We can find in the Bible a sworn affidavit by Paul that he is guilty of fabrication. Sound incredible? Let us have a look:

"And when he (Paul) had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul (Paul) certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him. Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket. And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him."
Acts 9:19-29

"Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me."
Acts 26:19-21

Contradicted by:

"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed."
Galatians 1:15-23

With regard to the first two passages, Reverend Dr. Davies in "The First Christian," says: "These assertions are not inconsistent with each other, but are damaging for another reason,: they are contradicted by Paul himself in his letter to the Galatians (Chapters 1 and 2)." Rev. Davies draws attention to Paul's oath: "Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God I do not lie," which makes his account a sworn affidavit.

Some of the contradictions are:

1) Galatians claims that after his alleged vision, Paul "Immediately" spoke to "no flesh and blood" but rather traveled to Arabia and then to Damascus. So he did not "straightway," if at all, preach boldly in Damascus as claimed by Acts (How long would it take to travel from Damascus to Arabia to Damascus? Could he go and come back "straightway"?).

2) According to Galatians, Paul did not go to Jerusalem where the apostles were. Rather, he went to Arabia then to Damascus. Now, after at least THREE YEARS (not many days), he goes to Jerusalem. It explicitly states that "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles." So this is claimed to be his FIRST visit to Jerusalem after his claimed vision. This FIRST visit is claimed to have occurred at least THREE YEARS after Paul's alleged vision. However, Acts claims that MANY DAYS after his vision he traveled to Jerusalem and performed a bold preaching campaign with all the apostles. Acts also mentions no intermediate journey to Arabia.

3) According to Galatians, upon Paul's arrival in Jerusalem he met Peter and James and no other apostles. He can not have met any apostles in Jerusalem before this because he claims that immediately after his vision "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles" Rather, it claims that he FIRST went to Jerusalem at least "three years" after his claimed vision. On the other hand, Acts claims that the first time he met the apostles was many days after his claimed vision at which time he met ALL of the apostles. This too is obviously his first meeting with them since they all feared him. Notice the words "they were ALL afraid of him." This would not be the case if Peter and James had already met him since even if they had never mentioned him to the other apostles, still, at the very least they themselves (Peter and James) would not fear him. Also notice that it was only Barnabas who stood up for him and not Barnabas, Peter, and James.

4) Galatians claims that after Paul's first visit to Jerusalem all the apostles feared him but then Barnabas convinced them to accept him and they ALL went hand in hand "in and out of Jerusalem" preaching "boldly" to the Jews. However, Acts claims that his first visit to Jerusalem was after THREE YEARS and upon this FIRST visit he met ONLY Peter and James. He is not claimed to have gone with Peter and James on a preaching campaign in and out of Jerusalem, nor could he have done so in the past with ALL of the apostles since if he had done so he would not have been "unknown by face to the churches of Judea," they would also not have "heard only" of his conversion but would have eye-witnessed his bold campaign with all of the apostles with their own eyes.

If the author of the majority of the books of the New Testament can not even keep the narration of his own "salvation" straight then how are we expected to believe him in such critical matters as the "true" meanings of Jesus' words, or other matters?

*************
M*W: 786, your message is profound and true. It never ceases to amaze me that Muslims know more about Christianity than its own believers! I appreciate the time you took to post this, but I doubt that any of them are willing to go beyond their lying bible to read this.

Salaam

what exactly is to be addressed here???

Can we assume there are contradictions and fabrications in the Quran as well?

@ 786

All I'm saying is that making it a little more concise will attract more input.


Coulda sworn tiassa had something to do with writing this... ;)

Hey, I've changed it.

To SouthStars request here is 1 point which is in my 1st post. There are other important points aswell. But for those, I recommend you read the whole thing, which is my first post.

Your post? You plagirizing bastard!

http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Christianity/Other_Articles/saint_paul.htm

To SouthStars request here is 1 point which is in my 1st post. There are other important points aswell. But for those, I recommend you read the whole thing, which is my first post.

Your post? You plagirizing bastard!

http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Christianity/Other_Articles/saint_paul.htm

Well, it is my post, don't you think. That is different that the information is not mine. But I have reviewed the information to see if it is true or not. And I found it to be true. And I really didn't chose to show the whole thing here. I have changed it though. And anyways it is all sourced information (i.e Mark 2:1), I cannot change the source can I.

Well that's a little more to the point for me to address to you.

I will address your 'contradictions' here in the order you provided.

1) Confer: to bestow from or as if from a position of superiority <conferred an honorary degree on her>
2 : to give (as a property or characteristic) to someone or something

intransitive senses : to compare views or take counsel

Unfortunately, your first contradiction is yet again another misinterpretation of the meaning of the word, confer. 'Confer' in this context means to take counsel.

This is EASILY evidenced by reading Matthew 16:17, which utilizes the very same sense. In the context of Galatians, as you can EVIDENTLY see from the semi-colon, confer revers to his calling which was conferred by God, instead of "flesh and blood".

2) As a point of reference, Paul's journey to Arabia is not referenced explicitly in Acts. As we see in Acts 9:23, "many days" referred to the 'gap' during which Paul travelled to Arabia. You are unfortunately misinterpreting the context of 'many days' and 'three years', which are actually one and the same. For evidence of its true meaning, see 1 Kings 2:38-39, where the SAME play on words is utilized to the disrepute of your argument.

3) As I have already clarified with point #2, 'many days' is synonymous with 'three years' in this context therefore that part of your argument is invalid. The reason they were afraid is easier clarified by the same verse in Galatians 1:23, which is that he was persecuting them at first. Obviously, if he was persecuting them they had good reason to fear that he was in their presence. This is evidence of a lack of cordial believe that Paul was actually trully saved, instead of trying to simply trick them. You must remember that these were people who were sought after to be killed, they would obviously not be casual believers when one of their most notorious enemies was reported to have been saved.

4) Here you are again dearly mistaken. When Barnabas brought Paul to 'the apostles', the phrase 'the apostles' is in reference to Peter and James since the remaining apostles were not present at the time. At don't see what the problem here is?

Well that's a little more to the point for me to address to you.

I will address your 'contradictions' here in the order you provided.

1) Confer: to bestow from or as if from a position of superiority <conferred an honorary degree on her>
2 : to give (as a property or characteristic) to someone or something

intransitive senses : to compare views or take counsel

Unfortunately, your first contradiction is yet again another misinterpretation of the meaning of the word, confer. 'Confer' in this context means to take counsel.

This is EASILY evidenced by reading Matthew 16:17, which utilizes the very same sense. In the context of Galatians, as you can EVIDENTLY see from the semi-colon, confer revers to his calling which was conferred by God, instead of "flesh and blood".

2) As a point of reference, Paul's journey to Arabia is not referenced explicitly in Acts. As we see in Acts 9:23, "many days" referred to the 'gap' during which Paul travelled to Arabia. You are unfortunately misinterpreting the context of 'many days' and 'three years', which are actually one and the same. For evidence of its true meaning, see 1 Kings 2:38-39, where the SAME play on words is utilized to the disrepute of your argument.

3) As I have already clarified with point #2, 'many days' is synonymous with 'three years' in this context therefore that part of your argument is invalid. The reason they were afraid is easier clarified by the same verse in Galatians 1:23, which is that he was persecuting them at first. Obviously, if he was persecuting them they had good reason to fear that he was in their presence. This is evidence of a lack of cordial believe that Paul was actually trully saved, instead of trying to simply trick them. You must remember that these were people who were sought after to be killed, they would obviously not be casual believers when one of their most notorious enemies was reported to have been saved.

4) Here you are again dearly mistaken. When Barnabas brought Paul to 'the apostles', the phrase 'the apostles' is in reference to Peter and James since the remaining apostles were not present at the time. At don't see what the problem here is?

This is concerning 4.

All apostles were present.

"And when he (Paul) had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul (Paul) certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him. Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket. And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him."
Acts 9:19-29

@ 786.

if the writing is not yours, please provide references such we may read and learn using our own resources and confirm reliability .....v;).....

786

Well, it is my post, don't you think.

You are really pathetic. First you plagiarize a website word for word and claim it to be your post. Now you go back and edit your posts for the evidence. How very sad. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Is this how Muslims act?

Is this how Muslims act?

well said!

786

Well, it is my post, don't you think.

You are really pathetic. First you plagiarize a website word for word and claim it to be your post. Now you go back and edit your posts for the evidence. How very sad. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Is this how Muslims act?

You got me wrong man. Here let me make it clear. I said, "Well, it is my post, don't you think". Well that is true. I am the one who posted it, here. Right? You didn't post it, nor did anyone else. I didn't say the information was mine. I just said the post was mine. You misunderstood the words "my post". Well since I used most of the article, at first, then I thought to cut it to the point (as SouthStar suggested) which I thought was true. And anyways it was very long for someone to read. Since I double posted, so I thought to change my 1st post, and delete the other post, which I think you know about.

Anyways Knife the link that Q provided is fair. But I really didn't copy it from that link. It was another link, if you want I'll give it to you. But it has the same thing word to word, so really there is no use.

Anyways sorry about this, next time I'll just post the link, alright!

@ 786,

i am not here to put your post down or anything. just when you use other peoples words/articles/essays, even thoughts and conclusions in your post, it is wise to at least mention the source.

this way, the reader not only has a reference to the point you are trying to make, but it gives your post a good foundation, shows you yourself have researched the issue at hand, is curteous (sp?) to the original author and is just plain professional.

also, even if you are coming to a conclusion/point that you came to yourself but in the process of doing so you were reading other texts, mention those as well to give the readers a better understanding of where you are coming from.

one last thing, doing this also allows you to pass the buck pretty quick when you are in a tight corner.....;)

of course you can just ignore everything i just wrote, but i am only trying to help.

HEY VINCENT!!!......WWJD?

@ 786,

i am not here to put your post down or anything. just when you use other peoples words/articles/essays, even thoughts and conclusions in your post, it is wise to at least mention the source.

this way, the reader not only has a reference to the point you are trying to make, but it gives your post a good foundation, shows you yourself have researched the issue at hand, is curteous (sp?) to the original author and is just plain professional.

also, even if you are coming to a conclusion/point that you came to yourself but in the process of doing so you were reading other texts, mention those as well to give the readers a better understanding of where you are coming from.

one last thing, doing this also allows you to pass the buck pretty quick when you are in a tight corner.....;)

of course you can just ignore everything i just wrote, but i am only trying to help.

HEY VINCENT!!!......WWJD?

Yeah, I get it. I agree with you. I made a mistake. (Human nature :) )
Hey i'm curious, what does "WWJD" mean

what would jesus do.

in my opinion, it is a beautiful phrase and the purpose is even more so. it is the constant reminder to many christians to try to follow the teachings and philosphy of one of the most humblest men ever documented by history.

there are many who could use that kind of advice, and i dont just mean christians.

kinda makes you think of......wwjd.

Jesus would claim the article is His (and rightly so!) since He is the author of all things. :p

Jesus would claim the article is His (and rightly so!) since He is the author of all things. :p

but then it would be written by paul, who would then admit its fabrication, only to be posted by someone, who quoted someone else, to be reposted by someone else. :D :D

Paul didn't even write the biography of Jesus. He wasn't part of the thousands who heard Him speak and testified of His works either.

Besides, I'm done addressing 786 so-called 'contradictions'. It seems like he posts a thread of 'contradictions' every other day which almost to my unhappiness turn out to be horribly biased/misguided interpretations of a rather obvious text.

Either way, I don't know if any of you have heard of this, but although Paul wrote most of the books in the NT, I hear that he is not responsible for penning the greatest volume in the NT. This should be great evidence to those who think Paul is the founder of Christianity.

Paul didn't even write the biography of Jesus. He wasn't part of the thousands who heard Him speak and testified of His works either.

Besides, I'm done addressing 786 so-called 'contradictions'. It seems like he posts a thread of 'contradictions' every other day which almost to my unhappiness turn out to be horribly biased/misguided interpretations of a rather obvious text.

Either way, I don't know if any of you have heard of this, but although Paul wrote most of the books in the NT, I hear that he is not responsible for penning the greatest volume in the NT. This should be great evidence to those who think Paul is the founder of Christianity.

You said that only Peter and James applied to the words "the apostles". I had posted to that, but you didn't answer back.I don't think you read my post. Please go back and read that post and answer back. But here is another contradiciton. Look

"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed."
Galatians 1:15-23

Paul claims he only met Peter, and James. Now my question here is that what about Barnabas? :confused: Wasn't Barnabas, a apostle aswell? If Barnabas was the one, who stood up for Paul, then how did Paul never meet Barnabas?

Read the Following verse.

"And when he (Paul) had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul (Paul) certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him. Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket. And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him."
Acts 9:19-29

"Barnabas took him". Thus Paul did indeed saw Barnabas. But in Galatians, Paul saw no apostle except Peter and James. Could you explain this? :confused:

This is concerning 4.

All apostles were present.

"And when he (Paul) had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul (Paul) certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him. Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket. And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him."
Acts 9:19-29

Sorry I did not see this one earlier.

The 'apostles' in it's context does not refer to ALL twelve. If I said I was going to see the Americans, you would not think I was going to see every single American, so why would you think that 'the apostles' refers to every single apostle, especially when it says that only Peter and James were met?

Sorry I did not see this one earlier.

The 'apostles' in it's context does not refer to ALL twelve. If I said I was going to see the Americans, you would not think I was going to see every single American, so why would you think that 'the apostles' refers to every single apostle, especially when it says that only Peter and James were met?

Here is part of the verse. "he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him"

This shows tha All disciples were there. So when Barnabas took up for him, he brought Paul back to the Apostles. To convince them about Paul's conversion.
Read the verse from Acts to read in context.

You said that only Peter and James applied to the words "the apostles". I had posted to that, but you didn't answer back.I don't think you read my post. Please go back and read that post and answer back. But here is another contradiciton. Look

"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed."
Galatians 1:15-23

Paul claims he only met Peter, and James. Now my question here is that what about Barnabas? :confused: Wasn't Barnabas, a apostle aswell? If Barnabas was the one, who stood up for Paul, then how did Paul never meet Barnabas?

You really are trying hard to find a contradiction, but there simply isn't one.

If you were going to see your three friends (Jack, James, Jim) in America and on the way you met Jim, and Jim took you to meet the other two. Well, if you were writing a letter, of course you will say that when you got to the place, you met Jack and James, because you did not meet Jim at the place.

You see, if Paul had said that he met Peter, James, and Barnabas at the place, then you would still complain that it is a contradiction since he didn't really meet Barnabas at the place.

Read the Following verse.

"And when he (Paul) had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul (Paul) certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him. Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket. And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him."
Acts 9:19-29

"Barnabas took him". Thus Paul did indeed saw Barnabas. But in Galatians, Paul saw no apostle except Peter and James. Could you explain this? :confused:

It seems like I have to explain the same thing twice.. :confused:

Again, since he had already met Barnabas on the way, he was acquainted with him (after all Barnabas introduced and vouched for him to Peter and James).

Now when Paul gets to Peter and James, he meets ONLY Peter and James. He does not meet Barnabas and that cannnot logically be true since Barnabas came with him and he already knew Barnabas.

I don't think you are reading the verse carefully. Barnabas didn't meet him on the way.

Paul came to Jerusalem, all the disciples were afraid, but then Barnabas went and brought him back.

So indeed he did meet Barnabas in Jerusalem, not along the way. But according to the other verse Paul met Peter, and James ONLY in Jerusalem. You really don't get it huh?

First time you said that All the Apostles weren't present. Then I showed you that all were there, it says in the verse that all of them were afraid. Then I say that he had to have met Barnabas in Jerusalem cause it says so. But on the other hand he claims only to have met Peter and James in Jerusalem.

You really don't get get it huh?
Another question is if all of them were present in Jerusalem. Then why Barnabas would only take Paul to Peter and James. Use some common sense aswell as verses.

§outh§tar: You really are trying hard to find a contradiction, but there simply isn't one.

You see, if Paul had said...
*************
M*W: "blah, blah, blah...."
*************
SourStar: It seems like I have to explain the same thing twice.. :confused:
*************
M*W: Why? When nobody wanted to hear your first explanation!
*************
SourStar: Again, since he had already met Barnabas....
*************
M*W: "blah, blah, blah...."
*************
SourStar: ...on the way, he was acquainted with him....
*************
M*W: "blah, blah, blah...."
*************
SourStar: ...(after all Barnabas introduced and....
*************
M*W: "blah, blah, blah...."
*************
SourStar: Now when Paul gets to Peter and James....
*************
M*W: "blah, blah, blah...."
*************
SourStar: ...he meets ONLY Peter and James....
*************
M*W: "blah, blah, blah...."
*************
SourStar: He does not meet Barnabas and....
*************
M*W: "blah, blah, blah...."
*************
SourStar: ...that cannnot logically be true....
*************
M*W: "blah, blah, blah...."
*************
SourStar: ...since Barnabas came with him....
*************
M*W: "blah, blah, blah...."
*************
SourStar: ...and he already knew Barnabas....
*************
M*W: How can you presume to know WHAT Paul said? If you didn't hear it first-hand, it's hearsay, and hearsay won't hold up in a court of law today. You presume to know exactly what YOU think Paul might have said some 2,000 years ago! Paul was a liar from the git-go...but this is who you believe speaks the truth about xianity! You just reconfirmed for me why I am not a xian!

M*W: How can you presume to know WHAT Paul said?

eisegesis
Thrusting a foreign meaning into the text.


I am going strictly by what the text supplies. He is trying to make an interpretation based on what the text doesn't say, which is eisegesis. I'm not presuming what Paul said, only basing my statement on what the text provides.

You would do the same thing in reading any other book. You wouldn't try to interpret any part of the book by what the author did not say, but what the author did say.

§our§tar:eisegesisThrusting a foreign meaning into the text.
*************
M*W: You said, "Thrusting a FOREIGN MEANING into the text?" This isn't truthful, logical or sane!
*************
SourStar: I am going strictly by what the text supplies. I'm not presuming what Paul said, only basing my statement on what the text provides.
*************
M*W: Then you're PRESUMING! How do you know your bible has been translated and transcribed without human error? You can't. You're PRESUMING it is!
*************
SourStar: You would do the same thing in reading any other book. You wouldn't try to interpret any part of the book by what the author did not say, but what the author did say.
*************
M*W: Yes, by reading OTHER BOOKS, and learning everything I can, WITHOUT PRESUMING, this is where I have come to believe the truths I believe. The bible has been misinterpreted, mistranslated, and mistranscribed all from human errors. This is NOT A PRESUMPTION, it is fact, and it's recorded everywhere! You PRESUME the bible to be a literal (factual) translation, but it's not. At best, it's allegorical (fictional). Therefore, what YOU PRESUME to be the truth is not the truth but the source of all lies! Your truths are based on millenia of scribal errors which you continue to believe! Go ahead and believe whatever you want, but stop posting your scriptural lies here!

M*W: You said, "Thrusting a FOREIGN MEANING into the text?" This isn't truthful, logical or sane!

In that case, look up the word for yourself in the dictionary. How can a definition not be "truthful, logical or sane"??

M*W: Then you're PRESUMING! How do you know your bible has been translated and transcribed without human error? You can't. You're PRESUMING it is!

The issue he is having does not have to do with translation errors. It has to do with the text, and thus, it is only logical that we discuss the issue according to the text. Unless of course you know ANY manuscript at all that says differently to support your theory of errors in copying, which I doubt you do.

eisegesis
Thrusting a foreign meaning into the text.


I am going strictly by what the text supplies. He is trying to make an interpretation based on what the text doesn't say, which is eisegesis. I'm not presuming what Paul said, only basing my statement on what the text provides.

You would do the same thing in reading any other book. You wouldn't try to interpret any part of the book by what the author did not say, but what the author did say.

Where does it say that Barnabas met Paul along the way? You aren't going in order. First Paul comes in Jerusalem where he finds that all the Apostles are afraid, THEN Barnabas takes him back to the Apostles. So Paul did indeed meet Barnabas in Jerusalem not just Peter, and James.

Acts 9:27

27But 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.

Obviously you haven't been reading the verses you have been questioning. How else would Barnabas have known about Paul's story unless he already knew Paul?

The conversion of Paul was popular. But in the same way I can ask you this question.
Why would Barnabas be afraid, if he knew Paul.

"And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him"

"All" here is the keyword

Even the Judea Church heard. It isn't any astonishment that Barnabas knew of Pauls story. Does that mean the whole Judea church was with Paul, becuase they heard of his conversion. NO!

"And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed."

"And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him"

"All" here is the keyword

Well, if "all" really is the keyword, then you would only conclude that all the disciples were in Jerusalem, which is not true as I have already shown. There is no evidence, what more, in the text, that "all" refers to every single disciples, as opposed to the disciples that were present.

If you take it in context of Paul joining himself to the disciples, you can only conclude that the disciples that he tried to associate with were ALL afraid of him. That is quite different from ALL the disciples being present at the time.

----------------------

To put it concisely:

"And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed."

I will address your second post as well here in relation to the previous one so that it doesn't seem like I'm repeating myself.

Obviously the churches in Judea had heard of Paul's story and knew of his notorious persecutions. Now if that is the case, we can only conclude that the Christians in Jerusalem also knew of Paul's notoriety (26). Now when the verse talks about Paul coming to Jerusalem, it refers to ALL the Christians being afraid of him. After all, it is not logical that only Peter and James would be the only skeptics (23) as even the Jews tried to kill him. The same way if in the Holocaust, a German officer went into a room full of Jews, not only two Jews would be afraid, but they ALL would be afraid.

Well, if "all" really is the keyword, then you would only conclude that all the disciples were in Jerusalem, which is not true as I have already shown. There is no evidence, what more, in the text, that "all" refers to every single disciples, as opposed to the disciples that were present.

If you take it in context of Paul joining himself to the disciples, you can only conclude that the disciples that he tried to associate with were ALL afraid of him. That is quite different from ALL the disciples being present at the time.

----------------------

To put it concisely:



I will address your second post as well here in relation to the previous one so that it doesn't seem like I'm repeating myself.

Obviously the churches in Judea had heard of Paul's story and knew of his notorious persecutions. Now if that is the case, we can only conclude that the Christians in Jerusalem also knew of Paul's notoriety (26). Now when the verse talks about Paul coming to Jerusalem, it refers to ALL the Christians being afraid of him. After all, it is not logical that only Peter and James would be the only skeptics (23) as even the Jews tried to kill him. The same way if in the Holocaust, a German officer went into a room full of Jews, not only two Jews would be afraid, but they ALL would be afraid.

You can stick to your interpretations. Because they really don't make any sense, to me. So just leave it.

How about we just nail this subject with some more sources and no no one is talking about contradictions in bible. Look for your self and deicde like some one said earlier.

SAUL THE LIAR (http://http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paula.htm)

Apparently Luke, the author of the "Book of Acts" was concerned more with a convenient work of Propaganda, than with the Truth. Remember, the Book of Acts was written well after all the main players had already been killed or martyred. We should also remember that a great deal of time and expense went into copying books (they did not have Printing Presses or Copying Machines) and so Luke may have been tempted to 'streamline' the Truth a bit.

But we do need to wonder about Paul's integrity. His letters provide an endless litany of Paul denying accusation after accusation. He must have been accused often of being a Liar and an Embezzler or he would not have felt the need to always be denying it.

Also, even in the Book of Acts we have two versions of the Conversion -- once in Chapter 9, and again in Chapter 22. Even Luke does not bother to keep the Stories straight. Apparenly Luke is willing to show Paul as a liar in at least one rendition of the Story. The chief difference is that in the First Story we are told that there are Witnesses who hear the Voice in the Sky talking to Paul. But in Chapter 22, we have Paul freely admitting before the Court of his Old Buddies the Pharisees that nobody heard a thing... and that for all anybody really knew, Paul simply fell off his horse.

Christianity's true founder is Saul/St.Paul's Lord Jesus Christ, 'the Mystery Christ' how is the personality of the beast.

Example:

Saul/St.Paul's revelation of his Lord Jesus Christ's power to destroy and kill.
---" And to you who are trouble rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire "taking vengeance" on them that know not God and the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be "punished with everlasting destruction" from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and admired in all them that believed ( because our testimony among you was believed ) in that day. --- And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and "shall destroy" with brightness of his coming.-( 2 Thess 1:7-10, and 2:8 )

St.John's Revelation of the beast's power to destroy and kill.
---" And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly would was healed. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, --- And he had power to give life unto The Image of the Beast, that The Image of the Beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship The Image of the Beast should be killed. (Rev.13:12-13 and 15)

JESUS said, "Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them." ( Matthew 7:15-20 ) --- ( fruits --> the result of action ) JESUS said, HE would pray to the FATHER that HE would send another Comforter, not a Beast that calls himself the Lord Jesus Christ.

As you notice above, it is written that those who worship Saul's Lord Jesus Christ, and those who worship the beast are of the same wicked Spirit, because they will do the same, they will take vengeance, causing everlasting destruction, kill and destroy with fire and cause massive suffering which will be worse than your worst nightmare. When Saul/St.Paul's Christ is revealed to be the Beast, those that worship this Beast will no longer be able to abstain from the appearance of evil, the sheep's clothing will be removed from the wolves, then by their fruits you shall know them. Those that worship the beast who is also Saul/St.Paul's Lord Jesus Christ "shall make war with The Lamb of the Second Coming , and the Lamb shall overcome them: for He is LORD of LORDS, and KING of KINGS, and they that are with Him are called, and chosen, and faithful." ( Rev. 17:14). The Lamb of the Second Coming "had a name written, that no man knew, but He himself" - (Rev.19:12).

Peace be with you, Paul