What mortal ever refers to “my gospel?” (Rm. 2:16; 16:25; 2Tim. 2:8)?
Acts 9
4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
6 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.
Paul himself said that every thing must be established by two or more witnesses, how many witnesses did Paul have?
Did Paul actually see Jesus in his blind state? At that time Paul was told to go into the city and he would be told what he must do.
Nothing else is recorded.
The only witness Paul had was Ananias as the Lord had already talked to him before Ananias went to Paul.
Also since it is claimed that Luke was a traveling companion to Paul, was he with him at this time?
If so why did he not mention that Paul went some where else for three years and not directly to Jerusalem as he does indicate?.
Paul also has a little different version of his trip to Jerusalem 14 years later than what is recorded in acts.
Note, i am not anti Paul by any means but i have heard things which would indicate that Jesus was just the forerunner of Paul.
Although i believe Paul was really converted to Jesus i also believe because of his persecution of Christians which was the thorn in his side that he was Jealous of the other apostles, especially Peter.
Jesus is the only name in which we can be saved.
THE GOSPEL OF JESUS is the gospel of Paul, since it came from Him, and refers to the message of salvation, "the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation," "by which also ye are saved," (Eph. 1:13; 1Cor. 15:2) the meaning of the words and works recorded in the gospels. And only one of which actually says it is the gospel of Jesus Christ, (Mk. 1:1) and John never even uses the word, and within these "gospels" Christ is preaching the gospel - the message of salvation.
You are evidently making the same error as another who may have sent you to me, that of simply seeing the gospel record of Christ's words and works as the gospel, so that there was no "Paul's gospel," but it id clear that "gospel" actually primarily refers to the actual message of salvation, thus when the gospel is preached in Scripture, it is not 28 chapters of Matthew, but can even a 3 minute message, (Acts 10:36-43) or the essence of it. (Rv. 14:6,7)
Paul himself said that every thing must be established by two or more witnesses, how many witnesses did Paul have? Did Paul actually see Jesus in his blind state? At that time Paul was told to go into the city and he would be told what he must do. Paul had two or more witnesses to the light that shined round about him from heaven, And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man." (Acts 9:3,7) which is when "the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do." (Acts 9:6; 22:10)
The others with him apparently only heard the sound, (Acts 22:9) not the voice (phōnē, cf. Mt. 24:31; Joh_3:8, 1Co_14:7-8 (2), Rev_1:15, Rev_9:9 (2), Rev_18:22)
It is possible that is when he saw the Lord, but i think he did when given the revelation of the gospel referred to in Gal. 1:11,12, perhaps in Arabia. And which message was confirmed by more than 3 witnesses, including those who "seemed to be pillars." (Gal. 2:9)
Also since it is claimed that Luke was a traveling companion to Paul, was he with him at this time?
The problem is supposing Luke was with Paul at "this time." As Barnes states,
Luke has by no means recorded all that Paul or the other apostles did, nor has he pretended to do it. He has given the leading events in the public labors of Paul; and it is not at all improbable that he has omitted not a few short excursions made by him for the purpose of preaching the gospel. The journey into Arabia, probably, did not furnish any incidents in regard to the success of the gospel there which required particular record by the sacred historian, nor has Paul himself referred to it for any such reason, or intimated that it furnished any incidents, or any facts, that required particularly the notice of the historian. He has mentioned it for a different purpose altogether, to show that he did not receive his commission from the apostles, and that he did not go at once to consult them. He went directly the other way.
Since Luke, in the Book of Acts , had no occasion to illustrate this; since he had no occasion to refer to this argument, it did not fall in with the design to mention the fact. Nor is it known why Paul went into Arabia. Bloomfield supposes that it was in order to recover his health after the calamity which he suffered on the way to Damascus. But everything in regard to this is mere conjecture...
JFB opines,
Into Arabia — This journey (not recorded in Acts) was during the whole period of his stay at Damascus, called by Luke (Act_9:23), “many [Greek, a considerable number of] days.” It is curiously confirmatory of the legitimacy of taking “many days” to stand for “three years,” that the same phrase exactly occurs in the same sense in 1Ki_2:38, 1Ki_2:39.`
And Roberton's word pictures:
Before me (pro emou). The Jerusalem apostles were genuine apostles, but so is Paul. His call did not come from them nor did he receive confirmation by them. Into Arabia (eis Arabian). This visit to Arabia has to come between the two visits to Damascus which are not distinguished in Act_9:22. In Act_9:23 Luke does speak of “considerable days” and so we must place the visit to Arabia between Act_9:22, Act_9:23.
Although i believe Paul was really converted to Jesus i also believe because of his persecution of Christians which was the thorn in his side that he was Jealous of the other apostles, especially Peter.
I think that to be a kind of superficial analysis of liberal elites, or the biased view of RCs who want to impugn Paul for what he did to "their" Peter. And which is based on Pauline statements such as,
"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." (1 Corinthians 15:10)
"For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." (2 Corinthians 11:5)
"Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft." (2 Corinthians 11:23)
However, in the first instance it is Paul testifying to the great grace of God to one who persecuted the church, and how it was not in vain but as him that is forgiven much, the same loveth much, (LK. 7:47) so Paul laboured more than they all, "yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me."
And rather than being jealous of the others, for Paul all he cares about is that "whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice." (Philippians 1:18) Thus he next expresses the same sentiment, "Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed." (1 Corinthians 15:11)
Souls, and not self, is always paramount to Paul, to the glory of God.
In the next instances, rather than passionate Paul laboring under an inferiority complex to the real apostles in speaking these Divinely inspired truths, he actually is jealous, as God is when His own follow false gods to their own hurt, placing affection on that which cannot save.
"For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." (2 Corinthians 11:2) For Paul is laboring to rescue his beloved but backslidden church, which he gives more attention to than any other, from following false apostles who have them under a spell.
And as cults and cultic personalities will do, these "false apostles, deceitful workers" were attacking Paul in order to validate themselves, and in his love for these dumb deceived sheep Paul resorts to what he calls being a fool, in testifying to then of his sacrificial love for them in Christ.
Thus it is love for the church - "Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not?" (1Cor. 11:29) "And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved." (2 Corinthians 12:15) - that drives this, not jealously of the apostles.
Perhaps Galatians 2:9 could also be listed, "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision."
But which is in contrast to the demigod status RCs give their leaders, yet in all these there is no rebuke by the Holy Spirit, who uses Paul mightily, and once again Paul's passion is for the church, which tends to look at men after the flesh and to "think of men above that which is written." (1Cor. 4:6)
And in contrast what Paul states is entirely correct and needful. For indeed the church began in dissent from those who thought of themselves above that which is written and had men doing so.
Jesus is the only name in which we can be saved.
Indeed. I man named Paul agreed and preach that and rejoiced that Christ was validly preached, and condemned any other gospel than what he (and the other apostles) preached, as "by Him [the risen Lord Jesus] all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." (Acts 13:39) "that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance." (Acts 26:20)
Amen.
It's far more likely that Peter was jealous of Paul, although I think it's a stretch to try to create that kind of animosity between the Apostles.
Gospel I believe means Good News. Good news of the saving grace of Jesus Christ. Paul certainly preached the Gospel message. [Pinging Salvation because she was apparently gobsmacked that Paul could be preaching the "gospel." I think that was because Peter MUST be seen as the top ranking person back in the 1st century because Catholicism made him the ex post facto pope 300 or so years later. There fore Paul must be marginalized]
Jesus is the only name in which we can be saved.
Amen to that, but some popes declare that Mary can save.