Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, I will remind you, and yes, let's check it out. It is recorded three times in Acts, once by narration of Luke as Paul is being referred to in the third person (and he said), and twice in which Luke records Paul himself relating his encounter with the risen Christ.
The story is told a little differently in each account just as it would be expected that anyone relating an event might report it a little differently each time he tells it without introducing any contradictions in the way he reports it. Now let's look at the three accounts.
Acts 9:3 As he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; 4] and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" 5] And he said, "Who are You, Lord?" And He said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, 6] but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do." 7] The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. 8] Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; and leading him by the hand, they brought him into Damascus.
Acts. 22:6 "But it happened that as I was on my way, approaching Damascus about noontime, a very bright light suddenly flashed from heaven all around me, 7] and I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?' 8] "And I answered, 'Who are You, Lord?' And He said to me, 'I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you are persecuting.' 9] "And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me. 10] "And I said, 'What shall I do, Lord?' And the Lord said to me, 'Get up and go on into Damascus, and there you will be told of all that has been appointed for you to do.'
Acts 26:12 While so engaged as I was journeying to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests, 13] at midday, O King, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining all around me and those who were journeying with me. 14] "And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.' 15] And I said, 'Who are You, Lord?' And the Lord said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 16] 'But get up and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you; 17] rescuing you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you, 18] to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.'
In Acts 9:7 Luke records that Paul said that the men who were with him heard a voice but saw no one.
In Acts 22:9 Paul states that the men who were with him saw the light but didn't understand the voice.
By comparing the two accounts, it is seen that the men who were with Paul heard a voice which they did not understand, and that though they saw no one, they saw the light which accompanied the vision.
In the Acts 26 account Paul states that a light brighter than the sun shone all around him and the men who were with him. In this telling of the account Paul leaves out the reference to the men not understanding the voice that they heard. Leaving out that particular detail on this occasion when he had earlier mentioned it is not a contradiction. Again, it is common for an event which is being reported to be reported in a slightly different way each time it is told. A detail may be left out in one reporting of the event when that same detail had previously been included. There is no contradiction here.
Addendum: Furthermore, it is related by Luke in Acts 9:10-15 that the Lord spoke to a man by the name of Ananias, and told him that Paul was a chosen instrument of His and that Paul would be coming to him (to Ananias) and that he was to lay hands on Paul so that he might regain his sight. Paul was blinded by the light in his encounter with Christ on the Damascus road.
Thanks. I'll have a look. And where does Paul himself describe this event again?
Quote:
And your charge of Luke lying need not even be addressed.
Convenient for you since his mendacity, inaccuracy and free adaptation of the Gospels and Acts...and I am being polite here... is irrefutably demonstrable. Want to change to mind and 'address' it?
Convenient for you since his mendacity, inaccuracy and free adaptation of the Gospels and Acts...and I am being polite here... is irrefutably demonstrable. Want to change to mind and 'address' it?
Luke wrote more than anybody but Paul, so please show exactly how he is NOT acceptable.
Thanks for clearing that up Mike. You are doing a good job in answering posts. I can really see growth in understanding in you.
“Praise from the praise-worthy is beyond all rewards.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, Faramir in The Two Towers
Quote:
Originally Posted by StanJP
Luke wrote more than anybody but Paul, so please show exactly how he is NOT acceptable.
Glad to. hang on... the misbegotten explanation for the unborn John kicking is enough to discredit his as 'Dr.' Luke. The absurd claim that Joseph had to trek dragging his (near term) wife along to his ancestral city to sign on for a tax that didn't apply to him discredits him as a historian.
8.26 the misdirected referring to the 'Gerasenes' which he places opposite Galilee, which he has confused with Gadara (which was opposite Galilee on the East side of Lake Galilee) he refers to Jerash a town miles away and to the south east is enough to discredit him as a Geographer, even if the ludicrously vague 17.12 'passing along between Galilee and Samaria' (like a New Yorker passing along between the USA and Canada to get to Washington) didn't make that pretty clear.
need coffeee... back in I hr.
Yes, I will remind you, and yes, let's check it out. It is recorded three times in Acts, once by narration of Luke as Paul is being referred to in the third person (and he said), and twice in which Luke records Paul himself relating his encounter with the risen Christ.
The story is told a little differently in each account just as it would be expected that anyone relating an event might report it a little differently each time he tells it without introducing any contradictions in the way he reports it. Now let's look at the three accounts.
Acts 9:3 As he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; 4] and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" 5] And he said, "Who are You, Lord?" And He said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, 6] but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do." 7] The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. 8] Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; and leading him by the hand, they brought him into Damascus.
Acts. 22:6 "But it happened that as I was on my way, approaching Damascus about noontime, a very bright light suddenly flashed from heaven all around me, 7] and I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?' 8] "And I answered, 'Who are You, Lord?' And He said to me, 'I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you are persecuting.' 9] "And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me. 10] "And I said, 'What shall I do, Lord?' And the Lord said to me, 'Get up and go on into Damascus, and there you will be told of all that has been appointed for you to do.'
Acts 26:12 While so engaged as I was journeying to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests, 13] at midday, O King, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining all around me and those who were journeying with me. 14] "And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.' 15] And I said, 'Who are You, Lord?' And the Lord said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 16] 'But get up and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you; 17] rescuing you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you, 18] to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.'
In Acts 9:7 Luke records that Paul said that the men who were with him heard a voice but saw no one.
In Acts 22:9 Paul states that the men who were with him saw the light but didn't understand the voice.
By comparing the two accounts, it is seen that the men who were with Paul heard a voice which they did not understand, and that though they saw no one, they saw the light which accompanied the vision.
In the Acts 26 account Paul states that a light brighter than the sun shone all around him and the men who were with him. In this telling of the account Paul leaves out the reference to the men not understanding the voice that they heard. Leaving out that particular detail on this occasion when he had earlier mentioned it is not a contradiction. Again, it is common for an event which is being reported to be reported in a slightly different way each time it is told. A detail may be left out in one reporting of the event when that same detail had previously been included. There is no contradiction here.
Addendum: Furthermore, it is related by Luke in Acts 9:10-15 that the Lord spoke to a man by the name of Ananias, and told him that Paul was a chosen instrument of His and that Paul would be coming to him (to Ananias) and that he was to lay hands on Paul so that he might regain his sight. Paul was blinded by the light in his encounter with Christ on the Damascus road.
And your charge of Luke lying need not even be addressed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Thanks. I'll have a look. And where does Paul himself describe this event again?
You know full well that those are the only three accounts. The issue then is whether you are willing to believe those accounts. And you aren't willing as you have made clear over and over.
Quote:
Convenient for you since his mendacity, inaccuracy and free adaptation of the Gospels and Acts...and I am being polite here... is irrefutably demonstrable. Want to change to mind and 'address' it?
How can Luke do a free adaptation of Acts when he wrote Acts, as well as the Gospel of Luke? And I say again that your charge that Luke lied need not even be addressed. He knew Paul and accurately recorded what Paul told him.
Remind me. Who says so? What does Paul say about this event? After all a writer who lies about why Paul had to escape from Damascus . . . can hardly be considered reliable . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
And your charge of Luke lying need not even be addressed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Convenient for you since his mendacity, inaccuracy and free adaptation of the Gospels and Acts...and I am being polite here... is irrefutably demonstrable. Want to change to mind and 'address' it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
How can Luke do a free adaptation of Acts when he wrote Acts, as well as the Gospel of Luke? And I say again that your charge that Luke lied need not even be addressed. He knew Paul and accurately recorded what Paul told him.
I decided to look into your claim and address it after all. A simple comparison of Acts 9:22-30 with 2 Cor. 11:22-33 shows that your claim that Luke lied about why Paul had to escape from Damascus is false. I'll post the passages.
Acts 9:22 But Saul kept increasing in strength and confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ. 23] When many days had elapsed, the Jews plotted together to do away with him, 24] but their plot became known to Saul. They were also watching the gates day and night so that they might put him to death; 25] but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a large basket. 26] When he came to Jerusalem, he was trying to associate with the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. 27] But Barnabas took hold of him and brought him to the apostles and described to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had talked to him, and how at Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus. 28] And he was with them, moving about freely in Jerusalem, speaking out boldly in the name of the Lord. 29] And he was talking and arguing with the Hellenistic Jews; but they were attempting to put him to death. 30] But when the brethren learned of it, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him away to Tarsus.
That is what Luke recorded. Now for Paul.
2 Cor. 11:32 In Damascus the ethnarch under Aretas the king was guarding the city of the Damascenes in order to seize me, 33] and I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and so escaped his hands.
As can be seen, it is Paul himself who states that he escaped the hands of king Aretas. Luke doesn't mention king Aretas but only states that Paul had to escape because the Jews in Damascus were plotting to put Paul to death. Both Luke and Paul include the detail of Paul being let down in a basket through an opening or window in the wall.
Luke has not lied about why Paul had to escape from Damascus.
I decided to look into your claim and address it after all. A simple comparison of Acts 9:22-30 with 2 Cor. 11:22-33 shows that your claim that Luke lied about why Paul had to escape from Damascus is false. I'll post the passages.
Acts 9:22 But Saul kept increasing in strength and confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ. 23] When many days had elapsed, the Jews plotted together to do away with him, 24] but their plot became known to Saul. They were also watching the gates day and night so that they might put him to death; 25] but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a large basket. 26] When he came to Jerusalem, he was trying to associate with the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. 27] But Barnabas took hold of him and brought him to the apostles and described to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had talked to him, and how at Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus. 28] And he was with them, moving about freely in Jerusalem, speaking out boldly in the name of the Lord. 29] And he was talking and arguing with the Hellenistic Jews; but they were attempting to put him to death. 30] But when the brethren learned of it, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him away to Tarsus.
That is what Luke recorded. Now for Paul.
2 Cor. 11:32 In Damascus the ethnarch under Aretas the king was guarding the city of the Damascenes in order to seize me, 33] and I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and so escaped his hands.
As can be seen, it is Paul himself who states that he escaped the hands of king Aretas. Luke doesn't mention king Aretas but only states that Paul had to escape because the Jews in Damascus were plotting to put Paul to death. Both Luke and Paul include the detail of Paul being let down in a basket through an opening or window in the wall.
Luke has not lied about why Paul had to escape from Damascus.
RESPONSE:
I don't think the story is really important but only one more incident showing that the Jews didn't like Paul (who they regarded as an apostate).
But let's see. Paul wrote 2 Corinthians about 59 AD anad and Luke (we think) wrote Acts of the Apostles about 80 AD. Any possibility that Luke had read what Paul had written and circulated about 20 years earlier. Perhaps that's why Paul never says anything about the Road to Damascus story,
Why do you think Luke might have blamed the Jews rather than King Aretas???
I don't think the story is really important but only one more incident showing that the Jews didn't like Paul (who they regarded as an apostate).
But let's see. Paul wrote 2 Corinthians about 59 AD anad and Luke (we think) wrote Acts of the Apostles about 80 AD. Any possibility that Luke had read what Paul had written and circulated about 20 years earlier. Perhaps that's why Paul never says anything about the Road to Damascus story,
Why do you think Luke might have blamed the Jews rather than King Aretas???
We think? Who is 'we'? There is a wide range of opinions among scholars regarding the dating of Acts. A very good argument can be made for dating Acts to the early 60's or even a bit earlier. The fact that Luke doesn't mention Paul's death, or Peter's, or the death of James the brother of Jesus (the death of James the brother of John is mentioned, but not the death of James the brother of Jesus), or the destruction of the temple, are all very good reasons for dating Acts to the early 60's which is usually the dating accepted by conservative scholars.
Why do I think Luke blamed the Jews rather than king Aretas? As you yourself just stated above, the Jews didn't like Paul who they regarded as an apostate. Paul came under persecution from Jews and Gentiles alike as can be seen in Acts 14:1-5 for example. It was the Jews in Damascus that wanted Paul dead and were on the watch for him. To oblige them the governor of Damascus under king Aretas had the guards who guarded the city day and night attempt to keep Paul from escaping the city. Luke simply omitted the mention of the king and focused on the fact that the Jews wanted Paul dead.
“Praise from the praise-worthy is beyond all rewards.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, Faramir in The Two Towers
Glad to. hang on... the misbegotten explanation for the unborn John kicking is enough to discredit his as 'Dr.' Luke. The absurd claim that Joseph had to trek dragging his (near term) wife along to his ancestral city to sign on for a tax that didn't apply to him discredits him as a historian.
8.26 the misdirected referring to the 'Gerasenes' which he places opposite Galilee, which he has confused with Gadara (which was opposite Galilee on the East side of Lake Galilee) he refers to Jerash a town miles away and to the south east is enough to discredit him as a Geographer, even if the ludicrously vague 17.12 'passing along between Galilee and Samaria' (like a New Yorker passing along between the USA and Canada to get to Washington) didn't make that pretty clear.
need coffeee... back in I hr.
Or so..The proclamation in Nazareth, though linked with Mark and Matthew with ‘no prophet is acceptable in his own country’ and ‘is this not Joseph’s son?’ though are places elsewhere. And they don’t even hint at the proclamation of his Messiahship or the attempt by his neighbor to assassinate him. This must be regarded as his own invention.
At the calling of the disciples, he adds on the miraculous haul of fish. This is not in Mark and Matthew, though it does appear in John after the resurrection. While he can perhaps be forgiven for adding this story where he thought it might belong, it makes his gospel unreliable.
The penitent Galilean woman at 7. 36 is so very like the synoptic anointing at Bethany that, when we find that the anointing at Bethany is missing in Luke, is is a safe bet that he has simply shifted it here and totally rewritten it.
The Lord’s prayer’ is set after Jesus sets out to Jerusalem for the last time. The disciples asks him to teach them to pray. But Matthew already has Jesus teaching this prayer in his sermon on the mount. In fact Luke has a truncated version of this sermon and then spreads the rest of the material all through the journey to Peraea and then on to Jerusalem.
I can say this much for Luke; he writes a good parable, The famous parables of the prodigal son and the Good Samaritan appear nowhere in Matthew who is no mean writer of parables himself. It is inconceivable that they wouldn’t use these parables if they knew if them.
During the last upper Luke transports in the wrangle about who will be greatest in the Kingdom of heaven, which actually belongs on the road to Capernaum. I recall that the assurance that the disciples will sit on the thrones of the twelve tribes belongs somewhere else. In any case None of the other gospels have this material at the last supper.
In the interests of getting Pilate out of mocking and abusing Jesus, he invents a story of Jesus being bundled over to Antipas. It is impossible that this could be done without anyone knowing but Luke, even without the matter of such an event being talked about by the disciples after Jesus’ death. This has to be Luke’s invention.
Luke also has the exchange with the penitent thief. Mark and Matthew say that both of the robbers joined in reviling Jesus. How is it possible that nether would relate this significant passage if they knew of it. It must be Luke’s own invention.
And of course the angel's message is changed from going to Galilee to what Jesus said when he was in Galilee. This is because in Luke they do not go to Galilee, but stay in Jerusalem, praising God in the temple.
I decided to look into your claim and address it after all. A simple comparison of Acts 9:22-30 with 2 Cor. 11:22-33 shows that your claim that Luke lied about why Paul had to escape from Damascus is false. I'll post the passages.
Acts 9:22 But Saul kept increasing in strength and confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ. 23] When many days had elapsed, the Jews plotted together to do away with him, 24] but their plot became known to Saul. They were also watching the gates day and night so that they might put him to death; 25] but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a large basket. 26] When he came to Jerusalem, he was trying to associate with the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. 27] But Barnabas took hold of him and brought him to the apostles and described to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had talked to him, and how at Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus. 28] And he was with them, moving about freely in Jerusalem, speaking out boldly in the name of the Lord. 29] And he was talking and arguing with the Hellenistic Jews; but they were attempting to put him to death. 30] But when the brethren learned of it, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him away to Tarsus.
That is what Luke recorded. Now for Paul.
2 Cor. 11:32 In Damascus the ethnarch under Aretas the king was guarding the city of the Damascenes in order to seize me, 33] and I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and so escaped his hands.
As can be seen, it is Paul himself who states that he escaped the hands of king Aretas. Luke doesn't mention king Aretas but only states that Paul had to escape because the Jews in Damascus were plotting to put Paul to death. Both Luke and Paul include the detail of Paul being let down in a basket through an opening or window in the wall.
Luke has not lied about why Paul had to escape from Damascus.
I beg your pardon, changing the reason that Paul had to escape (which is nonsense in itself (1) to a need to escape the Jews, who were plotting to kill him, looks pretty much like a barefaced lie to me.
But perhaps you overlooked Paul's remark that the governor of the army of the Nabatean king Aretas wa guarding the city in order to seize Paul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
You know full well that those are the only three accounts. The issue then is whether you are willing to believe those accounts. And you aren't willing as you have made clear over and over.
How can Luke do a free adaptation of Acts when he wrote Acts, as well as the Gospel of Luke? And I say again that your charge that Luke lied need not even be addressed. He knew Paul and accurately recorded what Paul told him.
You are right. I know very well that Paul does not endorse those stories anywhere. Given that Luke is a pretty cavalier inventor and adapter of his material, both in his gospel and in Acts, I think we can say he invented this account himself.
(1) Aretas took advantage of the death of Tiberius to send his general to invade Syria and snaffle Damascus (36 -37 A.D). He couldn't have cared less about seizing Christians, let alone Paul.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-22-2015 at 02:48 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
since his mendacity, inaccuracy and free adaptation of the Gospels and Acts...and I am being polite here... is irrefutably demonstrable. Want to change to mind and 'address' it?
“Praise from the praise-worthy is beyond all rewards.”
