Post by malcolm on Jul 26, 2013 12:47:24 GMT -8
When did Paul meet the apostles? Acts vs Galatians. Paul ranks high in the formation of Christianity. He is the major another of the New Testament and his often controversial teachings have helped divide Christianity ever since.
The credibility of Paul rests solely on the assertions made in Acts as to his on the road conversion and meeting Jesus. The standard line is that he met Jesus, received baptism and the holy spirit from a disciple in Damascus, went to Jerusalem to meet with the apostles, then off to preach the "gospel" far and wide.
The question, which needs to be addressed, is: did Acts correctly record what happened? Fortunately there are two sources of New Testament information to look at and compare as to what the history may, or may not, have been. Unfortunately, these two sources do not agree on what happened, or when.
Examine the details for yourself.
Acts vs. Galatians:
In Acts 9. This book says Paul has a meeting with the Lord who tells him to go to Damascus and meet with someone called Ananias. Ananias, obviously a disciple, then gives the holy spirit to Paul, cures his blindness, and baptizes him. Verse 19 says that Paul was "several days with the disciples who were in Damascus". In verse 23 many days passed and Paul finally fled the city. He then goes straight to Jerusalem to meet the other apostles and disciples and by verse 27 he succeeds. The chronology works as far as Acts goes.
In Galatians, chapters 1 and 2 give Paul's version of events. Paul says he did not CONSULT with flesh and blood [men] when he converted. He did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before him. Instead, went to Arabia, returned to Damascus for 3 years, THEN went Jerusalem to spend 15 days with someone called Cephas, and the only apostle he met was James, the Lord's brother (in the gospels no apostle is identified as "the Lord's Brother"). Paul next assures us he is not lying (a strange thing to write). Afterwards, Paul says he went off for 14 more years before returning to Jerusalem and finally meets and consults with the apostles. So from conversion to meeting the apostles in Paul's, "I am not lying" letter at least 17 years passed.
Notice the contradictions:
1) Paul makes no mention of anyone called Ananias in his letter, nor the things Ananias did for him. No cure, no baptism, no holy spirit given him by this person, nothing.
2) Acts makes it look like maybe a few months at most, but if we go by the wording a few days passed before Paul reaches Damascus, flees, and goes to Jerusalem to shortly meet the apostles. Paul on the other hand rejects this, for in Galatians at least 17 years would pass before such a meeting took place.
Now a contradiction proves error. For if Galatians is true, as Paul says it is, than what is recorded in Acts is in error. Whoever wrote Acts was ignorant or ignored Paul's letter to the Galatians, or Paul was himself not telling the truth. Either way the credibility of the New Testament is called into question.
As Thomas Paine once pointed out, even if several storytellers are in total agreement with the details does not make the story true; but if the story contradicts and conflicts with each other, then by definition the whole cannot be true.
Galatians or Acts may be in error; but both cannot be an accurate account of what happened. What does all this mean? Simple, believe in the Bible at your own risk.
The credibility of Paul rests solely on the assertions made in Acts as to his on the road conversion and meeting Jesus. The standard line is that he met Jesus, received baptism and the holy spirit from a disciple in Damascus, went to Jerusalem to meet with the apostles, then off to preach the "gospel" far and wide.
The question, which needs to be addressed, is: did Acts correctly record what happened? Fortunately there are two sources of New Testament information to look at and compare as to what the history may, or may not, have been. Unfortunately, these two sources do not agree on what happened, or when.
Examine the details for yourself.
Acts vs. Galatians:
In Acts 9. This book says Paul has a meeting with the Lord who tells him to go to Damascus and meet with someone called Ananias. Ananias, obviously a disciple, then gives the holy spirit to Paul, cures his blindness, and baptizes him. Verse 19 says that Paul was "several days with the disciples who were in Damascus". In verse 23 many days passed and Paul finally fled the city. He then goes straight to Jerusalem to meet the other apostles and disciples and by verse 27 he succeeds. The chronology works as far as Acts goes.
In Galatians, chapters 1 and 2 give Paul's version of events. Paul says he did not CONSULT with flesh and blood [men] when he converted. He did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before him. Instead, went to Arabia, returned to Damascus for 3 years, THEN went Jerusalem to spend 15 days with someone called Cephas, and the only apostle he met was James, the Lord's brother (in the gospels no apostle is identified as "the Lord's Brother"). Paul next assures us he is not lying (a strange thing to write). Afterwards, Paul says he went off for 14 more years before returning to Jerusalem and finally meets and consults with the apostles. So from conversion to meeting the apostles in Paul's, "I am not lying" letter at least 17 years passed.
Notice the contradictions:
1) Paul makes no mention of anyone called Ananias in his letter, nor the things Ananias did for him. No cure, no baptism, no holy spirit given him by this person, nothing.
2) Acts makes it look like maybe a few months at most, but if we go by the wording a few days passed before Paul reaches Damascus, flees, and goes to Jerusalem to shortly meet the apostles. Paul on the other hand rejects this, for in Galatians at least 17 years would pass before such a meeting took place.
Now a contradiction proves error. For if Galatians is true, as Paul says it is, than what is recorded in Acts is in error. Whoever wrote Acts was ignorant or ignored Paul's letter to the Galatians, or Paul was himself not telling the truth. Either way the credibility of the New Testament is called into question.
As Thomas Paine once pointed out, even if several storytellers are in total agreement with the details does not make the story true; but if the story contradicts and conflicts with each other, then by definition the whole cannot be true.
Galatians or Acts may be in error; but both cannot be an accurate account of what happened. What does all this mean? Simple, believe in the Bible at your own risk.