Paul's activity after his conversion, a contradiction?

[SoaringEagle]

Acts 9:26 And when Saul had come to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, and did not believe that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. And he declared to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. 28 So he was with them at Jerusalem, coming in and going out.

Gal. 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother.

In a recent discussion (about Paul's familiarity with the life of Jesus) with one who appears to be a skeptic, he pointed out this. Is this a contradiction? How can I or this be explained?

SoaringEagle

 

[rapturefish]

Doesn't seem to be, if Paul spent three years in Arabia and then Damascus, then went to Jerusalem. Remember that Acts, and all the four main gospels were not straight history but an accoutn with theological intent. That not every step is mentioned in both accounts does not mean things did not happen in-between; it's just that the events that were mentioned contributed to the intent theologically of the book or letter.

 

[heymikey80]

Acts 9:26 And when Saul had come to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, and did not believe that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. And he declared to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. 28 So he was with them at Jerusalem, coming in and going out.

Gal. 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother.

In a recent discussion (about Paul's familiarity with the life of Jesus) with one who appears to be a skeptic, he pointed out this. Is this a contradiction? How can I or this be explained?

SoaringEagle

An interesting confirmation of detail on this, in Galatians 2:1 Paul confirms that "Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus." He didn't mention Barnabas' initial activity on his first visit, but it's clear from his second visit that Barnabas and he went the first time. The second time they added Titus.

 

[SoaringEagle]

Thanks you two. Also, any one else with more insight on this, please give your thoughts.

 

[arunma]

I've always assumed that Luke simply omitted three years of Paul's life in Acts. It doesn't appear to be a contradiction at all.