xjwsforChrist

Either Luke got it wrong, or Paul lied.

At Acts 9:17-30, we find the account of just after Saul was chosen by our Lord. The account says, in part:
On arriving in Jerusalem, he made efforts to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, because they did not believe he was a disciple. So Bar′na·bas came to his aid and led him to the apostles, and he told them in detail how on the road he had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken boldly in the name of Jesus. So he remained with them, moving about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord.

Paul's account contradicts this. At Galatians 1:15-19, Paul says:
But when God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through his undeserved kindness, thought good to reveal his Son through me so that I might declare the good news about him to the nations, I did not immediately consult with any human; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was, but I went to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Ce′phas, and I stayed with him for 15 days. But I did not see any of the other apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.

Paul says he did NOT go up to Jerusalem, but he went up THREE YEARS LATER, and then only visited Cephas and James.

Verse 20 says something interesting:
Now regarding the things I am writing you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.

The book of Acts was completed around 61 C.E. (according to WTBTS), but Galatians around 52 C.E. So, why did Paul feel it necessary to say that he wasn't lying? Did he get wind of Luke's writing? Were there other rumors circulating as to what happened to him? Did he feel it necessary to set the record straight? Or, (and I hesitate strongly to say this, but...) was HE lying about what happened? In either case, someone got it wrong and it's been wrong to this very day.

Neither is the case, dear LQ (peace to you, dear brother!). I can see how you might think one or the other is... but I don't see (or hear) what you see as to either account. Let me show you.

You state:



Then you quote:

"When he arrived in Jerusalem/On arriving in Jerusalem"...

May I ask, on what are you basing that the verse is "just after Saul was chosen by our Lord"? I could be wrong but I THINK you might be making an assumption based on the word(s) "When" and/or "On," taking those to mean an actually time... as opposed to a precursor to events.

In understanding how the SEQUENCING of MANY things written in the NT actually occurs, though, I see nothing that says WHEN this actually WAS.. nor that it was "just after" Paul was chosen. Rather, I see that, according to Luke's account, Paul was in Damascus for a time... and then the account goes on to relate what occurred WHEN Paul [DID, as in finally] arrived in Jerusalem. Luke's account does not say when that was, but only that it was after Paul's time in Damascus. How LONG after that time, though?

I understand that based on the sequence it might APPEAR that it was right after, but that is an assumption. Because it does NOT state:

"When he arrived in Jerusalem/On arriving in Jerusalem shortly after the Lord chose him..." or "When he arrived in Jerusalem/On arriving in Jerusalem right after leaving Damascus..."

According to Paul,it was some time later... and my understanding is that this is true... and what you have here is a situation much like that with our dear Lord, where we have him at age 12 in the temple... and then all of sudden approaching John at the Jordan. Somehow, about 25 years are missing there.

Even so, you also have to take into consideration that LUKE was not an EYEWITNESS to many things, but relied on what OTHERS told him. Which MIGHT be why Paul (felt he) had to defend what HE had said, if that were the case. But it isn't and Paul actually clarifies. HE wrote:

"But when God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through his undeserved kindness, thought good to reveal his Son through me so that I might declare the good news about him to the nations, I did not immediately consult with any human; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was, but I went to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Ce′phas, and I stayed with him for 15 days. But I did not see any of the other apostles, only James the brother of the Lord."

You state:



But you're missing something. In Luke's account, he wrote that some in Damascus were seeking to kill Paul... and that Paul had to be secreted out of the city. Let's think about that:

How far is Damascus from Jerusalem? If men in Damascus were seeking to kill Paul... would Jerusalem be far enough away to run and hide? Would Paul have actually ran straight to the Apostles... having a bounty on his head? Would he have not taken the trouble following him straight to THEM? COULD he have run straight to them... given their perception of him? OR... would he have maybe ran to... say... ARABIA... for a bit... then, once the death threats cooled down... RETURNED to Damascus (because that's where he had been headed to begin with... AND that's where our dear Lord SENT him)... and THEN... three years later... went to Jerusalem?



Consider, though, if you can, that Paul wrote THIS... because he was trying to account for where he HAD been... Arabia... when he had run and hid.. versus where some might have THOUGHT he'd been. Remember, he had been a Pharisee... and an opposer and persecuter of Christians. And so MANY were afraid of him. And now, first he was in Damascus... then he wasn't... then he was back again. Who WOULDN'T have thought, "SOOooo, how do we KNOW you're not going to deliver us up NOW? How do we know you've not been hanging out with Herod and company all this time, plotting against us and giving away who and where we are? How do know that the Romans/Jews won't come running in and take us ALL prisoner, because we trusted you... and then you just disappeared? Where you BEEN all this time, Saul?).

Consider that he was defending his ABSENCE... rather than trying to defend against something like whether he'd gone to Jerusalem and when.

Here's another reason why your "theory" is off, dear brother. You state:



According to this timeline (which my understanding is not accurate, and you certainly CANNOT trust the WTBTS' assertions as to ANY timeline, so...), Paul wrote his letter 9 years before Luke's account was completed. If Paul was defending against Luke's forthcoming writing, surely Luke would have mentioned something about that... or even changed HIS account to accommodate Paul's. For one, they were companions. So, Luke would have known what Paul wrote to the Galatians. At SOME point. Certainly by the time he finished HIS writing some 9 years later. But more so, Luke based HIS account on what he received FROM eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2)... versus holy spirit... and so certainly his own companion, Paul, would have been the preferred "eyewitness" to what occurred with him... yes?

So, Luke would have either:

1. Wrote as PAUL told him the events occurred; or

2. Wrote as others told him, but alluded to the discrepancy ("Now, there was some disagreement as to where Paul was between when he left Damascus the first time and when he arrived in Jerusalem. Some were saying he went straight to Jerusalem; Paul, however, argued that he first went to Arabia...").

Because, remember, his GOAL was to right what had occurred... based on what OTHERS told him... in the ORDER that it had occurred... Acts 1:1; Luke 1:3 (I realize that this is the account of "Acts," versus Luke's gospel account, but he wouldn't have changed his purpose OR goal from one writing to the other without stating so to "Theophilus." That one, however, knew what to expect in the second set of accounts (Acts), due to what he was TOLD he would receive in the FIRST account (Luke).



There were and he did: where he was all that time (between the first time in Damascus and the second)... and what was he doing. But Luke didn't write about this period at all. Why? Because there WERE no eyewitnesses for him to get an account FROM, as there was with the REST of what he wrote about. Because Paul had run away to hide... in Arabia. Who was Luke going to interview there? When would Luke have GONE there? WHY would he have gone there ("Ummm, hey, folks, I'm Luke. Yeah, I'm from Judea and I'm writing an account about Christians for my employer, Theophilus, and I need to include everything. I was told by Saul of Tarsus that he'd come here when some men in Damascus put out a death threat on him. Is there someone who was an eyewitness to him being here that I can interview? Someone who can tell me all about what happened and what he did while he was here so's I can include it in my account? 'Cause I don't want to leave ANYTHING out!").

The only person who REASONABLY could have told him was Paul. And maybe there was a reason HE (Paul) didn't tell. Or... maybe he did tell... and Luke just thought it was too insignificant... or even too boring... to include. And so... the account skipped all that and went from Damascus to Jerusalem.



Again, neither were lying. Unless you want to consider the omission of what happened in Arabia "lying by omission." In which case, both lied, as BOTH left out Paul's time in Arabia. Again, probably because it was boring... or maybe Paul's recounting of it was boring - LOLOL!



No, actually, no one got it wrong. Then... and it really isn't now. It's just incomplete. Not quite the same thing, dear brother.

I hope this helps, though, truly.

As always, peace to you and to your dear household!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shel, who didn't read between the lines... but just "listened" between them - LOLOLOL!

I have never really got into the gospels, I have some catching up to do.

John sent me this link yesterday about a bible found in turkey written by Barnabus? Is this a hoax do you think?

http://www.theusefulin.com/2014/06/1500-year-old-bible-confirms-that-jesus.html?m=1

Sure...

Let's back up and start with Acts 9:19:
and he ate some food and gained strength. He stayed for some days with the disciples in Damascus, 20 and immediately in the synagogues he began to preach about Jesus, that this one is the Son of God. 21 But all those hearing him were astonished and were saying: “Is this not the man who ravaged those in Jerusalem who call on this name? Did he not come here for the purpose of arresting them and taking them to the chief priests?” 22 But Saul kept on acquiring more and more power and was confounding the Jews who lived in Damascus, as he proved logically that this is the Christ.
23 Now when many days had passed, the Jews plotted together to do away with him. 24 However, their plot against Saul became known to him. They were also watching the gates closely both day and night in order to do away with him. 25 So his disciples took him and let him down by night through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket. 26 On arriving in Jerusalem, he made efforts to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, because they did not believe he was a disciple





When Luke wrote about this, he definitely transitioned. He said that the boy returned to Nazareth and went on progressing in wisdom and in physical growth and in favor with God and men After this transition, Luke had a change of thought in his writing. He followed the above with: In the 15th year of the reign of Ti·be′ri·us Caesar... The point here is that with those missing 25 years, the reader understands the gap because it's made clear in the writing. The account in Acts has no such transition. It goes straight from being lowered in the basked to arriving in Jerusalem with no transitional wording at all.

In Galatians 1, Paul said he went to Jerusalem THREE YEARS later. Luke's account has the Jews plotting against him after many DAYS later. Not months, not years. Days. Many days, true, but still, days. Sure, you can explain this away and say that "many days" could be a euphemism for months or even years. That doesn't lead us to the conclusion that Paul was in Damascus for almost three years until this happened. Then, right after saying that he was lowered in a basket, Luke writes that he arrives in Jerusalem. Without transitional wording, this leads the reader to conclude that he went from Damascus directly to Jerusalem.

Another discrepancy exists: In Galatians 1, Paul said he only met with Cephas, but none of the other apostles, but he saw James, the Lord's brother, who, as I understand it, was not an apostle. Luke, however, writes in Acts 9:27:

So Bar′na·bas came to his aid and led him to the apostles, and he told them in detail how on the road he had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken boldly in the name of Jesus
I can almost hear you saying, 'Now, LQ, this might be like someone saying they went to the elders about a matter when, in fact, they only went to one elder.' Yep, I thought of that.


Well, if no one got it wrong, then Luke didn't include all the pertinent details to make it consistent. I only noticed it because I have been reading Acts and came across this in chapter 9, and it struck me as odd because I know very well what Galatians says due to the latter part of chapter 1 and chapter 2 debunking the whole 'governing body in the first century' claim.

Of course, this doesn't hinder my faith one iota. I don't think Paul was actually lying, but I never understood why he had to say that he was telling the truth and not lying until I discovered these . . . discrepancies, for lack of a better word. I'm more of the opinion that Luke was misinformed, or in this particular instance, not very precise as he usually is in his writings.

Zoe,

Here's the Vatican's response:
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/world-news/detail/articolo/bibbia-bible-biblia-13182/
http://www.catholic.com/blog/jon-sorensen/why-the-%E2%80%98gospel-of-barnabas%E2%80%99-is-a-medieval-fake

Just seems like Luke did not write (for whatever reason) some of the details but gave a birds eye view of what happened with Paul, and Paul filled in some of those details in his own letters at another time. Paul would know where he went during that time of course.

Peace to you,
your sister and servant, and fellow slave of Christ,
tammy

As for the 'barnabas bible', we can know that it (or at least parts of it) is false (hoax or not) by the false things it claims about Christ. (if indeed it does say what people are claiming it says - I have not read it) For example: that He is not the Son of God, that He was not crucified or put to death, etc.

The links that Leaving put up give other reasons (the language and wording, etc), but for me, what matters is whether or not something contradicts with Christ and all that He has taught.

In any case, we are not told to listen to Barnabas, or Paul, or men, or books, or religion... but rather we are told to listen to Christ. If we are listening to Him - the Truth - then we can KNOW the truth, and not be fooled by others' claims. it is not the written word that our faith is built/based upon... but Christ, the LIVING Word and Holy Spirit, the Holy One of Israel, and Chosen One of Jah.



Peace to you both,
your sister and servant, and fellow slave of Christ,
tammy

Greetings, dear Zoe, and peace to you, dear lady!

The article you linked was first published by the National Turk in 2012. The article in your link was taken from that, which seems to be different in a lot of content from that one in your link. You can see the original article here:

http://www.nationalturk.com/en/1500-yea ... rkey-16624

Regarding the article you linked, please note the comments by "Professor X" in the responses at the bottom. Please ALSO note that "Jesus" is an ENGLISH rendering. ANY "ancient" manuscript that purports to call our dear Lord by name MUST be a fake, luv. HAS to be.

If the claim is that the manuscript was written in Aramaic, therefore, then we can KNOW it's fake... simply because the name used would have been JaheShua... or at least some version of that (Y'shua, etc.). But it could NOT be "Jesus"... because (1) THAT is a translation of the Greek "Iesous," which has nothing to do with my Lord's name... particularly the Hebrew/ARAMAIC name, and so (2) why would an ARAMAIC manuscript refer to him by a GREEK... OR English name??

Read Prof. X's response, though, and maybe that will help you get a better sense of what may be wht here.

Again, peace to you!

Your servant and a slave of Christ,

Shel

But Luke could only write "precisely" as to what he was TOLD, though, yes, dear LQ (peace to you, dear one!)? Since he was a friend, companion... and some even call him a disciple... of PAUL (as some were of John the Baptist, others of the 12), again, why wouldn't he have disputed... or at least mentioned so as to explain (away, even) Paul's "defense" of when he went to Jerusalem?

Let me ask yous:

Do you think the account of Acts... or ANY Bible account is 100% complete... and that no parts are missing from when it was first written? If not, is it possible that, say, the "fragment" that would have MADE the transition is missing... or was not included? OR that perhaps Paul DID tell Luke what he did while in Arabia... but depending on what it was... and his affection for Paul... Luke CHOSE to leave it out? OR... those who canonized the Bible left it out... and THEY actually wrote the transition wording?

You see, for me, I have to assume that, sometimes because:

1. Our dear Lord did condemn the "works" of the "scribes." I would venture to say that while perhaps scathing, his words didn't necessarily result in all of the scribes of the time repenting... and writing everything honestly and just so from that point on... and that can include Luke, who was NOT inspired by holy spirit but was actually some kind of "reporter"; and

2. My Lord once said to me, "All that I tell you IS written, but not all that is written is what I will tell you."

That said, I can't make you or anyone else believe what I shared with you... or from where... Whom... it originated. I can only share it. You have to decide for yourself whether it comports with what YOU believe... or hear. But whether Paul went to Arabia... or whether Luke missed something... or disagreed... isn't something I would personally get caught up in... or distracted by. I'm not entirely sure it matters, at this point, one way or the other.

I might matter to some with regard to who, between Paul and Luke, they are to BELIEVE/wrote the TRUTH... but neither can save any of us. And so, it really is just a bit of "trivia", is it not? We can want to know the truth, yes... but perhaps only the truth about things, including dates and times and seasons. Knowing them will not bring us life, though.

Seeking the kingdom, however, and IT's righteousness... which would include the righteousness of its KING... is what will help us toward everlasting life. And so, for ME, I have to put faith in what my dear Lord, the HOLY One of Israel and Holy Spirit, JAHESHUS, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah) told me as to what occurred: that neither man was lying here, but both left something out, something that was pretty insignificant to THEM, such they would COULD leave it out, but which might be significant to some of us NOW. And that was that Paul, as he said, went to Arabia upon leaving Damascus the first time... and went to Jerusalem about three years after his SECOND time in Damacus, after he returned there when the threats against him had somewhat quelled (his word - LOLOL!).

Regardless, unlike the scholars, theologians, historians, etc., WE don't have to speculate as to what occurred, though, yes? Because there is One WE can simply ASK. And so, that's Who I have to go with. You, though, again, must go with whatever understanding you must go with... and I do not judge your for doing so. It's a totally normal thing.

As always, peace to you and to your dear household!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shel

Good point.


Yeah, "trivia"... that's a good word for it.


If I were to go with my own understanding on stuff, I wouldn't be here, nor would I have posted this here. I simply wanted to open it as a topic for discussion since it's something I observed. Sure, I defended my point of view (perhaps even adamantly), but that's all it was/is, a point of view. I rather enjoy being wrong in my point of view... keeps me continually learning.

John who is anti religion sent me that article, at first read it sounds shocking but then when Googled around and also read your comments I saw it was just a Fake.

Sorry for hijacking the thread but when I saw mention of Barnabus I thought of posting it.

I can't tell, dear LQ (mornin' and peace to you, dear one!), but I hope my "style" of responding didn't offend. Sometimes it can be hard to discern another's tone and intent when reading written words (as we've learned from this thread - LOL!), and I realize my pragmaticism and verbosity CAN be misleading. I have tried writing differently but, unfortunately, doing so makes me feel disingenuous, even "fake", sometimes. Which doesn't set well with my heart and mind. So I stick to my habit/practice and trust that those who know me... or who have read what I've shared for some time and so know my style... will see past any perceived malintent. If I DID offend, I sincerely apologize, of course! If not, well then, no harm, no foul! LOLOL!

And absolutely no worries, dear Zoe (mornin' and peace to you, as well, dear lady!). The way modern media works... well, I'm SURE (most of) the "scribes" of TODAY would meet with my Lord's disapproval - LOLOL!

Peace to you both!

Your servant and a slave of Christ,

Shel

Oh, I totally agree. Sometimes I take an hour or two to write an email at work for this very reason. Tone is lost. Even tonal intent can be lost sometimes.


Not at all.


Never apologize for speaking what you hear. I may not accept it right away, but I have a pretty thick skin. I'm not easily offended. I might sulk for a bit, but that's just wounded pride. LOL!




You mean like WTBTS taking it upon themselves to "restore" God's "name" in the NT? Or to omit certain words (e.g. "me" at John 14:14) or add words (e.g. "other" at Col 1:16)?

That, yes, dear LQ ( mornin ' and peace to you, luv! ). I was also thinking of the scribes of today's secular media... and I do t just mean the Nat'l Enquire - LOLOL!

Peace!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shel