Did St Paul make contradictions in Scripture?

[rcwitness]

I’d like to raise attention to specific passages in St Paul’s Letters that seem to be directly contradicting something else in Scripture. Please offer something that have noticed or seen from others that would be an example. I would like this thread to be light hearted, and not an accusation that Paul’s meanings are in contradiction with other Scripture. Nevertheless, I can’t deny that Paul had a way of writing about many different aspects of Christian beliefs and life that appeared to contradict other things in Scripture, and even in his own Letters. I don’t mind discussing how we should harmonize these examples, as long as we try to keep it light hearted (not jumping down each others throat). I’ll start by providing an example:
**Galatians 1
**But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.

**Acts 9
**Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.”
…

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I’d like to raise attention to specific passages in St Paul’s Letters that seem to be directly contradicting something else in Scripture. Please offer something that have noticed or seen from others that would be an example. I would like this thread to be light hearted, and not an accusation that Paul’s meanings are in contradiction with other Scripture. Nevertheless, I can’t deny that Paul had a way of writing about many different aspects of Christian beliefs and life that appeared to contradict other things in Scripture, and even in his own Letters. I don’t mind discussing how we should harmonize these examples, as long as we try to keep it light hearted (not jumping down each others throat). I’ll start by providing an example:
**Galatians 1
**But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.

**Acts 9
**Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.”
…

Interesting.

Not sure I have seen this one before.

Will look into it and reply soon.

 

[dmar198]

I’d like to raise attention to specific passages in St Paul’s Letters that seem to be directly contradicting something else in Scripture. Please offer something that have noticed or seen from others that would be an example. I would like this thread to be light hearted, and not an accusation that Paul’s meanings are in contradiction with other Scripture. Nevertheless, I can’t deny that Paul had a way of writing about many different aspects of Christian beliefs and life that appeared to contradict other things in Scripture, and even in his own Letters. I don’t mind discussing how we should harmonize these examples, as long as we try to keep it light hearted (not jumping down each others throat). I’ll start by providing an example:
**Galatians 1
**But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.

**Acts 9
**Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.”
…

Here are a couple possible explanations for this seeming contradiction, they occurred to me as I read the two passages. First, St. Paul received visions from the Lord teaching him what to tell the gentiles: Galatians 1:11-12, 2 Cor. 12:1, 7. When Jesus told him “you will be told what you are to do,” that does not Automatically mean he was told “by flesh and blood” what to do. He might have gone into the city and been told what to do in visions. He did talk to St. Ananias and other disciples in Damascus for a few days according to Acts 9:19, but that does not necessarily mean he was “conferring” with them about what to preach. On the contrary, that very passage says that he started preaching Jesus immediately: "in the synagogues immediately he proclaimed Jesus, saying, ‘He is the Son of God.’ " (Acts 9:20) So perhaps he was “told what to say,” not by conferring with these disciples in the city, but by visions of Jesus that he had while he was in the city. That would reconcile the two passages.

Also, even if he did learn some of what to preach from those guys, I think he could still be defended for saying “I did not confer with flesh and blood.” It was only for a few days that he was with other Catholic missionaries, compared to the next three years he spent preaching on his own. (Galatians 1:17-18) It would be very easy to summarize this by saying “I did not confer with flesh and blood” – because a few days, in comparison to the time he spent on his own, well, for all practical purposes it just hardly mattered. In a summary statement it’s okay to be imprecise. In a period of 3 years, he was with other Catholic missionaries for a grand total of a few days. It’s okay to be imprecise and say you just did not confer with other missionaries during that three years, because a few days is just a very small amount of time. A summary statement doesn’t need to be precise to be true.

Anyway, those are two brief thoughts. Perhaps others have other possible ways to reconcile these passages?

 

[rcwitness]

The two passages used as an example don’t bother me much. I have a good sense of the distinction he was making. But nevertheless, it’s just one of those passages that needs to be understood in the context of what he is specifically talking about and what the rest of Scripture Teaches and what the Church has authoritively Taught as Sacred Tradition.

It’s easy for some to imagine that Paul is endorsing that individuals who feel God is calling them to His ministry, to neglect the authority of the Church and her Confirmation and direction. Paul did need to consult the Church before preaching the Gospel. Yet the Gospel he preached did not come through men, but Apostolic Revelation.

 

[fred_conty]

I’d like to raise attention to specific passages in St Paul’s Letters that seem to be directly contradicting something else in Scripture. Please offer something that have noticed or seen from others that would be an example. I would like this thread to be light hearted, and not an accusation that Paul’s meanings are in contradiction with other Scripture. Nevertheless, I can’t deny that Paul had a way of writing about many different aspects of Christian beliefs and life that appeared to contradict other things in Scripture, and even in his own Letters. I don’t mind discussing how we should harmonize these examples, as long as we try to keep it light hearted (not jumping down each others throat). I’ll start by providing an example:
**Galatians 1
**But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.

**Acts 9
**Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.”
…

Paul was converted on the way to Damascus by a blinding light and the voice of Jesus. He was told to go to a man there which he did and Paul stayed there for a while in a sort of retreat. Then after a time, the man laid hands on Paul and removed his blindness. From there Paul went for three years to Arabia. What he did there no one knows but it seems that he was taught about Jesus and the faith by infused knowledge. That is why he said flesh and blood did not teach him. We can only guess but that seems to be the case.

Then he returned from Arabia and began his missionary travels thru Greece. Then after some time, he went to Jerusalem and saw James and some of the other apostles. Afterwards he returned to his missionary travels.

Just a note on infused knowledge. St. Teresa of Avilon had infused knowledge from time to time. And she said that it would take her a long time to understand about some of the faith by self study. But by infused knowledge, she understood, in just one cession of her mystical experience, something instantly. So infused knowledge works very well when given.

 

[rcwitness]

Paul was converted on the way to Damascus by a blinding light and the voice of Jesus. He was told to go to a man there which he did and Paul stayed there for a while in a sort of retreat. Then after a time, the man laid hands on Paul and removed his blindness. From there Paul went for three years to Arabia. What he did there no one knows but it seems that he was taught about Jesus and the faith by infused knowledge. That is why he said flesh and blood did not teach him. We can only guess but that seems to be the case.

Then he returned from Arabia and began his missionary travels thru Greece. Then after some time, he went to Jerusalem and saw James and some of the other apostles. Afterwards he returned to his missionary travels.

Just a note on infused knowledge. St. Teresa of Avilon had infused knowledge from time to time. And she said that it would take her a long time to understand about some of the faith by self study. But by infused knowledge, she understood, in just one cession of her mystical experience, something instantly. So infused knowledge works very well when given.

Yes, Paul actually received Divine Revelation. I think that’s different than “infused knowledge”. The Holy Spirit gives all of us “infused knowledge” in a way. He gives us understanding. Paul was also Baptized and given the Holy Spirit apart from His Divine Revelation. It was through Ananias, if I’m not mistaken.
“Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”

 

[fred_conty]

And when Paul said this:

I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.

he excluded everyone from teaching him about the faith. Which is to say, that God himself gave it to him directly. And to me it seems that Paul’s knowledge is so deep, that this depth could signal that it was given to him by God. Paul had this period of learning for three years, the same number of years that the other apostles had with Jesus. And he calls himself an apostle - number 13.

 

[rcwitness]

Acts 15
The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

Galatians 2
And from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me; but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles), and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised;

Here, Paul seems to imply that Peter doesn’t have a mission to Gentiles. But Peter was actually the one whom God chose to preach to them, and they believed.

 

[phil19034]

I’d like to raise attention to specific passages in St Paul’s Letters that seem to be directly contradicting something else in Scripture. Please offer something that have noticed or seen from others that would be an example. I would like this thread to be light hearted, and not an accusation that Paul’s meanings are in contradiction with other Scripture. Nevertheless, I can’t deny that Paul had a way of writing about many different aspects of Christian beliefs and life that appeared to contradict other things in Scripture, and even in his own Letters. I don’t mind discussing how we should harmonize these examples, as long as we try to keep it light hearted (not jumping down each others throat). I’ll start by providing an example:
**Galatians 1
**But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.

**Acts 9
**Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.”
…

I think it was divine providence that I was just studying Acts 9 last night.

In Galatians 1, St. Paul is simply saying that he did not go to Jerusalem to meet with Peter, etc. (of course, later St. Paul goes to Jerusalem to attend the Council of Jerusalem, but that didn’t happen yet in.

After Paul met Jesus on the Road to Damascus, he entered Damascus and Ananias (who lived in Damascus) and other disciples of Jesus in Damascus gave Paul his Charge. Plus, Jesus did too.

The quote “but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do” is referring to Damascus. Jesus is telling St. Paul to stand up and enter Damascus and there (in Damascus) he will be told what to do.

I pray this makes sense.

God Bless.

 

[phil19034]

Acts 15
The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

Galatians 2
And from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me; but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles), and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised;

Here, Paul seems to imply that Peter doesn’t have a mission to Gentiles. But Peter was actually the one whom God chose to preach to them, and they believed.

I don’t think St. Paul is actually implying that. St. Peter was the first Pope. He had a mission to everyone, but it took time before Peter fully realized the mission to the Gentiles, which is why God sent Peter Cornelius in Acts 10.

However, Paul, was called by Jesus to be a missionary to the Gentiles. That was his primary mission; why Peter’s primary mission was to be the first Pope.

I pray this makes sense.

God Bless

 

[rcwitness]

The quote “but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do” is referring to Damascus. Jesus is telling St. Paul to stand up and enter Damascus and there (in Damascus) he will be told what to do.

What was he to do, and who told him? We know Ananias was sent to heal, Baptize and give the Holy Spirit through Laying on of hands. But Paul does not mention this. This is important. Paul was sent to a member of the Church first. Paul seems to imply that he went right away to preach.

 

[MT1926]

I’d like to raise attention to specific passages in St Paul’s Letters that seem to be directly contradicting something else in Scripture. Please offer something that have noticed or seen from others that would be an example. I would like this thread to be light hearted, and not an accusation that Paul’s meanings are in contradiction with other Scripture. Nevertheless, I can’t deny that Paul had a way of writing about many different aspects of Christian beliefs and life that appeared to contradict other things in Scripture, and even in his own Letters. I don’t mind discussing how we should harmonize these examples, as long as we try to keep it light hearted (not jumping down each others throat). I’ll start by providing an example:
**Galatians 1
**But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.

**Acts 9
**Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.”
…

I was a little confused at first but I am guessing you are referring to a possible contradiction between the words confer, which means have a discussion or exchange opinions, and the word told which means revealed. If this is what you mean I don’t really see a contradiction, he didn’t confer with anyone to learn what he was to preach in Galatians and in Acts he was told what to do in verses 17 through 19.

17 So Anani′as departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized, 19 and took food and was strengthened.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Acts 15
The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

Galatians 2
And from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me; but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles), and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised;

Here, Paul seems to imply that Peter doesn’t have a mission to Gentiles. But Peter was actually the one whom God chose to preach to them, and they believed.

So on this one I would say that Peter was the messenger to the Jews, at first anyway.

The Jews had covenant with God and therefore a God given right to be the first to hear it.

Matthew 10:5-6New King James Version (NKJV)

Sending Out the Twelve
5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I’d like to raise attention to specific passages in St Paul’s Letters that seem to be directly contradicting something else in Scripture. Please offer something that have noticed or seen from others that would be an example. I would like this thread to be light hearted, and not an accusation that Paul’s meanings are in contradiction with other Scripture. Nevertheless, I can’t deny that Paul had a way of writing about many different aspects of Christian beliefs and life that appeared to contradict other things in Scripture, and even in his own Letters. I don’t mind discussing how we should harmonize these examples, as long as we try to keep it light hearted (not jumping down each others throat). I’ll start by providing an example:
**Galatians 1
**But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.

**Acts 9
**Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.”
…

What are you saying is the contradiction?

 

[rcwitness]

What are you saying is the contradiction?

That Paul seems to imply that he did not go to a visible member of the Church to receive instructions, but in fact, he did go to meet Ananias, who told him, “Why then do you wait? Rise and be Baptized, calling on His name, and wash away your sins.” Also, Ananias healed him and passed the Holy Spirit to him.

But I never said it is a contradiction.

 

[rcwitness]

So on this one I would say that Peter was the messenger to the Jews, at first anyway.

The Jews had covenant with God and therefore a God given right to be the first to hear it.

But it was Peter, too, who was the one who first preached to them, and by whom heard the Gospel first and believed. He did this even before the Jerusalem Council. The question becomes, was Peter restricted to the Jews after Paul? That’s what he seems to say. But we know that Peter “went here and there among them all”

Maybe Paul is referring to “unbelievers” not yet in the Church? That he was to go out to the ones who did not believe in the Messiah (whether the hope or in knowing the Gospel)?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

But it was Peter, too, who was the one who first preached to them, and by whom heard the Gospel first and believed. He did this even before the Jerusalem Council. The question becomes, was Peter restricted to the Jews after Paul? That’s what he seems to say. But we know that Peter “went here and there among them all”
)?

I don’t think that’s what Paul is saying. I think he just means that initially Peter was the lead role in preaching to the Jews.

Atleast i never interpreted it that way:shrug:

 

[jcrichton]

I’d like to raise attention to specific passages in St Paul’s Letters that seem to be directly contradicting something else in Scripture. Please offer something that have noticed or seen from others that would be an example. I would like this thread to be light hearted, and not an accusation that Paul’s meanings are in contradiction with other Scripture. Nevertheless, I can’t deny that Paul had a way of writing about many different aspects of Christian beliefs and life that appeared to contradict other things in Scripture, and even in his own Letters. I don’t mind discussing how we should harmonize these examples, as long as we try to keep it light hearted (not jumping down each others throat). I’ll start by providing an example:
**Galatians 1
**But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.

**Acts 9
**Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.”
…

Hi!

…do you watch movies and shows… it seems that “drama” must be created… directors and the rest continue to artificially create “cliffhangers” in order to make things more “dramatic.”

When we read Scriptures… we can fall into that enterprise…

While it is true that there seems to be some differences in the comparison passages… these differences are more due to perspectives than to facts…

Galatians 1 is a retelling of an account on a time past the event; while Acts 9 is a direct account as the event had unfolded…

Saul got directions from Christ… these directions were to let him know what he had to do to regain his sight and to begin a new undertaking: Christ’s Discipleship/Apostleship.

During the subsequent verses in Acts 9 (17-31) we learn a lot more about what transpires after Saul’s encounter with Christ; yet, there isn’t a single mention of Paul being instructed by any of the Apostles or disciples… rather the narration demonstrates that there is a huge uproar amongst both the Believers and the Jews… as the first are, understandably, suspicious of him, while the latter begin to devise his demise–both are taken aback by his Knowledge of Christ and his Convictions!

It could well be that the retelling of the incident to the Galatians required some clarifications as to the origins of St. Paul’s Conversion/Conviction/Apostleship, so St. Paul may have attempted to make it crystal clear that he received his Doctrine directly from Christ and that no human instructors were needed to expand on Christ’s direct Revelation.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

The two passages used as an example don’t bother me much. I have a good sense of the distinction he was making. But nevertheless, it’s just one of those passages that needs to be understood in the context of what he is specifically talking about and what the rest of Scripture Teaches and what the Church has authoritively Taught as Sacred Tradition.

It’s easy for some to imagine that Paul is endorsing that individuals who feel God is calling them to His ministry, to neglect the authority of the Church and her Confirmation and direction. Paul did need to consult the Church before preaching the Gospel. Yet the Gospel he preached did not come through men, but Apostolic Revelation.

Hi!

…yet, Saul did get confirmed by the Church… had he not obeyed Christ he would not have been Baptized into the Faith–in spite of all the Revelation he got from Christ, he had to submit to the Body in order to become part of the Body!

…and as equally important, St. Paul (now an Apostle) did not Teach against the Church but actually allowed the Holy Spirit to Guide him as he began to Preach Christ along with the Church’s Preaching.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Paul was converted on the way to Damascus by a blinding light and the voice of Jesus. He was told to go to a man there which he did and Paul stayed there for a while in a sort of retreat. Then after a time, the man laid hands on Paul and removed his blindness. From there Paul went for three years to Arabia. What he did there no one knows but it seems that he was taught about Jesus and the faith by infused knowledge. That is why he said flesh and blood did not teach him. We can only guess but that seems to be the case.

Then he returned from Arabia and began his missionary travels thru Greece. Then after some time, he went to Jerusalem and saw James and some of the other apostles. Afterwards he returned to his missionary travels.

Just a note on infused knowledge. St. Teresa of Avilon had infused knowledge from time to time. And she said that it would take her a long time to understand about some of the faith by self study. But by infused knowledge, she understood, in just one cession of her mystical experience, something instantly. So infused knowledge works very well when given.

Hi, Fred!

…actually, St. Paul began to Preach quite soon after his Baptism:

17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized

, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength. Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. 20 **At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. **21 All those who heard him were astonished and asked, “Isn’t he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among those who call on this name? And hasn’t he come here to take them as prisoners to the chief priests?” 22 Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Messiah. (Acts 9:17-22)
The time that elapsed between his Baptism and his Preaching was mere days, and not once is it mentioned that he was instructed by anyone. Rather, Scriptures seem to intimate that both Believers and Jews were astounded by his Preaching!

Maran atha!

Angel