Knowing who speaks the truth of God - NT?

[Barnsweb]

His varying accounts in Acts proves none of what he said is true. Each showed nothing, if not that he didn't tell the truth in any of them if he is to be believed. You'd better re-read them and tell me which one has him telling the actual truth:-) Which account is correct? Acts 9, 22 or 26? Or is Luke a liar?

[Barnsweb]

I'll paste the reply Steve's initial reply from the Courtyard so his comments are on this link for easier reference :

Welcome to the fellowship here! I, for one, cannot see any difference between the teachings of Christ and those of Paul.

—Both taught that Jesus is the Son of God, the Lord, the Messiah, the King and Savior:

Jesus: John 5:18; 10:36; 13:13; Matt.16:16-17; 28:18
Paul: Acts 9:22; 17:7; Romans 1:3; 10:9; Phil.2:11

—Both taught that a man is justified, prior to doing any righteous deeds, through humble repentance and faith toward God.

Jesus: Luke 18:13-14; 23:42-43; John 5:24; 6:40, 47
Paul: Acts 13:39; Roman 3:26; 5:1; Eph.2:8-9; Titus 3:5-7

—Both taught that good works (works of obedience to God) are essential to the Christian life.

Jesus: Matthew 5:16; 7:24-27; 16:27; 25:31-46
Paul: Romans 2:6-10; 6:15-18; 8:4; Eph.2:10; Gal.5:6,16-25; Titus 1:16; 2:14; 3:1, 14

—Both taught that love for God and for one another is the supreme test of one's salvation.

Jesus: John 13:34-35
Paul: 1 Cor.13:1-3

—Both taught that the Law of Moses was holy, just and good.

Jesus: Matt.5:17-20
Paul: Romans 7:12

—Both taught that ceremonial laws do not rank in the same class as ethical and moral standards in the Law.

Jesus: Matthew 9:13; 12:2-7; 23:23-24
Paul: Romans 2:25-27; Col.2:16-17

—Both taught (for example) that Sabbath observance and kosher diet were not absolute requirements.

Jesus: Matthew 12:2-8; Mark 7:15-19
Paul: Rom.14:1-6; Col.2:16-17; 1 Tim.4:1-5

—Both taught that Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial (e.g., the sacrificial) requirements of the Law.

Jesus: Matthew 5:17; Mark 10:45
Paul: 1 Corinthians 5:7; 2 Tim.2:5-6 (see also Hebrews 9:25-26; 10:11-12

—Both taught that a New Covenant was established in the Upper Room, and ratified by Christ's death.

Jesus: Luke 22:20
Paul: 2 Cor.3:6 (see also Hebrews 8:13)

—Neither enforced the requirement of New Covenant disciples to follow Jewish ceremonies.

Jesus: Matthew 12:2-7; John 5:8-9
Paul: Galatians 4:10-11; 5:1-6; Col.2:20-21

—Both taught that following the teachings of Christ is the only true discipleship, and that those who do not agree with Christ's teachings are confused and dangerous.

Jesus: Matthew 7:24-27; 11:29; 28:19-10; Luke 6:40; John 8:31
Paul: 1 Cor.11:1; 2 Cor.10:5; 1 Timothy 6:3-4 (See also Hebrews 5:9)

—Both taught that neither faith alone nor works alone are adequate for living a life pleasing to God.

Jesus: Matthew 7:21; Luke 6:40
Paul: Galatians 5:6; Ephesians 2:8-10

—Both taught the same eschatology.

Jesus: Matthew 25:31-46; John 5:28-29; 6:39, 40, 44, 54
Paul: Acts 24:15; 1 Thess.4:15-17; 2 Thess.1:6-9; 2 Timothy 4:1

—Both described the character of God the same way.

Jesus: Matthew 5:45; Luke 6:35-36; 15:20-24; John 3:16
Paul: Romans 5:7-8; 8:29; Eph.2:4;



Where are you finding the stark disagreement between the two?



Jesus taught that to receive or reject those whom He sends is the same as receiving or rejecting Himself (John 13:20).

The question, then, is: Did Jesus send Paul as an apostle? If not...

—what happened on the Damascus Road? Did Paul lie about this?

—why did Peter and the other apostles recognize his claims to apostleship as legitimate? Were they false and unreliable apostles also?

—where did "the [miraculous] signs of an apostle" (2 Cor.12:12) in his ministry come from?

—why did he accept suffering, beatings, imprisonment, poverty, etc. for the sake of Christ?

—then we lose the credibility even of one of our Gospels which was written by a disciple and companion of Paul's (Luke), who could not possibly have held major disagreements with him. If Luke's Gospel can't be trusted, then neither can large portions of Mark or Matthew, which parallel Luke to a very large extent.


For a professed follower of Christ to reject the authority of Paul clearly seems problematic.

[Barnsweb]

Where are you finding the stark disagreement between the two?



Jesus taught that to receive or reject those whom He sends is the same as receiving or rejecting Himself (John 13:20).

The question, then, is: Did Jesus send Paul as an apostle? If not...

—what happened on the Damascus Road? Did Paul lie about this?

—why did Peter and the other apostles recognize his claims to apostleship as legitimate? Were they false and unreliable apostles also?

—where did "the [miraculous] signs of an apostle" (2 Cor.12:12) in his ministry come from?

—why did he accept suffering, beatings, imprisonment, poverty, etc. for the sake of Christ?

—then we lose the credibility even of one of our Gospels which was written by a disciple and companion of Paul's (Luke), who could not possibly have held major disagreements with him. If Luke's Gospel can't be trusted, then neither can large portions of Mark or Matthew, which parallel Luke to a very large extent.


For a professed follower of Christ to reject the authority of Paul clearly seems problematic.
Barnsweb Posts: 20Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 6:54 am

Good points. So which account of Paul about his call from Jesus is true? Let's start with the beginning. Was it Acts 9, 22 or 26?

[Homer]

Barnsweb,

You wrote:

So which account of Paul about his call from Jesus is true? Let's start with the beginning. Was it Acts 9, 22 or 26?

Could you explain for me the contradictions you find in Luke's accounts of Paul's conversion?

Thanks

[backwoodsman]

Paul spoke out of both sides of his mouth all the time
{...}
In fact, his 'passing' comments about meeting them in Acts tells boatloads about how disrespectful and haughty he was.

What strange things to say!

The truth comes down to who agrees with what Jesus said the truth is - the word that HE spoke.

That's certainly the truth. But you have yet to point out a single discrepancy between Jesus and Paul that doesn't have a very simple, credible, solid explanation.

His varying accounts in Acts proves none of what he said is true. Each showed nothing, if not that he didn't tell the truth in any of them if he is to be believed. You'd better re-read them and tell me which one has him telling the actual truth:-) Which account is correct? Acts 9, 22 or 26? Or is Luke a liar?

Another really strange thing to say. Would you mind pointing out what you think it is that conflicts between the 3 accounts? I don't think anyone but you has noticed them.

Or did you mean the fact that ch9 says the men with him heard a voice, but ch22 says they didn't? (You must have more than this in mind because ch26 doesn't mention it; but I'll address it anyway, just in case it's all you have.) If you'd done your research, you'd know that, while it's the same Greek word that's translated 'voice', it can mean either hearing a noise, or understanding speech; it's a difference in grammar that distingushes which is meant. That difference in grammar exists in the text, so ch9 says the men heard a noise but implies they didn't understand words, and ch22 says simply that they didn't understand words. There is no discrepancy; one account simply gives a detail the other doesn't.

Maybe you were a little too quick to jump to an incorrect conclusion that's unflattering to Paul and Luke, when you should've done a little study instead, and cross-checked yourself with other brothers. It seems to me you've done the same on your other points as well, so while you think you're following Jesus more closely, you've actually been led way off track into some pretty serious deception.

[steve7150]

I think this is being unjustifiably easy of what Paul actually taught. Romans 7 says the Jews were released from the Law because their 'husband' died on the cross. Paul was not just talking ceremonial law, but the Torah in total - the commandments and ceremonies of the Temple










You are referring to the women released from the law if her husband dies? If this is Israel and if the husband is Jesus which is an "if" then i still believe Paul means the ritual law and not moral laws. Moral laws are part of God's character and simply can not be reversed because they are eternal. Ritual laws are not part of his character and can be reversed. Paul knew the difference and i think he expected his readers to know the distinction. Jesus repeated many of the 10 Commandments of which Paul was aware of , but Jesus never told his followers to sacrifice animals because it was a ritual law, which Paul was aware of also.

[Barnsweb]

Discussion of Paul's various viewpoints is an interesting topic, but since his teachings and our hearing him hinge upon the matters of the Acts accounts of the supposedly same incident, we'd likely stay more organized for discussion purposes to deal with that one first. If there are problems therein, the rest is of little consequence (seems to me anyway).

Acts 9 Jesus said to 'Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.' Ananias gets a message from Jesus to og inquire at the house of Judas for one called Saul of Tarsus, 'for behold, he is praying. And in a vision he has seen a man named Ananias coming in and putting his hand on him, so that he might receive his sight.' Then the Lord tells Ananias 'Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings and the children of Israel. For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name's sake.' Paul then stays with Ananias and the disciples 'some days' at Damascus. The record has Paul 'confounding the Jews' for some time at the Synagogue and had to escape from town.

Acts 22 Paul is arrested over the temple being defiled by a Gentile and Paul is accused to be at fault because what he was teaching the Jews amongst the Gentiles to forsake Moses, circumcision, the customs, rather than walk orderly and keep the law (implied by the test to see if Paul would comply) and again re affirmed the Jerusalem Decree - which we know Paul was teaching against - we have much evidence Paul was teaching it acceptable to eat meat sacrificed to idols. Then the Jews from Asia (Ephesis) saw Paul there and they knew first hand what Paul had been up to. So it was they who had tried Paul's claims and found him to be a liar and not an apostle that told the truth of what Paul was up to: 'This is the man who teaches against the people, the law, and this place, and furthermore he also brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.' Acts records 'presumed', but by now there is no doubt in my mind that Pauls' teaching that Jew and Gentile are one in the same now - the 'wall of partition' being broken down - where the crucifiction account has the veil between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies being what was torn in two - not the wall that separated prayer area for the Gentiles from the Jews. If Paul didn't bring them into the temple, he surely taught them it was OK. We have that record. Defilement of the Temple was a huge issue. God also destroyed the temple because of it - see the OT record of what God said He would do if it were defiled. Then in 22 Paul speaks to the people and is actually in grave danger over the issue. Then comes his testimony. This one varies significantly on a few points. By passing the noise, voice, light, who heard what, just going for the content here. For Ananias: 'The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth. For you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Then Paul has no account of his stay at Damascus, and rather than learning of a plot to kill him, Jesus personally tells him to 'Make haste and get out of Jerusalem quickly, for they will not receive your testimony concerning Me.' and 'Depart, for I will send you far from here to the Gentiles.' This incites the crowd even more, knowing Paul was teaching against the things noted earlier and then compounding his unfounded testimony - Ephesus had found Paul to be a liar and all those in Asia forsook him. See II Timothy where he mentions the matter to Timothy. Then Paul also appeals to his Roman citizenship, and that is another interesting discussion - his claim to being a Jew from birth and who he claims to be a relative later in another place. In all honest likelihood, Paul wasn't exactly honest with that report either, as there is historical evidence otherwise to his 'testimony' and claims to greatness.

Acts 26 This account has Paul testifying before authorities. In this account he says Jesus said:

'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand on your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you, will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, to open their eyes in order to turn them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me."

Then Paul further contradicts the earlier accounts by saying it was he who declared to those in Damascus rather than being declared to him by those in Damascus what he had to do. There was no trouble in Damascus with the Jews till Paul got there, but that is a side bar. Just looking at who said what reveals Paul is a habitual liar who couldn't remember what he told someone else. Thankfully Luke was an honest 'reporter' and 'historian' so we can see that Paul lied about his experience.

This should be enough for starters, but I'd like to add - do recall who Jesus said was to be His appointed witnesses of the gospel He preached, and it wan't Paul, and he made no implication Paul was to come either, nor am I aware of any Scripture that prophecies of him except those that warn of anyone adding to or taking away from what God declared true and the words we are to believe and do - not just Gentiles are 'sanctified by faith'. Jesus said to sanctify us by His word of truth - and spoke of those who said they believed but didn't do in a very unfavorable manner.

[backwoodsman]

So your problem is that each of the 3 accounts provides certain details the others omit? Why is that a problem? I've read all 3 accounts in Acts very carefully, and there are no contradictions. But comparing them to your post above does reveal several points where you need to read and think through things a little more carefully before you accuse Paul of being dishonest.

Acts 26 ... Then Paul further contradicts the earlier accounts by saying it was he who declared to those in Damascus rather than being declared to him by those in Damascus what he had to do.

If you read 26:20 more carefully, I think you'll see your error here. He says he declared the gospel; he doesn't say anything about what _he_ had to do. That's just one example; I'll let you find the others yourself, if you care to.

Or, maybe I'm just too dense and slow-witted to grasp what you're saying. If you could go through the alleged contradictions again, but this time be a lot more concise, I'd really appreciate it. Something like, put one statement on one line with its reference, and the statement that contradicts it on the next line with its reference, so it's really easy to follow.

You're on some pretty dangerous ground here. You've made some very serious accusations against an apostle of Jesus, on no better foundation than your own careless reading, misunderstandings, and faulty reasoning. I urge you to take a couple steps back and re-evaluate these things a little more carefully.

[steve]

Barnsweb,

Just looking at who said what reveals Paul is a habitual liar who couldn't remember what he told someone else. Thankfully Luke was an honest 'reporter' and 'historian' so we can see that Paul lied about his experience.

I am afraid you have shown your inconsistency (a species of dishonesty, as you yourself have judged above), as well as your hatred toward a brother.

1) Your inconsistency: You state that Luke was an honest reporter, but that Paul was a liar. Yet every account of Paul's testimony about it is simply Luke's recording of what Paul said. Luke obviously believed what Paul said and thus could not have seen the accounts as contradictory. In particular, the account in Acts 9 is not Paul's, but Luke's, report. If Luke was honest, as you say, then you should accept the report in Acts 9 at face value, which affirms the truth of Christ's appearance and commission to Saul/Paul. Since Luke also recorded the later reports of the story from Paul's own preaching (Acts 22 and 26), Luke must have seen no inconsistencies between those reports and the story Luke had himself recorded in Acts 9 (nor can I see any, incidentally).

Also, the differences in detail among the three accounts are no greater than the differences in detail found when three of the Gospels record the same story or the same saying of Jesus. Do you then decide that it was Jesus, or the Gospel writers, who must be decried as "liars"? You have already spoken of Luke's honesty. Peter is the source behind Mark's Gospel, and Matthew was an apostle along with Peter. When one speaks of two blind men being healed outside Jericho, while the others mention only one, which writer do you take to be the "Liar"? When Matthew records Jesus' words as "Be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect," while Luke records it as "Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful," which writer do you accuse of corrupting the words of Jesus?

You say you are faithful to the words of Jesus, but it was Jesus whose words from heaven commissioned Paul to be an apostle. Your rejection of Paul is a rejection of the words of Jesus. The other apostles initially made this same mistake, but they later repented and accepted Paul. Perhaps you will someday follow their example and repent? One can only hope.

2) That you would call a brother a wolf and a liar without any solid basis shows how careless you are about being a heretical divider of the Body of Christ and about condemning a brother without warrant. These are not the traits of any man who has the Spirit of Christ. It is very rare for me to label someone a "heretic." In your case, I am going to have to make an exception. You need to repent.

[Barnsweb]

The issue is inconsistency and the tale growing more fabulous with each telling. If you don't pick up on those facts, I can't make you see it. It can only be seen by observation of the accounts marked different accounts of events and the growing account of what he said Jesus said. Some years back on an LDS debate site the LDS also noted the differences. And they said if Paul could provide such divergent testimony of what Jesus told him, that the differences Joseph Smith related to his meetings with angels, then another, then the Father and the Son together mean nothing to disprove his experience as genuine. If it was good for Paul, it's good for Joseph Smith Jr. too!

I use the word 'Liar' for cause, but mainly because this is what Jesus had to say about him in Revelation.

Revelation was given after Paul had died. Jesus could have used this revelation to John as an opportunity to support Paul, as there was considerable contention over Paul, as Paul himself said - I hope you can also see that. So you side with Paul that the 'weaker brother', the one with the weak faith is the one who cares enough to do what God said to do?

Perhaps I thought you'd give a better reply based on the doctrine any disciple of Jesus Christ would uphold.

Later. God will be true though every man be a liar. Jesus gave us all we need to know, and we'd best double check that we hear and do what that truth is.