking, say the G-D phrase out loud...would I have then forever lost my chance at salvation?

[bornagainathiest]

Ok Ready, let's take a closer look at Acts 7.

 

Your point about the holy spirit 'fleeting' is a possible escape route that Christians might take to get the holy spirit... "off the hook."

They might say that from verses 2 to 53, Stephen was speaking on his own. Which is why he makes those mistakes and why in verse 55 it specifically says that he was filled the holy spirit.  They might contend that he was speaking via the holy spirit from that moment - but not before it.  Therefore the holy spirit cannot be held responsible for making any kind of error.

 

But as we shall see, that kind of 'get out of jail' card can't be played here.

Context simply won't allow it.  There are two reasons for this.  Firstly, Stephen is portrayed as a man filled with the holy spirit in verses 3, 5 and 10 of the preceding chapter.  In Acts 6 there are also two other references (verses 8 and 15) which cannot be dismissed or downplayed.  In these verses the holy spirit is clearly working powerfully thru him. 

 

How else could he have... "performed great wonders and signs among the people" ...if it wasn't via the holy spirit?

And if we refer back to Acts 1 we see that such power was exactly the promise made by Jesus (in verses 4, 5 and 8) to his disciples, based upon what he told them during his pre-crucifixion ministry.  So there is a firm scriptural basis for saying Stephen was filled with the holy spirit, just as Jesus had promised.

 

Also, in Acts 6 : 15 the text says that Stephen's face was like that of an angel.

Now, why is this?  Is it just because Stephen is resigned to his fate or is there another scriptural reason why he looked like this?  To find out we need to move on to the second contextual reason we can conclude that the holy spirit was speaking thru Stephen from verse 2 onwards.  We must now refer to the gospels of Mark and Luke.

 

In Mark 13 the disciples Peter, James, John and Andrew question Jesus privately about future events.

In verses 9 and 10 he tells them... "You must be on your guard.  You will be handed over to the local councils. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. And the gospel must first be preached to all nations.  Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand what to say.  Just say whatever is given to you at the time, for it is not you speaking but the Holy Spirit."

 

(Please take note Ready, that the Sanhedrin was just such a local council.)

 

A similar message is given to the disciples by Jesus in Luke 12 : 11 & 12.

"When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourself or what you will say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what to say."

 

Now, a careful examination of Acts shows Jesus' prediction coming true.

In Acts 4 Peter and John are brought before the Sanhedrin, Peter is filled with the Holy Spirit (verse 8) and speaks eloquently - using the words given to him by the Holy spirit.  This point is emphasized by verse 13.  How could unschooled, ordinary men (They were fishermen on Lake Galilee) speak with such power unless it was the Holy Spirit speaking for them? 

 

This therefore explains why Stephen's face was like that of an angel in Acts 6 : 15.

Just as Jesus had promised, the Holy spirit was giving him the words to say to the Sanhedrin.  Not just from verse 55 onwards but from verse 2 of chapter 7 - when he begins to address the Sanhedrin.  No other reasonable, contextually-correct explanation is possible. 

 

It also makes no sense to say that Peter's words to the Sanhedrin were a fulfilment of Mark 13 and Luke 12, but Stephen's weren't. 

Both men were described as being filled with the Holy spirit before their speeches.  And if only Peter was helped in this way, but not Stephen - then Jesus' promise of help from the Holy Spirit was only good for the disciples and nobody else.  Presumably because he made this promise only to them and not to Stephen in person?

 

This 'Peter-but-not Stephen' conclusion then raises the joint questions of who Jesus' promises and commands were made to and who for. 

Just the twelve disciples?  Just the Seventy-Two (see Luke 12)..?  Only those were actually with him while he was on Earth?  Where do you draw the line?  That conclusion would mean going thru the Gospels verse by verse, carefully checking who was present when Jesus was making his promises and issuing his commands.  If someone wasn't actually there when Jesus was speaking, then this particular promise or that particular command doesn't apply to them?

 

Really?

Wouldn't this mean that Mark 16 : 15 -18 (also known as the Great Commission) applied ONLY to the eleven disciples and NOBODY else? 

Since no one else was there to hear Jesus's words?  And that the driving out of demons, the speaking in new tongues, the picking up of snakes, the drinking of deadly poison and the healing of the sick ONLY applied to the eleven remaining disciples?  

 

So, by that line of argument (unless you actually hear Jesus say something to you, it doesn't apply to you) the apostle Paul (who didn't hear anything Jesus said until they 'met' on the road to Damascus) can't have cast out demons, picked up snakes and healed the sick by the power of the Holy Spirit, can he?

 

No, there's no viable way to claim that Peter was aided by the Holy Spirit, but for 53 verses, Stephen wasn't.

So the apologetic escape route of claiming that Stephen was speaking on his own until verse 55 holds no water.  Clearly both he and Peter were being given the words to say to the Sanhedrin by the Holy spirit, as per the promise made by Jesus, not only to his immediate disciples - but also to any of his followers being brought to trial.

.

.

.

Therefore, the historical and factual mistakes made by the Holy Spirit in Acts 7 stand, Ready.

Which means that Acts 7 is a direct scriptural contradiction of John 15 : 26.

 

"When the Advocate comes, whom I will send from my Father - the spirit of truth who goes out from the Father - he will testify about me."

 

NOT TRUE!  

 

THE HOLY SPIRIT GAVE STEPHEN FALSE INFORMATION IN HIS TESTIMONY TO THE SANHEDRIN!

 

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

[EyesOpened]

This thread is simply amazing. I have learned so much here. The last post from BAA was genius. I want to thank RC & BAA for this extensive thread. I am learning so much and it just shows me how ignorant i am to the bible. Looks like i have a lot of reading to redo to understand all of it better.

 

Thanks

[WarriorPoet]

but the series of replies I sent earlier today were actually the complete transition of my thought process away from that Acts/Matthew question to something else entirely.

Ok, sorry, must not have been paying close enough attention to what I was reading.  Completely my bad.

 

This new angle that you are taking has more to it, but I'm not sure that I could elaborate much more than I did in post #12 when I mentioned all of the other communication that would have been happening in the early church.  Maybe this was something that was well known before the gospel of Matthew was written, maybe it wasn't.  I see your point that if this wasn't common knowledge, that is potentially setting a lot of people up for failure and it would be an oversight by the early leaders to not spread the knowledge more effectively.  You would think that if this was as important as it appears to be, it would have been mentioned a lot more than just one small blurb in one of the gospels.

[readyforchange]

Hey BAA:  Wow, thanks for breaking Stephen's speech in Acts down like that!  I wanted to send a quick message to let you know I got it.  Got a few things going on at work this week, so I may not get a chance to respond back for a couple of days.  But I definitely will read through and see if I can follow along in Acts with what you posted. 

 

WarriorPoet:  Hey, no problem.  Appreciate the feedback and your thoughts.  Your explanation to me earlier about the letter to the Gentiles helped me to eventually see that the letter to the Gentiles was like a red herring for me.  What I was really wondering about was the Matthew passage about never blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, and realizing that the early apostles and elders actually wrote a letter well before Matthew ever got written down is what got me to thinking.  Actually, I am contemplating something else related to the blasphemy passage - when I get a chance to return, I'll follow up on that. 

[Scottsman]

The last 12 verses of mark are a known forgery and do not apply.

[bornagainathiest]

The last 12 verses of mark are a known forgery and do not apply.

 

Agree.

 

My twin targets were the issues of Biblical inerracy and the infallibility of the Holy Spirit.

 

I shall have to re-think my argument and see if it still holds water. 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Ok, taking into account Scottsman's valid point (the last 12 verses of Mark's gospel are accepted to be forgeries) I've reconsidered my argument.

 

As I see it, the following points still stand.

 

1.

In Luke 12 : 11 & 12 Jesus says that the Holy Spirit will assist those Christians defending their faith.

"When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourself or what you will say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you at the time what to say."

 

2.

This is exactly the situation that is described in Acts 6 : 12 thru 7.

Stephen was brought before the Sanhedrin - a local council charged with the responsibility of ruling on religious matters.

 

3.

Jesus describes the Holy Spirit as... the Spirit of truth.

 

John 14: 15 - 17, NIV.

"If you love me, keep my commands.  And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever - the Spirit of truth.  The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him.  But you know him, for he lives within you and will be in you."

 

John 15 : 26, NIV.

"When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father - the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father - he will testify about me."

 

4.

The following points agree that Stephen was speaking to the Sanhedrin via the Holy Spirit - from the beginning of his speech to the end.

 

* The Advocate had already come, just as Jesus had promised. (See Acts 2 : 1 - 41, the day of Pentecost)

* The Advocate had already enabled Peter to defend himself and John before the Sanhedrin. (See Acts 4 : 8)

* Stephen is described as being, 'filled with the spirit' in Acts 6 : 3 and 5 and in Acts 7 : 55.

* Stephen's face is described as being like an angel, just before he was called to defend himself.

* We can safely infer that Stephen loved Jesus and kept his commands - because Acts 6 : 8 tells us that he was... "full of God's grace and power and performed great wonders and signs among the people".

 

5.

But the words given to Stephen by his Advocate, the Holy Spirit, were scripturally incorrect. (See post # 4)

 

6.

They should have been the truth, because Jesus declares the Holy Spirit to be the spirit of truth.

 

7.

It should be impossible for the Holy Spirit to be wrong about the words of the Bible - which is the WORD OF GOD..!

.

.

.

Therefore, the Holy Spirit did not speak the truth thru Stephen's lips.

Therefore, Jesus' description of the Holy Spirit is false - the Advocate was a spirit of falsehood.

Therefore, Jesus himself is also false. 

.

.

.

I rest my case.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[readyforchange]

Hey BAA.  I had a chance to read through your first post about Stephen's speech in Acts 7.  Saw Scottsman's reply pointing out that the last 12 verses of Mark 16 are accepted as forgeries, then read through your updated argument above in post #21.  Taking everything you say into consideration, I think I would have to agree with you.  Because I think even if one eliminates the last 12 verses of Mark 16 regarding the Holy Spirit and the great commission, the position you took earlier about exactly who is Jesus making his promises and commands about when he brings up doing works in the name of the Holy Spirit...

 

"This 'Peter-but-not Stephen' conclusion then raises the joint questions of who Jesus' promises and commands were made to and who for. 

Just the twelve disciples?  Just the Seventy-Two (see Luke 12)..?  Only those were actually with him while he was on Earth?  Where do you draw the line?  That conclusion would mean going thru the Gospels verse by verse, carefully checking who was present when Jesus was making his promises and issuing his commands.  If someone wasn't actually there when Jesus was speaking, then this particular promise or that particular command doesn't apply to them?"

 

 

...still stands to me, because the same thing can be said about Jesus' statements that you brought up earlier from John 14 and 15, along with Jesus' statements in Mark 13 and Luke 12.  It becomes a guessing game trying to figure out who exactly do those promises and commands from Jesus actually apply to.  What always seems to get me about the New Testament gospels and Paul's letters is this:  If Jesus was only speaking directly to the disciples (or to just a specific group of people or a crowd) and did NOT intend for any humans living in the future to be subject to whatever particular point or subject he was speaking on, then WHY would God/Jesus/Holy Spirit need to inspire the authors of the 4 gospels and Paul to write these things down in the gospels and Paul's letters?  To me, it's like, what's the point?  If I have the perspective of God - the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end - and if even Jesus states in the synoptic gospels' accounts of the Olivett discourse (e.g., Mark 13:32) that only the Father knows when "all these things will come to pass in the future", then would not God realize just how confusing it would be for future human generations to read these accounts as God's word?  How are we, as humans living almost 2,000 years after these words were supposed to be inspired, supposed to be able to figure out what sayings of Jesus applied when, for how long, and to whom? 

 

So that's at least my initial take, that the contradiction with Stephen's speech and the Holy Spirit still stands.  Scottsman, what do you think?

[readyforchange]

Also BAA, any thoughts on my viewpoints earlier regarding Matthew 12:31-32, about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit being an unforgivable sin?  Just curious if you believe my thought process on this sin might have some merit?  I can't seem to think of a way that this is not a MAJOR problem with the New Testament and the spread of Christianity.  For example, I did a search on biblegateway.com on the words "blasphemy" and "blaspheme", and throughout all of Paul's letters, I do not think Paul EVER wrote anything to the churches he founded instructing them that they can never blaspheme against the Holy Spirit.  The closest thing I see is at Romans 2:24, where the NLT translates a Greek word in the verse as "blasphemes", but the context here is something Paul is referring to from Isaiah 52:5, and not anything about a saying of Jesus.  If I put myself into Paul's shoes, seems like every letter I wrote to these early Christian churches throughout Asia Minor would be constantly sprinkled with warnings against blaspheming against the Holy Spirit.  It almost as if Paul never knew Jesus said this! 

[readyforchange]

BAA, Scottsman, in thinking back again to Stephen's speech in Acts and the Holy Spirit, I thought of something else that might be of interest related to this contradiction, or possible contradiction, regarding the Holy Spirit.  This is only something I recently started to see.  Have you noticed some areas in Paul's letters where Paul, as he is writing (or dictating his words to a scribe), seems to go back and forth between what God/Jesus/Holy Spirit is inspiring him to write and what are his own PERSONAL opinions?  For example, if you read 1 Corinthians 7, this is Paul's instructions on marriage.  If you read 1 Corinthians 7:12, in this verse Paul specifically states that he will "speak to the rest of you, though I do not have a direct command from the Lord" (NLT).  Then Paul goes on through verse 25 without ever switching back to say that anything else he said after verse 12 is coming from the Lord.  But even at verse 25, Paul, at least from what I read, NEVER switches back to getting his words directly from the Lord.  Here, Paul is addressing young women who are not married.  Read the last part of verse 25.  Paul states, "...I do not have a command from the Lord for them.  But the Lord in his kindness has given me wisdom that can be trusted, and I will share it with you."(NLT). 

 

So, I'm thinking, what is Paul writing?  Is Paul writing "inspired" words that God wants all humans to read, both those at the church in Corinth at the time and throughout history, that this applies to everyone who will ever live after that point in time?  Or is this just Paul's own personal opinion?  Any thoughts on that, or maybe there is something I am missing...

[Scottsman]

I recall one of pauls passages condemning premarital sex is followed by "but this is only my opinion" he does that quite a bit.