Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Reconciling Galatians 1 and Acts 9

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 9:18:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At first sight that can see difficult but really it isn't.

Acts 9 does not Mention Paul's journey to Arabia, so one can only assume that it is not relevant to the "Acts of the Apostles" in other words it is not ministry related, so in all likelyhood it was brief.

Paul also glosses over it to an extent even in his letter to the Gaklatians, simply saying, in basis, I went, I returned to Damascus, so evidently it was "personal time".

Where was his next stop?

Jerusalem.

Was it to see Peter, as v18 suggests.

Actually no it was not. He met the disciples there who were afraid of him and then was taken by Barnabas to see the Apostles, which is presumably where he first met Peter.

So, between vv17 and 18 there is a completely ignored 3 year period in which it would appear, much happened.
.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 1:15:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 9:18:11 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At first sight that can see difficult but really it isn't.

No, it doesn't seem "difficult"

Acts 9 does not Mention Paul's journey to Arabia, so one can only assume that it is not relevant to the "Acts of the Apostles" in other words it is not ministry related, so in all likelyhood it was brief.

A lack of inclusion in Acts has nothing to do with being "ministry-related"

Paul also glosses over it to an extent even in his letter to the Gaklatians, simply saying, in basis, I went, I returned to Damascus, so evidently it was "personal time".

Where was his next stop?

Jerusalem.

Was it to see Peter, as v18 suggests.

Actually no it was not. He met the disciples there who were afraid of him and then was taken by Barnabas to see the Apostles, which is presumably where he first met Peter.

So, between vv17 and 18 there is a completely ignored 3 year period in which it would appear, much happened.
.

* The "three-year" period is not necessarily three full years, according the reckoning of time back then.

* The Book of Galatians was written well prior to the book of Acts

* The "3-year period" (which could have been just a little over twelve months) was occupied by Paul's trip into Arabia coupled with the preaching he did upon his return to Damascus.

* You are attempting in vain to divorce the trip to Jerusalem in Acts 9 from the trip in Gal 1, advocating a view based totally upon your own whims.

* Your "interpretation" (and that is being generous) is so far out in left field that I predict no one on here will agree with you. Of course, you'll take that as "evidence" that you are correct!

* It is ridiculous for you to merely assume that Paul went to Jerusalem at some point to visit with a Governing Board when the text no where indicates that he did. That's the bottom line. Your whole doctrine is based upon, "Well, I think he could have!"

* The fact is that the "many days" of Acts 9 is synonymous with the "three years" in Gal 1. Neither of them are wholly specific terms, actually. If Paul went into Arabia for, say, two to three months (which is not unreasonable based upon other Biblical characters), then we'll average it to 75 days. "Three years" could have amounted to 425 days (One whole year, and parts of two others). 425 minus 75 equals 350 days of preaching, allowing some time for Paul to work at his trade. THEN the Jews took counsel to kill him, he fled the city, and went to Jerusalem to see Peter.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 1:17:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
And, of course, you have now ventured off on a subject that is not on the "Witness Top Ten List", so we can expect some fumbling around. Your view on the subject would be rated "highly unlikely" at best, for it involves too many problems with the text.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 1:23:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
MCB: "Actually no it was not. He met the disciples there who were afraid of him and then was taken by Barnabas to see the Apostles, which is presumably where he first met Peter."

Anna: Absolutely. He also met James at the same time, or on the same visit. The passage just prior says, "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus." According to you, at that time, Paul HAD met the other apostles.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 4:10:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 1:23:37 PM, annanicole wrote:
MCB: "Actually no it was not. He met the disciples there who were afraid of him and then was taken by Barnabas to see the Apostles, which is presumably where he first met Peter."

Anna: Absolutely. He also met James at the same time, or on the same visit. The passage just prior says, "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus." According to you, at that time, Paul HAD met the other apostles.

Who says he went to Arabia before he met the Apostles, I don't? Who say there was not a lot between his return to Damascus and the visit three years later that Paul does not mention? Is that not why he specifies it was 3 years later?

No, it's not according to me. It is according to scripture and reason.

You need to realise that much happened in the gap between verse 17 and verse 18, including his preaching in Damascus and then his meeting with the Apostles, as well as more than two yeas of missionary work to various parts of the world, and possibly more than one visit to Jerusalem, we cannot say yea or nay to that because we are not told.

The passage says that he went to Arabia and then returned to Damascus. It does not say what he did or how long he was there.

It was after his return from Arabia that he started preaching, and after that he went to Jerusalem, but that is not the occasion when he went to see Peter, that has to have been another occasion because the firs time, when he met the Apostles, was before he was accepted by the otehr disciples and therefore before he went on his missionary journeys. It must there fore have been well before the journey he mentions in verse 18 of Galatians 1.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 12:12:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 4:10:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/4/2014 1:23:37 PM, annanicole wrote:
MCB: "Actually no it was not. He met the disciples there who were afraid of him and then was taken by Barnabas to see the Apostles, which is presumably where he first met Peter."

Anna: Absolutely. He also met James at the same time, or on the same visit. The passage just prior says, "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus." According to you, at that time, Paul HAD met the other apostles.

Who says he went to Arabia before he met the Apostles, I don't? Who say there was not a lot between his return to Damascus and the visit three years later that Paul does not mention? Is that not why he specifies it was 3 years later?

No, it's not according to me. It is according to scripture and reason.

You need to realise that much happened in the gap between verse 17 and verse 18, including his preaching in Damascus and then his meeting with the Apostles, as well as more than two yeas of missionary work to various parts of the world, and possibly more than one visit to Jerusalem, we cannot say yea or nay to that because we are not told.

The passage says that he went to Arabia and then returned to Damascus. It does not say what he did or how long he was there.

It was after his return from Arabia that he started preaching, and after that he went to Jerusalem, but that is not the occasion when he went to see Peter, that has to have been another occasion because the firs time, when he met the Apostles, was before he was accepted by the otehr disciples and therefore before he went on his missionary journeys. It must there fore have been well before the journey he mentions in verse 18 of Galatians 1.

Then I'll tell you what: I'll give the following sequence of events based upon Acts 9 and Gal 1, and you point out PRECISELY wherein I err:

1. Conversion of Saul of Tarsus
2. Preaching for "certain days" in Damascus ("And straightway in the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus, that he is the Son of God."
3. Conferred not with flesh and blood, did not go to Jerusalem
4. "Many days were fulfilled" .... "after three years"
A. Trip into Arabia, presumably for around 3-6 months, accounting perhaps for the "increased the more in strength", i. e. became more vigorous. Had not yet gone to Jerusalem.
B. Return to Damascus
C. Preaching in Damascus
5. Jews take counsel to kill Paul (2 Corinthians 11: 32"33, Acts 9: 24-25)
6. "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."
7. "But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles (Peter and James), and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus."
8. Then went to "the regions of Syria and Cilicia", but "was still unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ."

Question: Why at the the point of Gal 1: 22 was Paul STILL UNKNOWN by face to the churches in Judea? Was not "Judea" but an extension of the Jerusalem region, being at most about 15 miles away?

Who say there was not a lot between his return to Damascus and the visit three years later that Paul does not mention?

"Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance."

You can't just add crap that IS NOT THERE, MadCornish. We can't run things based upon a WatchTowerish imagination.

Anyway, "And when the brethren knew it, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus." (Acts 9: 30). Is this not the equivalent of "Then I came unto the regions of Syria and Cilicia" in Gal 1: 21? Was not Tarsus IN Cicilia at the time?

Now you point out the errors, and I don't mean for you to sit around and guess and speculate about WHAT IS NOT THERE.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 2:24:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
After re-reading your post more closely, I see that there is good reason why not a single commentator with whom I am aware agrees with you. It's because you simply "add in" what you can't find. You've never studied the early years following Paul's conversion, and you are pretty much lost.

Here's a taste of your exegesis:

"as well as more than two yeas of missionary work to various parts of the world"

Like where? Could you name a few places? Of course not. You do not know. Can you explain why brethren all around Judea had never even seen Paul at the very time you are referencing? Nope. But that won't bother you, will it?

One key to Acts 9 and Gal 1 is where Paul went following his visit to Jerusalem. Notice I said "visit". Paul departed to Tarsus in Cilicia.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2014 12:59:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 2:24:48 AM, annanicole wrote:
After re-reading your post more closely, I see that there is good reason why not a single commentator with whom I am aware agrees with you. It's because you simply "add in" what you can't find. You've never studied the early years following Paul's conversion, and you are pretty much lost.

Here's a taste of your exegesis:

"as well as more than two yeas of missionary work to various parts of the world"

Like where? Could you name a few places? Of course not. You do not know. Can you explain why brethren all around Judea had never even seen Paul at the very time you are referencing? Nope. But that won't bother you, will it?

One key to Acts 9 and Gal 1 is where Paul went following his visit to Jerusalem. Notice I said "visit". Paul departed to Tarsus in Cilicia.

No Anna, it5's not me that's lost., it is not me that has added in a ministry in Arabia which according to scripture doesn't exist.

It should be obvious why he went to Arabia for that brief viusit without consulting anyone else. He had just had his whole world turned upside down. Of course he needed time to think. To get it all straight in his head, before he undertook any ministry.

And when he felt ready to start preaching he returned to the place where he had first learned the truth, Damascus, where the brothers how had been used to teach him were.

Then he went to Jerusalem, have stirred up a hornets nest in Damascus, and met the Apostles and Older Men, thanks to Barnabas.

The trip to Jerusalem where he we4nt to meet Peter did, as he said, happen 3 years later, three years after his first visit there and his meeting with the Apostles.

That's where you go wrong.

You add in a non-existent ministry in Arabia, and shift the whole of his ministry along by 3 years.

I don;t doubt every other commentator disagrees with me, but I would be concerned of they did since, as you have to remember all these commentaries were written long after the Apostasy took hold and therefore under the influence of Satan.

Again you choose to ignore the scriptural obligation to rely on God's word not the words of man.

He had been a very zealous supporter of Judaism, and as such the most active persecutor of Christians. You know, that group who took a name which has absolutely njo precendent n scripture.

He really, believed he was doing God's work and all of a sudden he finds that everything he has believed in the depths of his being was wrong.

I can empathise with how Paul felt, because very much the same thing happened to me. I too was very anti-JW until I learnt the truth of what they believed and realised that whether I liked it or not they were actually what I had been looking for. God's people on this earth.

I didn't like it, but since when was what we humans like more important than what is true?

I was never as zealously against "the Israel of God" as Paul was because I felt I was alone in the world in what I found in scripture. I didn't have the same zealous attachment to a rival group that he did. I only believed, as I do now, in scripture, but had decided long before that Christ had been right in Luke 18:8, and the faith really was not in the earth.

You have so much to learn but you will never learn it from the sources you choose to use.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2014 1:55:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/10/2014 12:59:33 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/6/2014 2:24:48 AM, annanicole wrote:
After re-reading your post more closely, I see that there is good reason why not a single commentator with whom I am aware agrees with you. It's because you simply "add in" what you can't find. You've never studied the early years following Paul's conversion, and you are pretty much lost.

Here's a taste of your exegesis:

"as well as more than two yeas of missionary work to various parts of the world"

Like where? Could you name a few places? Of course not. You do not know. Can you explain why brethren all around Judea had never even seen Paul at the very time you are referencing? Nope. But that won't bother you, will it?

One key to Acts 9 and Gal 1 is where Paul went following his visit to Jerusalem. Notice I said "visit". Paul departed to Tarsus in Cilicia.

No Anna, it5's not me that's lost., it is not me that has added in a ministry in Arabia which according to scripture doesn't exist.

It should be obvious why he went to Arabia for that brief viusit without consulting anyone else. He had just had his whole world turned upside down. Of course he needed time to think. To get it all straight in his head, before he undertook any ministry.

And when he felt ready to start preaching he returned to the place where he had first learned the truth, Damascus, where the brothers how had been used to teach him were.

Then he went to Jerusalem, have stirred up a hornets nest in Damascus, and met the Apostles and Older Men, thanks to Barnabas.

The trip to Jerusalem where he we4nt to meet Peter did, as he said, happen 3 years later, three years after his first visit there and his meeting with the Apostles.

That's where you go wrong.

You add in a non-existent ministry in Arabia, and shift the whole of his ministry along by 3 years.

I don;t doubt every other commentator disagrees with me, but I would be concerned of they did since, as you have to remember all these commentaries were written long after the Apostasy took hold and therefore under the influence of Satan.

Again you choose to ignore the scriptural obligation to rely on God's word not the words of man.

He had been a very zealous supporter of Judaism, and as such the most active persecutor of Christians. You know, that group who took a name which has absolutely njo precendent n scripture.

He really, believed he was doing God's work and all of a sudden he finds that everything he has believed in the depths of his being was wrong.

I can empathise with how Paul felt, because very much the same thing happened to me. I too was very anti-JW until I learnt the truth of what they believed and realised that whether I liked it or not they were actually what I had been looking for. God's people on this earth.

I didn't like it, but since when was what we humans like more important than what is true?

I was never as zealously against "the Israel of God" as Paul was because I felt I was alone in the world in what I found in scripture. I didn't have the same zealous attachment to a rival group that he did. I only believed, as I do now, in scripture, but had decided long before that Christ had been right in Luke 18:8, and the faith really was not in the earth.

You have so much to learn but you will never learn it from the sources you choose to use.

You said: ""as well as more than two yeas of missionary work to various parts of the world"

I replied: Like where? Could you name a few places?"

You answered: ........ nothing .... nada ... zilch
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2014 1:56:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Madcornish was presented the following:

Then I'll tell you what: I'll give the following sequence of events based upon Acts 9 and Gal 1, and you point out PRECISELY wherein I err:

1. Conversion of Saul of Tarsus
2. Preaching for "certain days" in Damascus ("And straightway in the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus, that he is the Son of God."
3. Conferred not with flesh and blood, did not go to Jerusalem
4. "Many days were fulfilled" .... "after three years"
A. Trip into Arabia, presumably for around 3-6 months, accounting perhaps for the "increased the more in strength", i. e. became more vigorous. Had not yet gone to Jerusalem.
B. Return to Damascus
C. Preaching in Damascus
5. Jews take counsel to kill Paul (2 Corinthians 11: 32"33, Acts 9: 24-25)
6. "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."
7. "But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles (Peter and James), and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus."
8. Then went to "the regions of Syria and Cilicia", but "was still unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ."

Has anybody seen him point out the error in there? I haven't. Nope, just more rambling.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2014 4:19:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
MCB: "I don;t doubt every other commentator disagrees with me, but I would be concerned of they did since, as you have to remember all these commentaries were written long after the Apostasy took hold and therefore under the influence of Satan."

Anna: As far as I can tell, almost all of these "apostate" commentators conjecture that Paul went into Arabia for some "private time", much as Jesus and others before Him had done, i. e. he just went there to meditate and ponder upon his future. Granted they came up with this long after the apostasy took hold, and granted they were under the influence of Satan.

What again is your opinion of why Paul went into Arabia? If you say the same thing as the apostates do, then we'll consider all of your bs yapping about "under Satan's influence" and "apostate" to be just exactly what it is: BS.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2014 5:25:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
MCB: "He had been a very zealous supporter of Judaism, and as such the most active persecutor of Christians. You know, that group who took a name which has absolutely njo precendent n scripture."

Anna: Not "took", MadCornish. "Were given". OF COURSE it had "no precedence" in scripture, ya tard. It was a NEW NAME.

"For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth. And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name. Thou shalt also be a crown of glory in the hand of the Lord, and a royal diadem in the hand of thy God. Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the Lord delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married." (Isa 62: 1-4)

No, MadCornish. It wasn't "scriptural" at the time because it was given by the fella who MADE scripture.

The name "Jehovah's Witnesses", however, was simply MADE UP by apostate prophesy-bunglers who limped along, trying to smile as the flipping of the calendar confirmed one screw-up after another.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."