What part did Saul have about his conversion?

[Madman]

Yes we know that Ananias "learned him" this: The Lord has sent me. And Ananias knew full well why he had been sent. * Do you think he told Paul maybe?

"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus."

We also know that Paul spent time in Arabia, and the scrolls were very important to him for reading and study.

 

[Artfuldodger]

"And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do."

This^ is what Jesus tells Paul after he asks him " Who are you? and Jesus replies, "I am Jesus that you persecute."

Paul will testify latter in scripture that Jesus gave him his marching orders personally. If this is the case, then Paul's understanding of how in manner Jesus gives him instructions directly might be somewhat different than we might imagine?


Just as Paul's letters tell us what to do and we know his instructions as due to Paul being in Christ and a member of the Church it was likewise for Paul that he was instructed by the ministers of the Church-- those also in Christ that ministered to his needs.

I could say it this way perhaps: The Holy Spirit that was teaching and directing the ministers who were sent to Paul was also ministering to Paul through them. So Paul can* say, " I was directed-personally by Jesus...directly, especially that the Lord send me to the city and where latter God sent Ananias to me and I spent some time with the disciples etc."*paraphrase or supposition here.

The chapter 9 account said “go into the city” but that in chapter 22 said “go to Damascus”. The third account, in Acts 26, is significantly different from the other two. In this case, Paul had been in prison for over one year and he had been testifying in his own defense before the Judean king Agrippa.

Maybe he talked to no one after his revelation about what to preach but read scripture/scrolls. Maybe he had some learning from God, some from man, and some from scripture. Perhaps we all do.

 

[Artfuldodger]

In Galatians 1:11-12 Paul states:

But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ"​

That seems to be pretty straight forward.

Yet we know that Paul already had a pretty good understanding of the Gospel before his revelation. He just didn't believe it. But it wasn't like God awakened some Pacific Islander either who had no previous knowledge of the Gospel. I'm not saying God can't do that, he just didn't do that in Paul's conversion or revelation. Paul knew God as did all the Jews.

 

[Artfuldodger]

Wouldn't if be terrible to be in Paul's position? To know your purpose was to present salvation to the Gentiles and know that your fellow countrymen were blinded for the very purpose of your mission from God?

 

[1gr8buildit]

I have not read the responses in full... so this may have been said. But we have a conflict of scriptures. Paul says he did not consult any man, being specific, yet we have other scripture saying he went up and spent time with them. Check it out, it's not ambiguous.

 

[1gr8buildit]

Paul tried real hard to separate himself from the other disciples because he believed they were mixing works with Grace. He specifically seemed to have contention with Peter as if Peter's words seemed to be his torn as he tried to preach grace. It's often denied, but there is context conflict. Those that know their bibles know it's in there. I think to paraphrase, Paul thought that Peter was appeasing the ritualistic Jews who would have a hard time dropping their rituals by not teaching the full freedom from the law as if to water it down to suit them. This in turn made it hard to preach to the gentiles because he was often in conflict with Peter. And Peter was most respected as the most important stamp of approval. Paul had a hard time keeping the gentiles from those rituals of the law that they seemed to think they were to supposed to adopt. But that, was a denial of the gospel. Grace plus anything is not grace at all.

 

[Artfuldodger]

Paul tried real hard to separate himself from the other disciples because he believed they were mixing works with Grace. He specifically seemed to have contention with Peter as if Peter's words seemed to be his torn as he tried to preach grace. It's often denied, but there is context conflict. Those that know their bibles know it's in there. I think to paraphrase, Paul thought that Peter was appeasing the ritualistic Jews who would have a hard time dropping their rituals by not teaching the full freedom from the law as if to water it down to suit them. This in turn made it hard to preach to the gentiles because he was often in conflict with Peter. And Peter was most respected as the most important stamp of approval. Paul had a hard time keeping the gentiles from those rituals of the law that they seemed to think they were to supposed to adopt. But that, was a denial of the gospel. Grace plus anything is not grace at all.

Maybe God saw this conflict and thus called Paul to preach to the Gentiles. If so it would make more sense for Paul to get his beliefs directly from God instead of learning them from man.

Yes the same scripture conflict is there and compared to the birth of Christ events conflict between Luke and Matthew.

 

[Artfuldodger]

When I first started really looking into Paul, it was with James that I saw the most conflict. Was reading that the whole Protestant Reformation depended more on what Paul said than James.

 

[gordon 2]

When I first started really looking into Paul, it was with James that I saw the most conflict. Was reading that the whole Protestant Reformation depended more on what Paul said than James.

If this is true, why did they not take James out of the cannon? They did it for other books that they had issues with which supposedly conflicted with the solutions they saw would remedy the problems they felt they had present to them. By putting it as a wedge between Paul and James they created 40M wedged denominations the poor souls. Maybe they dipped the fruit of good and evil in inappropriate comparisons, thinking it was in fact all good fruit they were playing with.

Personally I think Paul and James would agree on a lot of things especially this:

“Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”

What made Paul difficult perhaps for other Christians of his time was his all or nothing super duper zeal to make converts and his stubborn will to imitate Christ regardless of any cost--especially that of his own life. Personally if I had been around Paul I would have questioned if he was contemplating his suicide or his martyr? I would say, " Hey Paul do you have a death wish?"

His last trip to Jerusalem which he did not have to take for example, and was warned not to make, was almost a copy of Jesus' determined entry into Jerusalem on that donkey. I can understand that Paul was imitating our Lord and it was Paul's will to imitate the Lord. He says just before this in the Acts that he had done mostly all he could with the gentiles east of Italy. He wanted new beginnings I think. And so Paul goes to Rome. He was surfing on the legal system of his culture to ferry him to new converts and if it caused his death in the process it did not seem to bother him that much.

So I never really looked at Paul with conflict in mind, other than his own inner conflicts perhaps, but I found conflict with others none the less-- with other Evangelists or Brothers and that was a bit of a surprise.

 

[tell sackett]

I have not read the responses in full... so this may have been said. But we have a conflict of scriptures. Paul says he did not consult any man, being specific, yet we have other scripture saying he went up and spent time with them. Check it out, it's not ambiguous.

Galatians1

Also how or what words did Paul utter to confirm his conversion? How did Paul confirm that he was enlightened, converted and born again? Did he cry, ask for forgiveness, repent, confess, rejoice, etc?
I can't find any scripture that really says he expressed any type of a hallelujah moment. No word that he suddenly started believing. No word on if he confessed Jesus is Lord with his mouth.

I guess the point I've noticed is, it didn't take anything from Paul for his conversion to happen. If it did he didn't say.

Acts16:30-31

 

[Artfuldodger]

Galatians1
Acts16:30-31

I was talking about Paul's reaction at the time of his conversion. Even in this passage in Acts it was a cause of divine intervention that opened up the jailer's eyes;
"Suddenly a strong earthquake shook the foundations of the prison. At once all the doors flew open and everyone’s chains came loose."

 

[Artfuldodger]

Galatians1
Acts16:30-31

In reference to Galatians1, beside the point being he did not speak to any man, it also shows that he, like the jailer were not seeking God. That God was seeking them.

I think buildit was leading into the fact that there are other scriptures that point to Paul speaking to men as in a learning perspective. Like maybe Paul was called by God, received his divine mission to preach from God, but got is knowledge from man.
I can actually see it both ways. Maybe God called him and gave him his mission but Paul went to man to learn.

Even Jesus learned from man.

 

[apoint]

Paul's big halleluja moment is when he could see again. Bet he cried with joy. No other signs are needed.

 

[tell sackett]

In reference to Galatians1, beside the point being he did not speak to any man, it also shows that he, like the jailer were not seeking God. That God was seeking them.

I think buildit was leading into the fact that there are other scriptures that point to Paul speaking to men as in a learning perspective. Like maybe Paul was called by God, received his divine mission to preach from God, but got is knowledge from man.
I can actually see it both ways. Maybe God called him and gave him his mission but Paul went to man to learn.

Even Jesus learned from man.

Paul showed his conversion by obedience. He showed it by immediately preaching the gospel. As to the words he "spoke": Romans; 1,2Cor; Gal.; Ephesians, along with some others. Did he speak them immediately? No, but he spoke and wrote them as he was moved by the Spirit to do so.

Paul conferred with the other apostles as their equal. I am aware of no scripture that indicates He was taught by them. He expressly makes that point in Gal.1

Huh?

I was talking about Paul's reaction at the time of his conversion. Even in this passage in Acts it was a cause of divine intervention that opened up the jailer's eyes;
"Suddenly a strong earthquake shook the foundations of the prison. At once all the doors flew open and everyone’s chains came loose."

Or perhaps it was the songs of joy and praise that two men who had been severely beaten and then thrown in the worst part of the prison, yet they were still praising God.
Perhaps it was both.