-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can someone help me clarify?
- Thread starter astarath
- Start date
astarath
Well-Known Member
Acts 22:10 is the second time
Acts 26:12-19 the third time
the first time in acts 9 is similar to the second time however the third time is a whole new story. The lord no longer instructs he continue to Damscus in order to receive his mission but rather bursts forth with commands and directions found nowhere in the first 2 stories.
Acts 26:12-19 the third time
the first time in acts 9 is similar to the second time however the third time is a whole new story. The lord no longer instructs he continue to Damscus in order to receive his mission but rather bursts forth with commands and directions found nowhere in the first 2 stories.
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
astarath said:
Acts, Chapter 22 deals w/ Pauls address to the Jerusalem mob. Keep that in mind as you read not just verse 10 but the entire 22nd Chapter of Acts. I don't know if this sheds any additional light on your concerns or not.
Acts 26 refers to Paul's earlier life, prior to his life as a Christian.
I'm still not quite sure where your concern stems from but when you read biblical text, pay attention to the context of not just the verses that you're reading from but the entire Chapter and surrounding Chapters. Sometimes, that's helped clarify misunderstandings that I've had.
astarath
Well-Known Member
Acts 22 is him telling his story to a mob of people angry because Paul is teaching against the Law. Now would be a time for truth, not a time to alter the story.
Acts 26 is not prior to anything it is the exact same story in concern to Paul on the road to Damascus however written with a completely different ending.
So no those points do not clarify anything to me, I know that had Yaheshua appeared to me with a specific mission i would never forget a single solitary detail regarding the encounter. Yet Paul can not speak the same story it is always changing. For one of the stories to be right the others must be lies. If they are lies then Paul has fabricated a story of the Messiah giving authority. If Paul has lied that is a sin like every other however to lie and claim it the word of God is blasphemy and shadows all his teachings as lies and half truths.
Acts 26 is not prior to anything it is the exact same story in concern to Paul on the road to Damascus however written with a completely different ending.
So no those points do not clarify anything to me, I know that had Yaheshua appeared to me with a specific mission i would never forget a single solitary detail regarding the encounter. Yet Paul can not speak the same story it is always changing. For one of the stories to be right the others must be lies. If they are lies then Paul has fabricated a story of the Messiah giving authority. If Paul has lied that is a sin like every other however to lie and claim it the word of God is blasphemy and shadows all his teachings as lies and half truths.
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
astarath said:
In context, Acts 26 does deal with Paul's life prior to becoming a Christian.
Paul tells a story. Verses 1-11, Paul recounts his early life, prior to Christianity. Verses 12-18, is a recount of his conversion and verses 19-23 deal w/ his life, post conversion...
Read in context.
Clearly, you're convinced that Paul is a liar. He's a man who was touched by Christ and changed his life around.
If your purpose is to convince others that Paul was a hoax or that Christ is a hoax, per Paul...you're going to have a rough time doing so w/ what you've shown.
astarath
Well-Known Member
So what your saying is he repeats the same story 3 times
But because in the 3 different situations Paul is faced by 3 different circumstances he must then alter the story to suit his needs at the time?
For me a definition of a lie is a proof or story without validation
Webster's defines it as:lie1
/laɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lahy] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
noun 1.a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. 2.something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one. 3.an inaccurate or false statement. 4.the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers. verb (used without object) 5.to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive. 6.to express what is false; convey a false impression. verb (used with object) 7.to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties. Idioms 8.give the lie to, a.to accuse of lying; contradict. b.to prove or imply the falsity of; belie: His poor work gives the lie to his claims of experience. 9.lie in one's throat or teeth, to lie grossly or maliciously: If she told you exactly the opposite of what she told me, she must be lying in her teeth. Also, lie through one's teeth.
If he is changing the story and not telling what is truly happening I believe that would fall under definition 3 an innacurate or false statement? Would it not?
But because in the 3 different situations Paul is faced by 3 different circumstances he must then alter the story to suit his needs at the time?
For me a definition of a lie is a proof or story without validation
Webster's defines it as:lie1
/laɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lahy] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, lied, ly·ing. noun 1.a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. 2.something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one. 3.an inaccurate or false statement. 4.the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers. verb (used without object) 5.to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive. 6.to express what is false; convey a false impression. verb (used with object) 7.to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties. Idioms 8.give the lie to, a.to accuse of lying; contradict. b.to prove or imply the falsity of; belie: His poor work gives the lie to his claims of experience. 9.lie in one's throat or teeth, to lie grossly or maliciously: If she told you exactly the opposite of what she told me, she must be lying in her teeth. Also, lie through one's teeth.
If he is changing the story and not telling what is truly happening I believe that would fall under definition 3 an innacurate or false statement? Would it not?
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
astarath said:So what your saying is he repeats the same story 3 times
But because in the 3 different situations Paul is faced by 3 different circumstances he must then alter the story to suit his needs at the time?
For me a definition of a lie is a proof or story without validation
Webster's defines it as:lie1
noun 1.a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. 2.something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one. 3.an inaccurate or false statement. 4.the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers. verb (used without object) 5.to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive. 6.to express what is false; convey a false impression. verb (used with object) 7.to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties. Idioms 8.give the lie to, a.to accuse of lying; contradict. b.to prove or imply the falsity of; belie: His poor work gives the lie to his claims of experience. 9.lie in one's throat or teeth, to lie grossly or maliciously: If she told you exactly the opposite of what she told me, she must be lying in her teeth. Also, lie through one's teeth.
If he is changing the story and not telling what is truly happening I believe that would fall under definition 3 an innacurate or false statement? Would it not?
I think Paul's message, after becoming a Christian was consistent. Life is found in Christ. That's enough for me.
Paul has touched so many lives, especially w/ his count of the thorn in his flesh...
astarath
Well-Known Member
Did Christ not warn against the yeast of the Pharisees.
He said and I quote Matt 7:15-23
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
If Paul is lying as aforementiond in the thread then he is bearing bad fruit. Bad tree can not bear good fruit. Christ's own words.
He said and I quote Matt 7:15-23
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
If Paul is lying as aforementiond in the thread then he is bearing bad fruit. Bad tree can not bear good fruit. Christ's own words.
joeboonda
Well-Known Member
Paul was a man of great character, he would not lie to us. The passages concerning his conversion, at first glance have some seeming contradictions, but a deeper study of the passages clears that up. No room to go into details, but there are MANY good books which adress this and clear it up.
Quoting Jesus is good, but to belive His words is best. Among the other great things He said, He clearly stated over and over again that He came to die. He stated this many times, that He would die and rise again. He said like the bronze serpent in the wilderness, He must be lifted up (on the cross), and that all who look to Him will be saved as were those bitten by the serpents who looked on the bronze serpent in the wilderness.
Quoting Jesus is good, but to belive His words is best. Among the other great things He said, He clearly stated over and over again that He came to die. He stated this many times, that He would die and rise again. He said like the bronze serpent in the wilderness, He must be lifted up (on the cross), and that all who look to Him will be saved as were those bitten by the serpents who looked on the bronze serpent in the wilderness.
TrubbleMaker
New Member
Dear, oh dear, oh dear!!!
I've just read and re-read the three passages and I see absolutely NO CONTRADICTION. It appears to me that each one is saying the same thing in general, yet one is expanded from the other and also has some omissions. IN CONTEXT, Paul told King Agrippa, what he needed to know. This expansion being for the king's better understanding perhaps of Paul's earlier conversation with the Christ. One could hardly call this a lie UNLESS one had an agenda to denounce Paul AT ANY COST which is what appears to be your goal.
Also, for the record, NOT all lies are evil. There are plenty of exceptions...
I've just read and re-read the three passages and I see absolutely NO CONTRADICTION. It appears to me that each one is saying the same thing in general, yet one is expanded from the other and also has some omissions. IN CONTEXT, Paul told King Agrippa, what he needed to know. This expansion being for the king's better understanding perhaps of Paul's earlier conversation with the Christ. One could hardly call this a lie UNLESS one had an agenda to denounce Paul AT ANY COST which is what appears to be your goal.
Also, for the record, NOT all lies are evil. There are plenty of exceptions...