Was Paul told what to do by Ananias or didn't he immediately confer with flesh and blood?

[Conqueror]

Then the Lord said to him (Paul), “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.” (Ac 9:6).

Paul's apostolic word of God proved Luke to be wrong.

I neither received it (the gospel) from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ (Ga 1:12). I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood (Ga 1:16). Therefore Paul wasn't told by Ananias.

 

[Sipsey]

Welcome. I think you may be conflating two issues here.

 

[Conqueror]

I am interested in testing the word of God (1 Thes 5:21), not in your thoughts.

 

[Guojing]

Then the Lord said to him (Paul), “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.” (Ac 9:6).

Paul's apostolic word of God proved Luke to be wrong.

I neither received it (the gospel) from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ (Ga 1:12). I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood (Ga 1:16). Therefore Paul wasn't told by Ananias.

Ananias restored Paul's sight but he did not teach Paul the Gospel of grace.

It was in Arabia (Galatians 1:17) that Paul spent about 3 years in and I believe that was when the ascended Christ revealed to him that Gospel, to be preached to the Gentiles.

 

[Dino246]

I am interested in testing the word of God (1 Thes 5:21), not in your thoughts.

That's a great way to demonstrate your character for all to see. I'd say welcome, but I don't think you'll be around long.

Didn't your mother teach you some respect?

 

[Conqueror]

Ananias restored Paul's sight but he did not teach Paul the Gospel of grace.

.

"you will be told what you must do” (Ac 9:6) was the alleged promise.

That you correctly deny.

 

[Conqueror]

I am interested in testing the word of God (1 Thes 5:21), not in your thoughts.

That's a great way to demonstrate your character for all to see. I'd say welcome, but I don't think you'll be around long.

Didn't your mother teach you some respect?

How do I politely phrase, that I am not interested in your thoughts either?

Please address the OP with scripture, if you can?

 

[Dino246]

I am interested in testing the word of God (1 Thes 5:21), not in your thoughts.



How do I politely phrase, that I am not interested in your thoughts either?

Please address the OP with scripture, if you can?

Off you go to Ignore. You set a record. Bye bye.

 

[Conqueror]

Ananias restored Paul's sight

Introducing the alleged restored sight is another issue, which goes right against the gospel message for Jesus came to give sight to the blind, not to afflict Paul with blindness.

Please supply the required two or three witnesses please - that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established (Deut 17:6; 19:15; 2 Cor. 13:1)?

 

[Guojing]

Introducing the alleged restored sight is another issue, which goes right against the gospel message for Jesus came to give sight to the blind, not to afflict Paul with blindness.

Please supply the required two or three witnesses please - that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established (Deut 17:6; 19:15; 2 Cor. 13:1)?

Can you clarify what your beliefs are regarding this? Do you believe Ananias was the one who instructed Paul about the Gospel of Grace?

 

[Mii]

Uh back up a bit there dude...when you say you aren't interested in someone's thoughts and yet go on a forum asking for them...

Tis a bit odd.


You mentioned some OT scriptures in confirming something...Are not two or three witnesses on a forum enough for you that maybe you've jumped a bit and glued some things together where they aren't necessarily related?


Spend some time in the OT. Who do you think Elisha was? Of God?

Why then did he afflict Gehazi with leprosy? or why did the Father afflict Miriam?

and yet he is our healer? Does it not stand to reason that he can afflict us when we are in error?

Does it also stand to reason that Paul's sight was actually restored and opened in this instance while his physical sight suffered?

Jesus spent a lot of time not speaking on the physical. Bear that in mind and let's be civil please

 

[Conqueror]

Can you clarify what your beliefs are regarding this? Do you believe Ananias was the one who instructed Paul about the Gospel of Grace?

I neither received it (the gospel) from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ (Ga 1:12). I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood (Ga 1:16). Therefore Paul wasn't told by Ananias.

It is up to you to test all things (1 Thes 5:21) and then to make an informed choice to believe Paul's apostolic word of God and/or to accept Luke's hearsay (luke 1:2) as equal to that word of God.

 

[Conqueror]

Does it also stand to reason that Paul's sight was actually restored and opened in this instance while his physical sight suffered?

Where is the apostolic witness that Paul's sight was taken away to be restored? This goes right against the gospel message for Jesus came to give sight to the blind, not to afflict Paul with blindness.

 

[Mii]

You need to explain that a little further. What do you mean by apostolic witness? A proclamation by Peter right before it happened?

A witness that the apostles gave Paul a "thumbs up" as being legitimate?

Also you seem to have not read the sentence that you quoted.

Where is the apostolic witness that Paul's sight was taken away to be restored? This goes right against the gospel message for Jesus came to give sight to the blind, not to afflict Paul with blindness.

 

[Guojing]

I neither received it (the gospel) from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ (Ga 1:12). I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood (Ga 1:16). Therefore Paul wasn't told by Ananias.

It is up to you to test all things (1 Thes 5:21) and then to make an informed choice to believe Paul's apostolic word of God and/or to accept Luke's hearsay (luke 1:2) as equal to that word of God.

So I was agreeing with your point. Paul was not instructed in the Gospel of Grace by Ananias. He can't be since Ananias is known to be a devout man of the Law. (Acts 22:12)

 

[Conqueror]

You need to explain that a little further. What do you mean by apostolic witness? A proclamation by Peter right before it happened?

The possibility that Luke is a deceiver has to be tested. TEST ALL THINGS (1 Thes 5:21).

Luke isn't an apostle (Mat 10:2-4). He doesn't rank first in the ministry (1Cor 12:28, Eph 4:11).
Therefore any attempt to elevate Luke's work to apostolic status is to be firmly resisted.

those who desire an opportunity to be regarded
just as we (the apostles) are in the things of which they boast.
....... are false apostles (2 Co 11:12-13).

Admittedly Luke didn't place his work in the canon as equal to apostolic word of God. But Rome did compile the canon.

Where is the apostolic witness that Paul's sight was taken away to be restored? This goes right against the gospel message for Jesus came to give sight to the blind, not to afflict Paul with blindness.

 

[Conqueror]

I neither received it (the gospel) from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ (Ga 1:12). I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood (Ga 1:16). Therefore Paul wasn't told by Ananias.

It is up to you to test all things (1 Thes 5:21) and then to make an informed choice to believe Paul's apostolic word of God and/or to accept Luke's hearsay (luke 1:2) as equal to that word of God.

So I was agreeing with your point. Paul was not instructed in the Gospel of Grace by Ananias. He can't be since Ananias is known to be a devout man of the Law. (Acts 22:12)

Thanks for that insight, which proves that Luke's Book of Acts is deception.

 

[Leastamongmany]

Welcome to cc and blessings!

 

[Guojing]

I neither received it (the gospel) from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ (Ga 1:12). I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood (Ga 1:16). Therefore Paul wasn't told by Ananias.

It is up to you to test all things (1 Thes 5:21) and then to make an informed choice to believe Paul's apostolic word of God and/or to accept Luke's hearsay (luke 1:2) as equal to that word of God.



Thanks for that insight, which proves that Luke's Book of Acts is deception.

No, its not a deception. Luke did not say that Ananias will be the one teaching him the Gospel of Grace, only that Paul was told to wait for Ananias.

Luke recorded things from his perspective, which may not be exactly the same as how Paul sees it. For example, his coverage of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 was slightly different from how Paul sees it in Galatians 2. They both record different point of views, which only by reading both, we will get a clearer picture of what happened.

 

[Mii]

The possibility that Luke is a deceiver has to be tested. TEST ALL THINGS (1 Thes 5:21).

Luke isn't an apostle (Mat 10:2-4). He doesn't rank first in the ministry (1Cor 12:28, Eph 4:11).
Therefore any attempt to elevate Luke's work to apostolic status is to be firmly resisted.

those who desire an opportunity to be regarded
just as we (the apostles) are in the things of which they boast.
....... are false apostles (2 Co 11:12-13).

Admittedly Luke didn't place his work in the canon as equal to apostolic word of God. But Rome did compile the canon.

Where is the apostolic witness that Paul's sight was taken away to be restored? This goes right against the gospel message for Jesus came to give sight to the blind, not to afflict Paul with blindness.

Many believe that Luke and Acts are written by the same man since they are both directed at Theophilus

You need to be clear are you coming against the authenticity of scripture in regards to both the book of Luke & Acts?


Do you choose to reject Jude as vaild because there is no "apostolic witness"?