The Conversion of St. Paul

[Fish and Bread]

The stories about S/Paul's conversion to Christianity in the bible seem to differ in several important respects. When Paul himself tells the story in Galatians, he makes a point of saying he did not talk to anyone after his conversion, went immediately to Arabia, and then did not meet with a single apostle for three years (After which he spent fifteen days with Peter and also met James or John briefly, I don't remember which). He is very adament about this, even stating that he was telling the truth, as if there are contrary stories.

When Acts 9 describes Paul's conversion, though, it tells a different tale. At first, it's basically the same, but instead of going to Arabia when he has his vision, he instead goes on to Damascus as planned and a Christian, Ananias, lays his hands on him to restore his sight, baptizes him, feeds him, and so forth. Then after proclaiming the gospel in the synagogues for a while in the city, he goes to Jerusalem, where he eventually meets with the Apostles.

How do these two accounts square up?

 

[Key]

The stories about S/Paul's conversion to Christianity in the bible seem to differ in several important respects. When Paul himself tells the story in Galatians, he makes a point of saying he did not talk to anyone after his conversion, went immediately to Arabia, and then did not meet with a single apostle for three years (After which he spent fifteen days with Peter and also met James or John briefly, I don't remember which). He is very adament about this, even stating that he was telling the truth, as if there are contrary stories.

When Acts 9 describes Paul's conversion, though, it tells a different tale. At first, it's basically the same, but instead of going to Arabia when he has his vision, he instead goes on to Damascus as planned and a Christian, Ananias, lays his hands on him to restore his sight, baptizes him, feeds him, and so forth. Then after proclaiming the gospel in the synagogues for a while in the city, he goes to Jerusalem, where he eventually meets with the Apostles.

How do these two accounts square up?

Note: He was not "converted" until after his site was restored.

The Stories line up.

God Bless

Key

 

[Fish and Bread]

The Stories line up.

Care to elaborate on that?

 

[micbmac]

Luke, writer of Acts, was indeed a good friend and helper of Paul, so he did not intentionally set out to undermine Paul. Furthermore, Paul in Galations was not defending himself against Luke as I believe you are suggesting. In fact, he was crediting himself against a group of his opposers who were saying his credentials were of a human source and not of God. These opposers claimed that Paul's message was "an easy gospel" to increase his popularity with man. They felt faith alone was not enough and that the Jewish law must be upheld and strictly followed. This was what angered Paul in the writing of Galations. Paul was underscoring his case by retelling the story of his conversion. I do not see contradictions but the same event told from two different perspectives. One writer left out points that he felt were irrelivent while the other emphasized these points. You are not the first one to bring up the differences between Acts and Galations. There is a lot of information out there about this subject on the internet. It may help you better understand than I can. God Bless.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Luke, writer of Acts, was indeed a good friend and helper of Paul, so he did not intentionally set out to undermine Paul. Furthermore, Paul in Galations was not defending himself against Luke as I believe you are suggesting. In fact, he was crediting himself against a group of his opposers who were saying his credentials were of a human source and not of God. These opposers claimed that Paul's message was "an easy gospel" to increase his popularity with man. They felt faith alone was not enough and that the Jewish law must be upheld and strictly followed. This was what angered Paul in the writing of Galations. Paul was underscoring his case by retelling the story of his conversion. I do not see contradictions but the same event told from two different perspectives. One writer left out points that he felt were irrelivent while the other emphasized these points. You are not the first one to bring up the differences between Acts and Galations. There is a lot of information out there about this subject on the internet. It may help you better understand than I can. God Bless.

Thanks! That does help somewhat.

However, I still see the chronology of exactly when he received recognition/authorization from the early church as being an issue, potentially one of some theological importance. In the Acts account, the first thing that is done is laying on of hands by a Christian to restore his sight, baptism by a Christian, and then in relatively short order (it seems) he meets with the Apostles and seems to more or less obtain their blessing. In Galatians, he seems to have the vision in the desert, go off to preach in Arabia for three years, and it is only after all of that time that he finally engages the church (baptism presumably, authorization by the other Apostles, etc..). These seem like more than minor inconsistencies and potentially important points in terms of the role of the church in the life of a Christian. But maybe I am making too much of this or misunderstanding somehow.

 

[Key]

Care to elaborate on that?

Sure, when Paul was struck with Blindness, he was not converted at that moment, he was in a state of seeking and afflicted with a loss, and it was not until he went to a follower of Christ, and witnessed the power of the Cross that his eyes were opened, and he became a follower of Christ, Then, not before then.

I hope I have explained that to you.

God Bless

Key

 

[micbmac]

Hi. It is my opinion, after some research (yes, you got me reading today), that Luke was not particularly concerned with precise chronology. In fact, he was rather vague. Acts chapters 9, 22 and 6 all indicate that Paul went from Damascus to Jerusalem, however, you must realize that none of these passages states that Paul went straight from Damascus to Jerusalem. It only says "and when Saul had come to Jerusalem". Luke gives no time limitations. In fact, there is no where in the New Testament denying that three years expired between Paul's conversion and his first trip to Jerusalem as a Christian. Another point I would like to make is that it did not aid Paul's cause to mention to the Galations that his first years of work were done among the gentiles. The Jews hated Paul for his dealings with the gentiles. Certain situations simply warrant silence on a subject rather than an exhaustive detailing of historic facts. Paul did not lie. He just omitted. Remember that a Bible writer is writing from his point of view and we as readers must also take into consideration to whom the writer is focusing his message. Neither Paul in his speeches, nor Luke in Acts felt it necessary to mention Paul's journey to Arabia. I hope this helps a little bit.

 

[Johnnz]

All historians select and present material in line with their purpose and theme. A war history by an academic and one by a soldier will differ significantly in detail and emphasis. But, underlying these differences is agreement that the battles did take place. Luke was showing How God worked to enlarge the church, Paul was speaking about hi sown experiences to a particular audience about an issue of doctrine and practice within a local community. Of course there will be differences in details.

John
NZ

 

[ManOfTheAmish]

I like the story of St. Paul because once I too was anti-Christian with a deep hate for everything Christian.

( I have practiced many non-Christian religions in my life)

I came to God in that my philosophical studies were leading me to the same conclusion of that in the bible which at first shocked me but as time went by I accepted the body of Christ with his father God.

It is God that has lead me from confusement on my path now and it is God leading me to join the Amish.

 

[micbmac]

I like the story of St. Paul because once I too was anti-Christian with a deep hate for everything Christian.

( I have practiced many non-Christian religions in my life)

I came to God in that my philosophical studies were leading me to the same conclusion of that in the bible which at first shocked me but as time went by I accepted the body of Christ with his father God.

It is God that has lead me from confusement on my path now and it is God leading me to join the Amish.

I think that is really awsome. Is there a particular reason you chose the Amish religion? Is it a drastic change for you?

 

[ManOfTheAmish]

I think that is really awsome. Is there a particular reason you chose the Amish religion? Is it a drastic change for you?

Religiously and philosophically speaking I believe that civilization is corrupt in the absence of God(Religious belief) and nature. ( Philosophical belief.)

In religion to me civilization is the third Babylon after that of Rome in complete absence of God where philosophically speaking I believe civilization is a artificial anomaly completely isolated from the true foundations of nature enslaving man deeply to his creations,vices and artifacts.

( I am a writer currently writing philosophical books so after God and religion one could say philosophy is very important to me.)

Is it a drastic change for you?

In materialism no because I don't own much already and I live a very frugal life but technologically speaking it will be drastic however I am confident that I can adjust alright.

 

[childofGod31]

I heard that Amish are very strict and have a lot of rules to live by.

I hope you are going there because you prefer their lifestyle and NOT because you think that it's wrong before God to live in the world.

JOH 17:15 My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one.

Paul talks a lot about freedom that we receive in Christ. GAL 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. (of obeying a multitude of rules)

Also, God requires spiritual act of worship.
JOH 4:24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

Some people put emphasis on being rough on their body as an act of worshipping God. But God wants a spiritual worship (which means in our hearts, attitudes and minds.) It's not about doing something a certain way physically. It's about having the right attitude towards doing something in your heart.

COL 2:20 Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules:
21 "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"?
22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings.
23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

 

[Adoniram]

For the OP-

The Book of Acts is an overview of the history of the early church and how Christianity began to be spread throughout the world. It touches on highlights of various people's lives who were involved in this. If Paul, in some of his epistles, goes into details about his life that are not included in Acts, it should not be see as a contradiction, but rather filling in the detail of some of the valleys amidst the peaks of Acts.