(August 20, 2015 at 7:49 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Paul was a young scholar moving rapidly up the chain of command within the ranks of the Pharisees. His future in Jerusalem was assured.

And then he threw it all away to join the very group he had been persecuting?

Why? What was his motivation?

This was in the Jerusalem Post or Haaretz, I expect?

(August 20, 2015 at 7:57 am)Kaninchen Wrote:

(August 20, 2015 at 7:49 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Paul was a young scholar moving rapidly up the chain of command within the ranks of the Pharisees. His future in Jerusalem was assured.

And then he threw it all away to join the very group he had been persecuting?

Why? What was his motivation?

This was in the Jerusalem Post or Haaretz, I expect?

Actually, it wasn't...a fact which upset his mother who always said he should have been a doctor.

(August 20, 2015 at 7:59 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

(August 20, 2015 at 7:57 am)Kaninchen Wrote: This was in the Jerusalem Post or Haaretz, I expect?

Actually, it wasn't...a fact which upset his mother who always said he should have been a doctor.

He'd have needed '-ics ', '-istry' and an '-ology' for that so he had to make do with writing fiction instead.

(August 20, 2015 at 7:49 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Why? What was his motivation?

Possibly the same as David Koresh's motivations. Who knows?

The conviction of his beliefs say absolutely nothing about the veracity of his beliefs.

(August 20, 2015 at 7:49 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Paul was a young scholar moving rapidly up the chain of command within the ranks of the Pharisees. His future in Jerusalem was assured.

And then he threw it all away to join the very group he had been persecuting?

Why? What was his motivation?

Uhm... How about this - he had a stroke, which caused him to lose his sight, as well as some of his mental facilities. In other words - HE WENT NUTS, A-DUH!

Or perhaps your explanation makes more sense - god chose him to spread his teaching and in order for him to do a good job... made him blind (???)...

(August 20, 2015 at 7:49 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Paul was a young scholar moving rapidly up the chain of command within the ranks of the Pharisees. His future in Jerusalem was assured.

And then he threw it all away to join the very group he had been persecuting?

Why? What was his motivation?

In Acts we are told that after his conversion, Paul went to Jerusalem and met with all the disciples and went on an evangelism spree. However, in Galatians, Paul gives a sworn affidavit that none of that ever happened. He says he did not make it to Jerusalem until 3 years later and only met John and a few others but the disciples never saw his face. What difference does it make what his motivations were if his whole story was doctored by writers who couldn't agree about what happened?

This is why it's important to know about Bible contradictions so we can identify the cherry pickers and quasi-arguments.

(August 20, 2015 at 8:06 am)Cato Wrote:

(August 20, 2015 at 7:49 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Why? What was his motivation?

Possibly the same as David Koresh's motivations. Who knows?

The conviction of his beliefs say absolutely nothing about the veracity of his beliefs.

Who knows? Well, anyone who has read his letters, actually.

Paul was transformed from chief persecutor of the Church to its greatest proponent.

How did that happen?

(August 20, 2015 at 10:07 am)Homeless Nutter Wrote:

(August 20, 2015 at 7:49 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Paul was a young scholar moving rapidly up the chain of command within the ranks of the Pharisees. His future in Jerusalem was assured.

And then he threw it all away to join the very group he had been persecuting?

Why? What was his motivation?

Uhm... How about this - he had a stroke, which caused him to lose his sight, as well as some of his mental facilities. In other words - HE WENT NUTS, A-DUH!

Or perhaps your explanation makes more sense - god chose him to spread his teaching and in order for him to do a good job... made him blind (???)...

Well, that's possible. But is it probable?

Tell you what...you find some respected scholars who hold this "Stroke Theory", and we can consider their arguments, okay?

In the meantime, there are still three other "Minimal Facts" that are not accounted for by Paul's stroke...

(August 20, 2015 at 6:57 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote:

(August 20, 2015 at 7:49 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Paul was a young scholar moving rapidly up the chain of command within the ranks of the Pharisees. His future in Jerusalem was assured.

And then he threw it all away to join the very group he had been persecuting?

Why? What was his motivation?

In Acts we are told that after his conversion, Paul went to Jerusalem and met with all the disciples and went on an evangelism spree. However, in Galatians, Paul gives a sworn affidavit that none of that ever happened. He says he did not make it to Jerusalem until 3 years later and only met John and a few others but the disciples never saw his face. What difference does it make what his motivations were if his whole story was doctored by writers who  couldn't agree about what happened?

This is why it's important to know about Bible contradictions so we can identify the cherry pickers and quasi-arguments.

Damascus > Arabia > Jerusalem

Luke does not mention the three-year sojourn in Arabia; Paul does. But Luke doesn't say that Paul went straight from Damascus to Jerusalem, either.

Don't dodge the question; What did Paul have to gain by giving up a promising career among the Pharisees and joining the fledgling Christians?

(August 20, 2015 at 6:57 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote:

(August 20, 2015 at 7:49 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Paul was a young scholar moving rapidly up the chain of command within the ranks of the Pharisees. His future in Jerusalem was assured.

And then he threw it all away to join the very group he had been persecuting?

Why? What was his motivation?

In Acts we are told that after his conversion, Paul went to Jerusalem and met with all the disciples and went on an evangelism spree. However, in Galatians, Paul gives a sworn affidavit that none of that ever happened. He says he did not make it to Jerusalem until 3 years later and only met John and a few others but the disciples never saw his face. What difference does it make what his motivations were if his whole story was doctored by writers who  couldn't agree about what happened?

This is why it's important to know about Bible contradictions so we can identify the cherry pickers and quasi-arguments.

Paul wrote:

Quote:17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. 18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas (Peter) and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

So, apparently, after the persecution broke out against the Church, the apostles were scattered such that Paul only met Peter and James, the Lord's brother, in Jerusalem three years later. He went from Damascus > Arabia > Jerusalem.

Luke does not mention the three-year sojourn in Arabia; Paul does. But Luke doesn't say that Paul went straight from Damascus to Jerusalem, either. He wrote:

Quote:Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. 20 At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. 21 All those who heard him were astonished and asked, “Isn’t he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among those who call on this name? And hasn’t he come here to take them as prisoners to the chief priests?” 22 Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Messiah.

23 After many days had gone by, there was a conspiracy among the Jews to kill him, 24 but Saul learned of their plan. Day and night they kept close watch on the city gates in order to kill him. 25 But his followers took him by night and lowered him in a basket through an opening in the wall.

26 When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus. 28 So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. 29 He talked and debated with the Hellenistic Jews,[a] but they tried to kill him. 30 When the believers learned of this, they took him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus.

I highlighted the passage in blue to show the gap. YOU contend that Luke has Paul going straight from Damascus to Jerusalem in vv 25-26. But this is not what Luke wrote. Paul never wrote of his experience in Arabia, and Luke is silent about it, also. We don't know what happened there, but Paul came back a changed man...and one who had learned much from the Lord apparently, because he says that he did not receive his gospel from "any man, but from the Lord." He also speaks of visions and being caught up to heaven, so maybe this occurred during this extended retreat in the desert.

We don't really know. But what we do know is that there is no contradiction between Acts 9 and Galatians 1.

Now, don't dodge the question; What did Paul have to gain by giving up a promising career among the Pharisees and joining the fledgling Christians?