Paul cant remember what happened

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hellisreal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hellisreal

Guest
:o

Paul seems to have some confusion about what he did.

Gal 1:16-17 seems to say he did not go to Jerusalem after his conversion.

Acts 9:26 seems to say that was the very first thing he did do after conversion.

What’s up with Paul? :confused:
 
Paul’s not confused. Luke just bypasses the time in Arabia.

This isn’t an error: it’s a history. If a Civil War historian bypasses the minor skirmishes leading up to Gettysburg or Spotsylvania Courthouse, are the outcomes of those battles any less significant?

The same with Paul in Arabia.
 
Hellisreal said:
:o

Paul seems to have some confusion about what he did.

Gal 1:16-17 seems to say he did not go to Jerusalem after his conversion.

Acts 9:26 seems to say that was the very first thing he did do after conversion.

What’s up with Paul? :confused:
Click to expand...
For one thing, Acts was written by Luke, not Paul. Paul did go to Jerusalem after his conversion, but not immediately. He went 3 years later. From the Haydock Commentary:
Ver. 23. When many days were passed. By the account St. Paul gives of himself, (Galatians chap. i.) soon after his conversion he went into Arabia, and about three years after he might come to Damascus. Then it seems to have happened that they were for killing him, for becoming a Christian; and the brethren saved his life, by conveying him down the walls of the town in a basket. After this, he went to Jerusalem, where the disciples knew little of him, and were afraid of him, till St. Barnabas introduced him to the apostles, and gave an account of his conversion. (Witham) — Many days. That is, three years. For Saul went for a time from Damascus to Arabia. (Galatians i. 17. and 18.) It was on his return from thence, that he Jews conspired against his life, as is here related. (Tirinus)
Click to expand...
 
So Luke downplayed Paul fighting for his life for 3 whole years!!!:eek: :rolleyes: 😦

That seems a bit weird. I would think it would be mentioned to encourage Christians who were being persecuted. Also, Paul was so “popular” because the Christians were scared senseless of him. They knew he was a Christian killer! You would think Luke would have made sure that the Christians knew how he too, was under the gun.
 
The time in Arabia was not a good time for Paul as the Arabian King was at war with one of the Jewish Kings and Paul was suspected of being a spy or agent of the Jews. He was as a result not very effective there.
 
It is important to remember that the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament were written for specific reasons and none were written to be compendiums of every possible detail and one cannot make too much hay out of supposed silences on certain details.
 
Scottgun said:
It is important to remember that the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament were written for specific reasons and none were written to be compendiums of every possible detail and one cannot make too much hay out of supposed silences on certain details.
Click to expand...
I know, but I am being told that about the mistakes in Mark, this now, and another thread I have going. Looks like one has to have a blindfold on to read the bible.
 
Hellisreal said:
I know, but I am being told that about the mistakes in Mark, this now, and another thread I have going. Looks like one has to have a blindfold on to read the bible.
Click to expand...
I prefer to read mine with my eyes open.
 
I prefer not being such a fundamentalist that I can’t accept the most obvious answers.
 
rwoehmke said:
The time in Arabia was not a good time for Paul as the Arabian King was at war with one of the Jewish Kings and Paul was suspected of being a spy or agent of the Jews. He was as a result not very effective there.
Click to expand...
That is really interesting!

Maybe he really was a spy. Never know.
 
Hellisreal said:
So Luke downplayed Paul fighting for his life for 3 whole years!!!:eek: :rolleyes: 😦

That seems a bit weird. I would think it would be mentioned to encourage Christians who were being persecuted. Also, Paul was so “popular” because the Christians were scared senseless of him. They knew he was a Christian killer! You would think Luke would have made sure that the Christians knew how he too, was under the gun.
Click to expand...
And Luke didn’t feel it was necessary to include the Wedding in Cana in his Gospel, either. Jesus’ first public miracle.

The authors of the Scriptures put into their works things for many and various reasons, some not obvious to the likes of you and I.
 
NotWorthy said:
And Luke didn’t feel it was necessary to include the Wedding in Cana in his Gospel, either. Jesus’ first public miracle.

The authors of the Scriptures put into their works things for many and various reasons, some not obvious to the likes of you and I.
Click to expand...
Thanks and hi again not worthy!

Yes, you are right. Like how Johns account of when Jesus was crucifyed is a different day than, in Mark!

John says before the passover meal, mark says after.

John was likely more trustworthy on that one., but a HUGE difference in when Our Lord was Crucifyed!:eek: :eek:
 
You act as if no person on this board has ever heard about these discrepancies before.

:sleep:
 
davidv said:
You call them excuses. I’ll call them rational explanations.
Click to expand...
Okay then, give me a “rational” explaination for why the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53-8:12

Where was the man who would have been held just as guilty and would have also qualifyed for stoning? Huh? They catch HER in the Act, YET let the guy off the hook? So, they either did not like women, or its a story that sounds nice, tells a lesson, but NEVER happened!
 
Hellisreal said:
Okay then, give me a “rational” explaination for why the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53-8:12

Where was the man who would have been held just as guilty and would have also qualifyed for stoning? Huh? They catch HER in the Act, YET let the guy off the hook? So, they either did not like women, or its a story that sounds nice, tells a lesson, but NEVER happened!
Click to expand...
Or they were trying to catch Jesus in a spot (to stone, or not to stone), and they didn’t want a man around to give testimony that maybe nothing happened? A woman’s testimony was not acceptable in court, you know (or did I just open up another can of worms).
 
NotWorthy said:
Or they were trying to catch Jesus in a spot (to stone, or not to stone), and they didn’t want a man around to give testimony that maybe nothing happened? A woman’s testimony was not acceptable in court, you know (or did I just open up another can of worms).
Click to expand...
Are you saying they forced this woman to LIE about being caught in the act?

That does not even make sense! What if Jesus would have said YES? She had no assuraces he would not!

That is most ridicuolosss.
 
Hellisreal said:
Are you saying they forced this woman to LIE about being caught in the act?

That does not even make sense! What if Jesus would have said YES? She had no assuraces he would not!

That is most ridicuolosss.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the woman had a say in the matter. Where does she speak other than when Jesus says, “Is there no one here to stone you”? (Paraphrase).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top