Did St Paul make contradictions in Scripture?

[jcrichton]

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.”

Hi!

…yeah… basically he was given the authority of Bishop to enact his Preaching… he was, in effect, Anointed by the Church–which brings us to Christ’s Delegation of Authority… yeah Saul had a One to one with Jesus… yet, Jesus still Commanded him to submit to the Church and become an Official part of His Body!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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.

Hi!

…yeah, this one is a little more difficult to undress/take apart…

…however, we must understand what is transpiring… there are not two distinct directives but one: ‘go, Preach, Baptize… all the nations’

This Command comes even prior to Pentecost… so it is understood that Christ’s Mission passes from Israel to the whole world…

Yet, as complete as God’s Salvific Plan is, man continues to bulk about those poor souls that died thousands of years before the Incarnation of the Word… and other such idle arguments…

God’s Wisdom sought to present a complete Mission: ‘go, Preach, Baptize the whole world–beginning in Jerusalem…’

The Twelve would concentrate on Israel… then the Thirteen is added to concentrate on the Pagans/Gentiles… but, note that not once is there a Command to erect separated Preaching Bodies…

St. Peter, being the leader of the Apostles, understand that Christ’s Command is that their efforts begin with Israel but that it must extend to the whole world; St. Paul, given his education, would be able to address the various officials and the Gentiles as his primary mission; again, this would not limit St. Paul (Romans 9-11) to seek out only non-Jews with the exclusion of the Jews!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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.

Hi!

…actually, not!

…St. Paul is speaking about not having a human instruct him about the Faith (both Galatians and Acts); rather, Christ is his source of Revelation… yet, since he was not part of the Body/Church, Saul had to submit to the Church (Ananias) in order to obtain the Blessing/Anointing/Delegation/Authorization to become Christ’s Ambassador/Apostle (Acts)!

…the sequence of event: Christ’s encounter; blindness; meeting Ananias; Anointment; Baptism; eating & hanging out; Preaching; growing in Authority and Abilities (Acts); retelling of event (Galatians)…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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.

Hi!

…yet, being instructed is quite different than getting instructions about what must transpire!

Christ did both (Revelation and gave instructions); Ananias only initiated him and instructed him to get Baptized, no teaching required!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[rcwitness]

Hi!

…yet, being instructed is quite different than getting instructions about what must transpire!

Christ did both (Revelation and gave instructions); Ananias only initiated him and instructed him to get Baptized, no teaching required!Ok, I have no problem with this.

I do, however, believe that the Spirit instructed Paul to “rise and be Baptized, calling on His name…” through Ananias. He was told what to do. But I agree that the way that he learned the Gospel and it’s Teachings were personally from Jesus, and…
"I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

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.

No worries.

Here is my understanding. St Paul is a bit of a hero to me, as , being a Gentile, I love how he said yes to Jesus, and brought the Word to us. That took a lot of courage and conviction in 1 AD.

So very soon after Jesus Crucifixion, both the Jews and the Romans were still trying to stamp out what they called ’ the sect of Christ’. Paul was Saul, and had a deep conviction that the Christians were speaking against the Law, the Temple, the Jewish way of life. And also felt, as did others, that this sect could bring rebellion and the wrath of Rome down on this non descript troublesome out post of the Roman Empire.

Afterall, Herod was convinced he had killed off all possible Messiahs of the prophecy. And Herods son too thought this was the case. Everyone had been praying for the Messiah to liberate the Jews.
And the prophecy was seen as fulfilled when Jesus was buried in that tomb, and rose on the third day.

So people were believing the prophecy was now fulfilled, and Jesus Christ was indeed that Messiah, the true King.

So Saul (Paul), a Pharisee, set about crushing Christians and the Christian sect very brutally. One day, going about this business, Jesus appeared to Saul, asked why Saul was persecuting Him, and blinded Saul.

Saul was told to go to Damascus. There he had a vision that Annanias would come to him. Now Annanais had a vision to go to Straight St and lay hands on Saul, cure him and baptise him.
Annanais did question curing Saul, whose reputation preceeded him. And did do as the Lord bid.

The Lord said to Annanias

’ I will show him ( Saul) how much he will have to suffer for My Name’

And the rest, as they say is History!

So The Lord has said directly to Annanias that He would be showing things to Saul.

It is not recorded how Paul died but accepted he was martyred, maybe by beheading.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

There is so much that could be said on the Foment of Israel, its neighbours and all those under the rule of Rome in 1 AD, and back in late BC.
Isaiah had prophecised the Messiah 700 years earlier, as had later prophets.

Israel was on edge under Roman law, Herod , for whatever reason, (who was prophecised himself to become a king,) and knew the prophets really well, fell on killing all male infants afterthe visit of those who followed the star. Herod wanted to remain king. Not be usurped by a Messiah.

The High Priests of course, wanted a continuation of Law, the Temple, and thought Christianity was blasphemy. They are continually tearing their clothes and throwing ash over themselves at the ways of Jesus and His teachings.

The you got Rome, the new Emporer Caligula was pit against Pilate, and much nastier then his uncle, Emporer Tiberius Ceaser.

So Saul is functioning as a Pharisee in this Foment. For him to do a full about turn to Jesus and Christianity amazes me and demonstrates the power of God.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

There is so much that could be said on the Foment of Israel, its neighbours and all those under the rule of Rome in 1 AD, and back in late BC.
Isaiah had prophecised the Messiah 700 years earlier, as had later prophets. People were praying in the temples, in the streets, under their crucified countrymen for God to send the Messiah to help them.

Israel was on edge under Roman law, Herod , for whatever reason, (who was prophecised himself to become a king,) and knew the prophets really well, fell on to killing all male infants after the visit of those who followed the star. The three wise men, from the edge of that world. Herod wanted to remain king. Not be usurped by a Messiah.

The High Priests of course, wanted a continuation of Law, the Temple, and thought Christianity was blasphemy. They are continually tearing their clothes and throwing ash over themselves at the ways of Jesus and His teachings, in the Bible.

The you got Rome, the new Emporer Caligula was pit against Pilate, and much nastier then his uncle, Emporer Tiberius Ceaser.

So Saul is functioning as a Pharisee in this Foment. For him to do a full about turn to Jesus and Christianity amazes me and demonstrates the power of God.

 

[rcwitness]

So Saul is functioning as a Pharisee in this Foment. For him to do a full about turn to Jesus and Christianity amazes me and demonstrates the power of God.

Pretty deep, for an attempt at a lighthearted thread. So far no one has suggested another “seeming contradiction”. Can Catholics step outside the box and approach things from a different angle?

I know Paul didn’t contradict the other Scriptures, and I know he is an amazing example of God’s grace. And he needed to suffer because of what was given to him.

He didn’t come to Jesus through faith. He was actually shown the Revelation of Jesus. In order for him to have faith, he needed to suffer as the result of proclaiming the Truth to the world. He needed to work in love of all people.

What would have happened if Jesus appeared to the High Priest as He did to Saul?

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Pretty deep, for an attempt at a lighthearted thread. So far no one has suggested another “seeming contradiction”. Can Catholics step outside the box and approach things from a different angle?

I know Paul didn’t contradict the other Scriptures, and I know he is an amazing example of God’s grace. And he needed to suffer because of what was given to him.

He didn’t come to Jesus through faith. He was actually shown the Revelation of Jesus. In order for him to have faith, he needed to suffer as the result of proclaiming the Truth to the world. He needed to work in love of all people.

What would have happened if Jesus appeared to the High Priest as He did to Saul?

Did the high priest Caiaphus eventually convert? He did actively pursue and crucify Jesus.

For me, Saul came to faith because Jesus hit him with the holy ugly stick when Jesus appeared to him , while he was going about his persecuting Christians business.

And then, yes, it was up to Saul to a, believe it was Jesus right there speaking to him, b, think he was heat struck and having hallucinations, c, swear off the wine.
So saul chose a through faith, and being scared
Imagine if it happened today. A person would be commited!

Which box, what would be an example?

 

[rcwitness]

Did the high priest Caiaphus eventually convert?

Not that I’m aware of.

For me, Saul came to faith because Jesus hit him with the holy ugly stick when Jesus appeared to him , while he was going about his persecuting Christians business.

Let’s use this definition of faith:
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.*
Did Paul believe without seeing? Not for his conversion. He was blinded by a light that knocked him to the ground and heard a voice of Jesus. Then he could not see, until Annas came to give back his sight, baptize him and deliver the Holy Spirit. His faith was to preach despite being persecuted. To suffer for the sake of Jesus.

And then, yes, it was up to Saul to a, believe it was Jesus right there speaking to him

When did he believe? We don’t know. It was more likely a process, and his healing was a big part of it.

b, think he was heat struck and having hallucinations

Hallucinations don’t account for the blindness.

c, swear off the wine.

Was Paul drinking at this time?

So saul chose a through faith, and being scared
Imagine if it happened today. A person would be commited!

Paul was persecuted. But also, he performed miracles as a sign.

Which box, what would be an example?

Maybe you don’t think so, but I think Paul had a way of seeming to contradict other things in Scripture. I wanted for others to give some examples. It’s a different way to approach the tough questions of Scripture. I don’t think he actually contradicted other Scriptures. But he is probably the most misunderstood author of Scripture. And yet he insists that he preaches Christ’s crucified, without eloquent words. There are also groups of “Christians” who adimantly believe he was a false Apostle.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Not that I’m aware of.

Let’s use this definition of faith:
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.*
Did Paul believe without seeing? Not for his conversion. He was blinded by a light that knocked him to the ground and heard a voice of Jesus. Then he could not see, until Annas came to give back his sight, baptize him and deliver the Holy Spirit. His faith was to preach despite being persecuted. To suffer for the sake of Jesus.

When did he believe? We don’t know. It was more likely a process, and his healing was a big part of it. Hallucinations don’t account for the blindness. Was Paul drinking at this time?
Paul was persecuted. But also, he performed miracles as a sign.

Maybe you don’t think so, but I think Paul had a way of seeming to contradict other things in Scripture. I wanted for others to give some examples. It’s a different way to approach the tough questions of Scripture. I don’t think he actually contradicted other Scriptures. But he is probably the most misunderstood author of Scripture. And yet he insists that he preaches Christ’s crucified, without eloquent words. There are also groups of “Christians” who adimantly believe he was a false Apostle.

Remember the Illumination of Jesus, where He was talking with Moses and Elijah? The three Apostles that witnessed that were absolutely terrified. It was a human reaction and hapoened with a few people when they first saw Jesus after resurrection.
Paul saw and heard. With a good dose of terror. Imagine being suddenly blinded in a desert. How vulnerable would he have felt. That is how he was converted. Would he have converted otherwise? Not immediately or as fast. God works in mysterious ways.
Were his companions converted?
Dont confuse Annas and Annanias. The former was related to Caiaphas as his father in law, and had been high priest, the latter healed Saul.
There is a Syrian story that Caiaphas converted.

Dehydration and heatstroke can cause blindness. But we know thats not the cause of his blindness. Did he?

Did he drink wine? Wine was common, given water quality could be suspect. Then wine quality could also be suspect.

I read St Paul as a very easy to understand man, author, apostle.

I guess can you state specific examples of the seeming contradictions.

 

[jcrichton]

Ok, I have no problem with this.

I do, however, believe that the Spirit instructed Paul to “rise and be Baptized, calling on His name…” through Ananias. He was told what to do. But I agree that the way that he learned the Gospel and it’s Teachings were personally from Jesus, and…
"I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows.

Hi!

…I concur; it is not that Ananias had some sort of power/authority on his own, but, being part of the Body, the Holy Spirit used him to usher in the new Convert/Apostle.

…I also agree with your cited passage that St. Paul makes this episode known without setting a time period to it… which, to my estimation, could very well be that precise moment when he Encounter Jesus for the very first time… what developed from that encounter is tremendous… Jesus chastises Saul for persecuting Him; Saul realizes that the Church is Christ Himself (he would expand on this in Ephesians 5:22-32); Saul has a complete change of heart (full Conversion); being thrust into the battle with the full Armament of God (Ephesians 6:10-20) Saul becomes Christ’s most prolific Apologetic!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[phil19034]

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.

According to Dr. Mary Healy, Paul went to Ananias. Ananias was the the member of the Church he went to first. Remember, he was blind for 3 days. Then, once he could see, he then went to the Synagogues and starting preaching the Gospel in Damascus before going to other towns.

 

[phil19034]

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.

This is because Paul received his instructions from Ananias & from Jesus. He did not receive instructions (in person) from the Apostles until much later.

 

[jcrichton]

Pretty deep, for an attempt at a lighthearted thread. So far no one has suggested another “seeming contradiction”. Can Catholics step outside the box and approach things from a different angle?

I know Paul didn’t contradict the other Scriptures, and I know he is an amazing example of God’s grace. And he needed to suffer because of what was given to him.

He didn’t come to Jesus through faith. He was actually shown the Revelation of Jesus. In order for him to have faith, he needed to suffer as the result of proclaiming the Truth to the world. He needed to work in love of all people.

What would have happened if Jesus appeared to the High Priest as He did to Saul?

Hi!

…my personal problem is that I’m too much into the apologetics to present “seeming” contradictions… I rather unfold them so that when I’m read/heard the outcome is always apologia.

…as for the “what if” scenarios, I hate delving into them because there’s almost no clear conclusion if the parties presenting the argument/s are on a rubber-man fluidity (changing the premise of the argument as the various takes on Dracula and the Frankenstein monster…); yet, I can engage till the moment of impasse…

…the High Priest scenario, as the counter of Judas, is a non-possibility; it was prophesied through Moses that Yahweh God would bring forth a Prophet liken to Moses (High Priest, King, and Prophet of El Shaddai) in Whom the Gentiles would place their Hope (Salvation). It was also prophesied that Israel would turn against God, their King, and seek other masters; and it was prophesied that, due to Israel adultery, Yahweh God would chose another people to Call His Own–that only the Remnant which He would Keep would remain Loyal to Him.

It was necessary that only those that were part of the Remnant (Joseph, the Virgin, Elizabeth, Simeon, and Anna, to name a few) would be fully expectant and willfully obedient to God’s Revelations of the Messiah; the High Priest (as Judas), representing the stubbornness of Israel’s heart had to remained resolute to reject Christ’s Messiahship (St. John 1:1-14; Romans 9:1-11:32; St. Matthew 12:1-42).

…we even have the High Priest prophesying about Yahweh God’s Salvific Plan but remaining oblivious to God’s Revelations:

45 Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him. 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin. “What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.” 49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people

than that the whole nation perish.” 51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. 53 So from that day on they plotted to take his life. (St. John 11:45-53)
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[rcwitness]

Hmmm… I thought you guys might throw in some more examples… Y’all are too square!

 

[jcrichton]

Did the high priest Caiaphus eventually convert? He did actively pursue and crucify Jesus.

For me, Saul came to faith because Jesus hit him with the holy ugly stick when Jesus appeared to him , while he was going about his persecuting Christians business.

And then, yes, it was up to Saul to a, believe it was Jesus right there speaking to him, b, think he was heat struck and having hallucinations, c, swear off the wine.
So saul chose a through faith, and being scared ������
Imagine if it happened today. A person would be commited!

Which box, what would be an example?

Hi, Rose!

…I suspect that if it happened today, Saul would claim not to “know” what transpired because he could not “ascertain” if it was a drug induced hallucination or an actual, out of body, Spiritual experience–you know, straddling one foot on the Narrow Path (for the “just in case” thing) and the other foot on the “did it my way” philosophy.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[rcwitness]

Hi, Rose!

…I suspect that if it happened today, Saul would claim not to “know” what transpired because he could not “ascertain” if it was a drug induced hallucination or an actual, out of body, Spiritual experience–you know, straddling one foot on the Narrow Path (for the “just in case” thing) and the other foot on the “did it my way” philosophy.

Maran atha!

Angel

So Paul believed because he was in that generation?

Jesus called that generation wicked. And Paul showed his faith through courage and fearless opposition to status quo.

 

[jcrichton]

Remember the Illumination of Jesus, where He was talking with Moses and Elijah? The three Apostles that witnessed that were absolutely terrified. It was a human reaction and hapoened with a few people when they first saw Jesus after resurrection.
Paul saw and heard. With a good dose of terror. Imagine being suddenly blinded in a desert. How vulnerable would he have felt. That is how he was converted. Would he have converted otherwise? Not immediately or as fast. God works in mysterious ways.
Were his companions converted?
Dont confuse Annas and Annanias. The former was related to Caiaphas as his father in law, and had been high priest, the latter healed Saul.
There is a Syrian story that Caiaphas converted.

**Dehydration and heatstroke can cause blindness. But we know thats not the cause of his blindness. Did he? **

Did he drink wine? Wine was common, given water quality could be suspect. Then wine quality could also be suspect.

I read St Paul as a very easy to understand man, author, apostle.

I guess can you state specific examples of the seeming contradictions.

Hi, Rose!

…what I find truly interesting with this passage is that Saul was not alone… yet, only he was struck with blindness… and while his companions could hear they couldn’t see anything, since only Saul was engaged by Jesus–so no naturally occurring situation here!

Maran atha!

Angel