Do we have reason to question parts of the New Testament?

[rewriter]

The reason we might want to question some of the NT record is as follows. In Luke 1:1-4 Luke assures Theophilus, whomever that maybe, that he has fully investigated the events he is going to detail so that Theophilus may know the truth. In Acts 1, he references back to his gospel, as if to remind Theophilus that he is presenting the truth. However, when he brings Paul into the account, what he recounts is different from what Paul describes in Galatians 1:13-2:2, probably also differing with what Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 where he places things he learned about Jesus ahead of his statement that he saw the risen Christ, as if he received instruction in Christianity before seeing the risen Christ, and he also implies that his seeing was no different than anyone else’s. So we have different chronologies around the beginnings of Paul’s works from Paul’s own accounts versus what Luke claims; Paul: I was instructed in the Christian faith, saw the risen Jesus just like everyone else (1 Corinthians), went to Arabia, came back by way of Damascus and had trouble with Arabs, but stayed away from Jerusalem for three years, came to Jerusalem, met with just a couple people (Peter and James only)for fifteen days and then departed for another 14 years without doing any extensive travel, just staying in Cilicia/Syria (a combined province at the time). I then came, got my message approved and began missionary work with the Gentiles (Galatians). Luke: oh no, you were violently against Christians (agreement) until you had a unique encounter with the risen Jesus (?), then you went to Damascus, got instruction and started preaching which got you in trouble with the Jew, not the Arabs (Acts 9:3-25). When Paul does get to Jerusalem in Luke’s account, he is rejected by the apostles until introduced by Barnabas and stays there preaching until Jews try to kill him again and he is sent to Tarsus (Acts 9:23-30). Sometime later Barnabas goes to Antioch, sees good things and goes to Tarsus to get Paul and brings him to Antioch for a year. While in Antioch, a prophesy about a famine arrives (Acts 11:22-30), this and the death of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:19-23) are things that can be dated. The Famine occurred 45-7 CE and Agrippa I died in 44. Now for Paul to have stayed away from Jerusalem for 3 years before his first visit and 14 until his next and still get to Jerusalem by 45, he could be converted no later than 28 CE, likely 5 years before Jesus was crucified.

So, who do we trust, Luke or Paul, and do these irreconcilable discrepancies in God’s word matter?

 

[Dino246]

So, who do we trust, Luke or Paul, and do these irreconcilable discrepancies in God’s word matter?

Does either claim that their record is the unimpeachable exact order of events? No? Then why do you treat both as though they do?

 

[pinebeach]

P A R A G R A P H S re-writer. paragraphs

 

[rewriter]

Well, a question back to you. When you recount events do you jump all around or do you relate events in the order they occurred? Most people relate events in the order they occurred. Or perhaps you think that Luke, when writing, jumped around in which case maybe the women went to the tomb before Jesus was placed there and saw him standing the garden and that is the source for the resurrection story. Personally I highly doubt that, but your question makes it possible.

 

[Gideon300]

The reason we might want to question some of the NT record is as follows. In Luke 1:1-4 Luke assures Theophilus, whomever that maybe, that he has fully investigated the events he is going to detail so that Theophilus may know the truth. In Acts 1, he references back to his gospel, as if to remind Theophilus that he is presenting the truth. However, when he brings Paul into the account, what he recounts is different from what Paul describes in Galatians 1:13-2:2, probably also differing with what Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 where he places things he learned about Jesus ahead of his statement that he saw the risen Christ, as if he received instruction in Christianity before seeing the risen Christ, and he also implies that his seeing was no different than anyone else’s. So we have different chronologies around the beginnings of Paul’s works from Paul’s own accounts versus what Luke claims; Paul: I was instructed in the Christian faith, saw the risen Jesus just like everyone else (1 Corinthians), went to Arabia, came back by way of Damascus and had trouble with Arabs, but stayed away from Jerusalem for three years, came to Jerusalem, met with just a couple people (Peter and James only)for fifteen days and then departed for another 14 years without doing any extensive travel, just staying in Cilicia/Syria (a combined province at the time). I then came, got my message approved and began missionary work with the Gentiles (Galatians). Luke: oh no, you were violently against Christians (agreement) until you had a unique encounter with the risen Jesus (?), then you went to Damascus, got instruction and started preaching which got you in trouble with the Jew, not the Arabs (Acts 9:3-25). When Paul does get to Jerusalem in Luke’s account, he is rejected by the apostles until introduced by Barnabas and stays there preaching until Jews try to kill him again and he is sent to Tarsus (Acts 9:23-30). Sometime later Barnabas goes to Antioch, sees good things and goes to Tarsus to get Paul and brings him to Antioch for a year. While in Antioch, a prophesy about a famine arrives (Acts 11:22-30), this and the death of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:19-23) are things that can be dated. The Famine occurred 45-7 CE and Agrippa I died in 44. Now for Paul to have stayed away from Jerusalem for 3 years before his first visit and 14 until his next and still get to Jerusalem by 45, he could be converted no later than 28 CE, likely 5 years before Jesus was crucified.

So, who do we trust, Luke or Paul, and do these irreconcilable discrepancies in God’s word matter?

The problem is never with God's word and always with man's understanding. You call yourself rewriter, but you do not have the right to rewrite God's word. That is playing with fire.

 

[Dino246]

Well, a question back to you. When you recount events do you jump all around or do you relate events in the order they occurred? Most people relate events in the order they occurred. Or perhaps you think that Luke, when writing, jumped around in which case maybe the women went to the tomb before Jesus was placed there and saw him standing the garden and that is the source for the resurrection story. Personally I highly doubt that, but your question makes it possible.

Please use the REPLY button so everyone knows to whom you are speaking.

I assume me, in this case....

You're imposing one specific "way" to tell a story and treating it like it's the only "valid" or "proper" way. There simply isn't such a thing. Both Luke and Paul were guided by the Holy Spirit, and I don't see any need to second-guess His reasoning. Instead of assuming they are contradictory and looking for differences, try assuming they are complementary and look for alignment.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

So, who do we trust, Luke or Paul, and do these irreconcilable discrepancies in God’s word matter?

Whether irreconcilable or not, they obviously matter to you because you spend so much time trying to find faults in the bible.

 

[rewriter]

Please use the REPLY button so everyone knows to whom you are speaking.

I assume me, in this case....

You're imposing one specific "way" to tell a story and treating it like it's the only "valid" or "proper" way. There simply isn't such a thing. Both Luke and Paul were guided by the Holy Spirit, and I don't see any need to second-guess His reasoning. Instead of assuming they are contradictory and looking for differences, try assuming they are complementary and look for alignment.

I have looked at them for reconciliation. Paul says he was in Damascus ONLY one time and had trouble with Arabs. He also places it after leaving Arabia where he went immediately after seeing the risen Christ. Luke places Paul in Damascus immediately after seeing the risen Christ and that he had trouble with the Jews.

The Jews and the Arabs did not get along even at that time. So, when did Paul go to Damascus and who did he have trouble with? He could not have gone to two geographically distinct places immediately after the same event and if he is only there one time, which of two groups that did not like each other and would not cooperate without outside interference forcing the cooperation, go after him? And if you wish to claim that they did cooperate, who forced them to?

 

[homwardbound]

The reason we might want to question some of the NT record is as follows. In Luke 1:1-4 Luke assures Theophilus, whomever that maybe, that he has fully investigated the events he is going to detail so that Theophilus may know the truth. In Acts 1, he references back to his gospel, as if to remind Theophilus that he is presenting the truth. However, when he brings Paul into the account, what he recounts is different from what Paul describes in Galatians 1:13-2:2, probably also differing with what Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 where he places things he learned about Jesus ahead of his statement that he saw the risen Christ, as if he received instruction in Christianity before seeing the risen Christ, and he also implies that his seeing was no different than anyone else’s. So we have different chronologies around the beginnings of Paul’s works from Paul’s own accounts versus what Luke claims; Paul: I was instructed in the Christian faith, saw the risen Jesus just like everyone else (1 Corinthians), went to Arabia, came back by way of Damascus and had trouble with Arabs, but stayed away from Jerusalem for three years, came to Jerusalem, met with just a couple people (Peter and James only)for fifteen days and then departed for another 14 years without doing any extensive travel, just staying in Cilicia/Syria (a combined province at the time). I then came, got my message approved and began missionary work with the Gentiles (Galatians). Luke: oh no, you were violently against Christians (agreement) until you had a unique encounter with the risen Jesus (?), then you went to Damascus, got instruction and started preaching which got you in trouble with the Jew, not the Arabs (Acts 9:3-25). When Paul does get to Jerusalem in Luke’s account, he is rejected by the apostles until introduced by Barnabas and stays there preaching until Jews try to kill him again and he is sent to Tarsus (Acts 9:23-30). Sometime later Barnabas goes to Antioch, sees good things and goes to Tarsus to get Paul and brings him to Antioch for a year. While in Antioch, a prophesy about a famine arrives (Acts 11:22-30), this and the death of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:19-23) are things that can be dated. The Famine occurred 45-7 CE and Agrippa I died in 44. Now for Paul to have stayed away from Jerusalem for 3 years before his first visit and 14 until his next and still get to Jerusalem by 45, he could be converted no later than 28 CE, likely 5 years before Jesus was crucified.

So, who do we trust, Luke or Paul, and do these irreconcilable discrepancies in God’s word matter?

I watch out to not strain out gnats and swallow a camel. The different accounts, accounted in the testaments are not exact, if were, then I would have reason to doubt. I would see things rehearsed to get people under their rule. Which has been happening. for a long while now. That Jesus revealed their selfishness first.

Did Religion and Jesus get along? Did Paul 1 Cor 9. However I see to not doubt God, I revere God. Even if I do not understand God's righteous, the only one good Father and Son won for us together to us to be safe and secure in Faith given us too stand in, at least me. Col. 1:21-23
Flesh man cannot, does not please God. The only flesh that hats ever done this is Jesus for us all, Romans 8:1-3, 1 John 2:1-27

 

[ResidentAlien]

Do we have reason to question parts of the New Testament?

Sure, why not?

Your profile says you're a Christian, so I'll respond as one brother to another. I believe it's reasonable to ask questions, but I've seen so many people get off in the weeds worrying about things that just aren't that important. My advice is concentrate on doing the things that are clear and easy to understand. The Lord will reveal the other stuff at the proper time.

 

[homwardbound]

Sure, why not?

Your profile says you're a Christian, so I'll respond as one brother to another. I believe it's reasonable to ask questions, but I've seen so many people get off in the weeds worrying about things that just aren't that important. My advice is concentrate on doing the things that are clear and easy to understand. The Lord will reveal the other stuff at the proper time.

Grow in the grave given us, Stand willingly to learn from any and all errors anyone does, includes self
Hebrews 5:12-6:20

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

The reason we might want to question some of the NT record is as follows. In Luke 1:1-4 Luke assures Theophilus, whomever that maybe, that he has fully investigated the events he is going to detail so that Theophilus may know the truth. In Acts 1, he references back to his gospel, as if to remind Theophilus that he is presenting the truth. However, when he brings Paul into the account, what he recounts is different from what Paul describes in Galatians 1:13-2:2, probably also differing with what Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 where he places things he learned about Jesus ahead of his statement that he saw the risen Christ, as if he received instruction in Christianity before seeing the risen Christ, and he also implies that his seeing was no different than anyone else’s. So we have different chronologies around the beginnings of Paul’s works from Paul’s own accounts versus what Luke claims; Paul: I was instructed in the Christian faith, saw the risen Jesus just like everyone else (1 Corinthians), went to Arabia, came back by way of Damascus and had trouble with Arabs, but stayed away from Jerusalem for three years, came to Jerusalem, met with just a couple people (Peter and James only)for fifteen days and then departed for another 14 years without doing any extensive travel, just staying in Cilicia/Syria (a combined province at the time). I then came, got my message approved and began missionary work with the Gentiles (Galatians). Luke: oh no, you were violently against Christians (agreement) until you had a unique encounter with the risen Jesus (?), then you went to Damascus, got instruction and started preaching which got you in trouble with the Jew, not the Arabs (Acts 9:3-25). When Paul does get to Jerusalem in Luke’s account, he is rejected by the apostles until introduced by Barnabas and stays there preaching until Jews try to kill him again and he is sent to Tarsus (Acts 9:23-30). Sometime later Barnabas goes to Antioch, sees good things and goes to Tarsus to get Paul and brings him to Antioch for a year. While in Antioch, a prophesy about a famine arrives (Acts 11:22-30), this and the death of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:19-23) are things that can be dated. The Famine occurred 45-7 CE and Agrippa I died in 44. Now for Paul to have stayed away from Jerusalem for 3 years before his first visit and 14 until his next and still get to Jerusalem by 45, he could be converted no later than 28 CE, likely 5 years before Jesus was crucified.

So, who do we trust, Luke or Paul, and do these irreconcilable discrepancies in God’s word matter?

Just ask God to clarify the parts of His word you have a problem with and He will in due time - He's the true author of it all and is the perfect one explain to you about those parts.

 

[rewriter]

Sure, why not?

Your profile says you're a Christian, so I'll respond as one brother to another. I believe it's reasonable to ask questions, but I've seen so many people get off in the weeds worrying about things that just aren't that important. My advice is concentrate on doing the things that are clear and easy to understand. The Lord will reveal the other stuff at the proper time.

And one of the more well-known ones is Bart Ehrman. I can agree with his rejection of tradition, but not his failure to see a theistic alternative. I also stand against Spong, Tillich among others.

 

[Komentaja]

The reason we might want to question some of the NT record is as follows. In Luke 1:1-4 Luke assures Theophilus, whomever that maybe, that he has fully investigated the events he is going to detail so that Theophilus may know the truth. In Acts 1, he references back to his gospel, as if to remind Theophilus that he is presenting the truth. However, when he brings Paul into the account, what he recounts is different from what Paul describes in Galatians 1:13-2:2, probably also differing with what Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 where he places things he learned about Jesus ahead of his statement that he saw the risen Christ, as if he received instruction in Christianity before seeing the risen Christ, and he also implies that his seeing was no different than anyone else’s. So we have different chronologies around the beginnings of Paul’s works from Paul’s own accounts versus what Luke claims; Paul: I was instructed in the Christian faith, saw the risen Jesus just like everyone else (1 Corinthians), went to Arabia, came back by way of Damascus and had trouble with Arabs, but stayed away from Jerusalem for three years, came to Jerusalem, met with just a couple people (Peter and James only)for fifteen days and then departed for another 14 years without doing any extensive travel, just staying in Cilicia/Syria (a combined province at the time). I then came, got my message approved and began missionary work with the Gentiles (Galatians). Luke: oh no, you were violently against Christians (agreement) until you had a unique encounter with the risen Jesus (?), then you went to Damascus, got instruction and started preaching which got you in trouble with the Jew, not the Arabs (Acts 9:3-25). When Paul does get to Jerusalem in Luke’s account, he is rejected by the apostles until introduced by Barnabas and stays there preaching until Jews try to kill him again and he is sent to Tarsus (Acts 9:23-30). Sometime later Barnabas goes to Antioch, sees good things and goes to Tarsus to get Paul and brings him to Antioch for a year. While in Antioch, a prophesy about a famine arrives (Acts 11:22-30), this and the death of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:19-23) are things that can be dated. The Famine occurred 45-7 CE and Agrippa I died in 44. Now for Paul to have stayed away from Jerusalem for 3 years before his first visit and 14 until his next and still get to Jerusalem by 45, he could be converted no later than 28 CE, likely 5 years before Jesus was crucified.

So, who do we trust, Luke or Paul, and do these irreconcilable discrepancies in God’s word matter?

How can you call the Bible God's word if there are "irreconcilable discrepancies" in it?

 

[GWH]

The reason we might want to question some of the NT record is as follows. In Luke 1:1-4 Luke assures Theophilus, whomever that maybe, that he has fully investigated the events he is going to detail so that Theophilus may know the truth. In Acts 1, he references back to his gospel, as if to remind Theophilus that he is presenting the truth.

However, when he brings Paul into the account, what he recounts is different from what Paul describes in Galatians 1:13-2:2, probably also differing with what Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 where he places things he learned about Jesus ahead of his statement that he saw the risen Christ, as if he received instruction in Christianity before seeing the risen Christ, and he also implies that his seeing was no different than anyone else’s.

So we have different chronologies around the beginnings of Paul’s works from Paul’s own accounts versus what Luke claims; Paul: I was instructed in the Christian faith, saw the risen Jesus just like everyone else (1 Corinthians), went to Arabia, came back by way of Damascus and had trouble with Arabs, but stayed away from Jerusalem for three years, came to Jerusalem, met with just a couple people (Peter and James only)for fifteen days and then departed for another 14 years without doing any extensive travel, just staying in Cilicia/Syria (a combined province at the time). I then came, got my message approved and began missionary work with the Gentiles (Galatians).

Luke: oh no, you were violently against Christians (agreement) until you had a unique encounter with the risen Jesus (?), then you went to Damascus, got instruction and started preaching which got you in trouble with the Jew, not the Arabs (Acts 9:3-25). When Paul does get to Jerusalem in Luke’s account, he is rejected by the apostles until introduced by Barnabas and stays there preaching until Jews try to kill him again and he is sent to Tarsus (Acts 9:23-30). Sometime later Barnabas goes to Antioch, sees good things and goes to Tarsus to get Paul and brings him to Antioch for a year. While in Antioch, a prophesy about a famine arrives (Acts 11:22-30), this and the death of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:19-23) are things that can be dated. The Famine occurred 45-7 CE and Agrippa I died in 44. Now for Paul to have stayed away from Jerusalem for 3 years before his first visit and 14 until his next and still get to Jerusalem by 45, he could be converted no later than 28 CE, likely 5 years before Jesus was crucified.

So, who do we trust, Luke or Paul, and do these irreconcilable discrepancies in God’s word matter?

We can question any part of GW that we want to ask about (Isa. 1:18).
In fact, the original sin was not asking God about the serpent's lie (Gen. 3:4).
No, the discrepancies you cited do not matter; the older one gets, the more senior moments will occur.

A timeline of Paul's life (Scripture refs would be helpful):

c. A.D. 6 Born a Roman citizen to Jewish parents in Tarsus (in modern eastern Turkey)
20–30 Studies Torah in Jerusalem with Gamaliel; becomes a Pharisee
30–33 Persecutes followers of Jesus of Nazareth in Jerusalem and Judea
33–36 Converted on the way to Damascus; spends three years in Arabia; returns to Damascus to preach Jesus as Messiah
36 Flees Damascus because of persecution; visits Jerusalem and meets with the apostles
36–44 Preaches in Tarsus and surrounding region
44–46 Invited by Barnabas to teach in Antioch
46 With Barnabas visits Jerusalem to bring a famine relief offering
47–48 First missionary journey with Barnabas, to Cyprus and Galatia
49 At the Council of Jerusalem, Paul argues successfully that Gentile Christians need not follow Jewish law; returns to Antioch; confronts Peter over question of Jewish law
49–52 Second missionary journey with Silas, through Asia Minor and Greece; settles in Corinth; writes letters to Thessalonians
52 Visits Jerusalem and Antioch briefly; begins third missionary journey
52–55 Stays in Ephesus; writes the letters to Galatians and Corinthians
55–57 Travels through Greece and possibly Illyricum (modern Yugoslavia); writes letter to Romans
57–59 Returns to Jerusalem and arrested; imprisoned at Caesarea
59–60 Appears before Festus and appeals to Caesar; voyage to Rome
60–62 Under house arrest at Rome; writes letters to Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon
62–64 Released; journeys to Spain?; writes letters to Timothy and Titus
64 Returns to Rome; martyred during persecution

 

[GWH]

How can you call the Bible God's word if there are "irreconcilable discrepancies" in it?

How can you know the Bible GW if it were entirely dictated by God?
You can't; we walk by faith (2Cor. 5:7) and increase our confidence (2Cor. 5:8, 2Tim. 1:12)
as we employ a sound hermeneutic (1Thes. 5:21).

 

[rewriter]

We can question any part of GW that we want to ask about (Isa. 1:18).
In fact, the original sin was not asking God about the serpent's lie (Gen. 3:4).
No, the discrepancies you cited do not matter; the older one gets, the more senior moments will occur.

A timeline of Paul's life (Scripture refs would be helpful):

c. A.D. 6 Born a Roman citizen to Jewish parents in Tarsus (in modern eastern Turkey)
20–30 Studies Torah in Jerusalem with Gamaliel; becomes a Pharisee
30–33 Persecutes followers of Jesus of Nazareth in Jerusalem and Judea
33–36 Converted on the way to Damascus; spends three years in Arabia; returns to Damascus to preach Jesus as Messiah
36 Flees Damascus because of persecution; visits Jerusalem and meets with the apostles
36–44 Preaches in Tarsus and surrounding region
44–46 Invited by Barnabas to teach in Antioch
46 With Barnabas visits Jerusalem to bring a famine relief offering
47–48 First missionary journey with Barnabas, to Cyprus and Galatia
49 At the Council of Jerusalem, Paul argues successfully that Gentile Christians need not follow Jewish law; returns to Antioch; confronts Peter over question of Jewish law
49–52 Second missionary journey with Silas, through Asia Minor and Greece; settles in Corinth; writes letters to Thessalonians
52 Visits Jerusalem and Antioch briefly; begins third missionary journey
52–55 Stays in Ephesus; writes the letters to Galatians and Corinthians
55–57 Travels through Greece and possibly Illyricum (modern Yugoslavia); writes letter to Romans
57–59 Returns to Jerusalem and arrested; imprisoned at Caesarea
59–60 Appears before Festus and appeals to Caesar; voyage to Rome
60–62 Under house arrest at Rome; writes letters to Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon
62–64 Released; journeys to Spain?; writes letters to Timothy and Titus
64 Returns to Rome; martyred during persecution

You expand on what the Bible says about Paul's timeline in the first few points
Time of birth is questionable, other than being born in Tarsus we know nothing.
Studied under Gamaliel is correct, but dates are unknown.
Jesus was most likely killed in 33 and there is no hint of Paul's persecution while Jesus was alive.
Acts claims conversion while going to Damascus, Paul does not provide any details, but hints that he underwent teaching about ---Christianity before he saw the risen Christ which would contradict Acts.
Paul claims he only visited Damascus one time and that was after being in Arabia and the persecution was by Arabs. If 36 is the year, ----it definitely would have been Arabs persecuting not Jews as Antipas had attacked the Arabs.
--- The only people Paul claims to have met with at that time were Peter and James.
Well Tarsus and surrounding regions would fit with Paul's statement of staying in Cilicia-Syria for 14 years.
46 is far too early for Paul to travel to Jerusalem according to his timetable. Ditto for his first missionary journey.
49 for the Council of Jerusalem is plausible, on the early side but plausible. Unclear when Paul rebuked Peter over Jewish law.
---Gentiles can be believers without following Mosaic law was established by the Essene Community long before the Jerusalem
---Council
Second missionary journey requires a first and the dating for the first contradicts Paul's declared timeline, the same applies to the
---third
When and where he was, and when he wrote most epistles is questionable. Current events in eastern Anatolia imply he was in
---Ephesus between 55-early 58, under arrest.
Return to Jerusalem and being arrested and subsequent events assume he was not arrested in Ephesus on a charge the church would
---want to totally deny, but which would fit with exile to Spain until pardoned by Otho or Galba in 68. If the Ephesian arrest in correct
---neither Nero, Vitellius nor Vespasian would have released him, but Vespasian would execute him (Vitellius did not have the time)

 

[GWH]

You expand on what the Bible says about Paul's timeline in the first few points
Time of birth is questionable, other than being born in Tarsus we know nothing.
Studied under Gamaliel is correct, but dates are unknown.
Jesus was most likely killed in 33 and there is no hint of Paul's persecution while Jesus was alive.
Acts claims conversion while going to Damascus, Paul does not provide any details, but hints that he underwent teaching about ---Christianity before he saw the risen Christ which would contradict Acts.
Paul claims he only visited Damascus one time and that was after being in Arabia and the persecution was by Arabs. If 36 is the year, ----it definitely would have been Arabs persecuting not Jews as Antipas had attacked the Arabs.
--- The only people Paul claims to have met with at that time were Peter and James.
Well Tarsus and surrounding regions would fit with Paul's statement of staying in Cilicia-Syria for 14 years.
46 is far too early for Paul to travel to Jerusalem according to his timetable. Ditto for his first missionary journey.
49 for the Council of Jerusalem is plausible, on the early side but plausible. Unclear when Paul rebuked Peter over Jewish law.
---Gentiles can be believers without following Mosaic law was established by the Essene Community long before the Jerusalem
---Council
Second missionary journey requires a first and the dating for the first contradicts Paul's declared timeline, the same applies to the
---third
When and where he was, and when he wrote most epistles is questionable. Current events in eastern Anatolia imply he was in
---Ephesus between 55-early 58, under arrest.
Return to Jerusalem and being arrested and subsequent events assume he was not arrested in Ephesus on a charge the church would
---want to totally deny, but which would fit with exile to Spain until pardoned by Otho or Galba in 68. If the Ephesian arrest in correct
---neither Nero, Vitellius nor Vespasian would have released him, but Vespasian would execute him (Vitellius did not have the time)

Would you like to redo Paul's chronology per your understanding complete with Scriptures?

Here is what I came up with many years ago when I was speculating about Paul's 4th missionary journey:

A.D. 62 - released from prison in Rome (?)
62-64 - went to Spain (Rom. 15:24&28)
65-64 - then to Crete (Tit. 1:5)
65 - then to Miletus (2Tim. 4:20)
66 - then to Colossae (Phm. 22)
66 - then to Ephesus (1Tim. 1:3)
66 - then to Philippi (Phil. 2:23-24, 1 Tim. 1:3)
66-67 - then to Nicopolis (Tit. 3:12)
67 - then to Rome where he was martyred (?)

 

[rewriter]

Would you like to redo Paul's chronology per your understanding complete with Scriptures?

Here is what I came up with many years ago when I was speculating about Paul's 4th missionary journey:

A.D. 62 - released from prison in Rome (?)
62-64 - went to Spain (Rom. 15:24&28)
65-64 - then to Crete (Tit. 1:5)
65 - then to Miletus (2Tim. 4:20)
66 - then to Colossae (Phm. 22)
66 - then to Ephesus (1Tim. 1:3)
66 - then to Philippi (Phil. 2:23-24, 1 Tim. 1:3)
66-67 - then to Nicopolis (Tit. 3:12)
67 - then to Rome where he was martyred (?)

Well for the latter part of Paul's time, such as you have presented,

CE 55-58 Paul is arrested somewhere in eastern Anatolia, held in Ephesus facing death in the arena until his Roman citizenship is
---established and writes Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians, Philomen and likely Romans.

Early to mid 58 Paul is sent to Rome under guard, from there he is shipped under guard to Spain.

59- June 68 Paul is somewhere in Spain and prevented from easily communicating with the greater church

Late 68 Either Otho or Galba, having met Paul and been convinced he is no serious threat, issues a pardon.

69-70 Paul revisits the eastern Mediterranean region as noted in the Pastoral and writes the Pastorals

Late 70 or 71 Vespasian revokes Paul's pardon, arrests and executes him.

 

[GWH]

Well for the latter part of Paul's time, such as you have presented,

CE 55-58 Paul is arrested somewhere in eastern Anatolia, held in Ephesus facing death in the arena until his Roman citizenship is
---established and writes Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians, Philomen and likely Romans.

Early to mid 58 Paul is sent to Rome under guard, from there he is shipped under guard to Spain.

59- June 68 Paul is somewhere in Spain and prevented from easily communicating with the greater church

Late 68 Either Otho or Galba, having met Paul and been convinced he is no serious threat, issues a pardon.

69-70 Paul revisits the eastern Mediterranean region as noted in the Pastoral and writes the Pastorals

Late 70 or 71 Vespasian revokes Paul's pardon, arrests and executes him.

I see you did not include the Scriptural support that I requested,
although I realize that what I cited was speculative also.

I note that you think Paul remained in the rain on the plain in Spain until 68 and then (re)visited the region
containing the towns I specified and speculated as beginning in 64, not being executed until 70, whereas I
thought 67 might be possible. I found the following online:

[[Following his release at the end of his two-year imprisonment in Rome, Paul had a brief period of freedom where he continued to preach, teach, and encourage the churches around the Mediterranean region. Between 62 and 65 AD, Paul seems to have brought the Gospel to Spain, which was his stated intention a few years earlier in his letter to the Romans. Although we know very little about this journey, a brief record of it has been preserved in the 1st century writings of Clement. In addition to Spain, Paul went to the island of Crete and then on to Nicopolis in the Province of Macedonia in late 65 AD. It was at Nicopolis where Paul wrote a letter back to Titus at Crete and his first letter to Timothy at Ephesus. Paul was executed in Rome in about 67 AD. According to ancient sources such as Clement, Dionysius, Eusebius and Tertullian, Paul was executed by beheading, a death befitting a Roman citizen. Ancient records suggest that Nero knew Paul personally, so it’s likely that he had Paul beheaded through order of the prefects of Rome.]]

Thoughts?