But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, even from my mother's womb, and called me through his grace,to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles; straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood:neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days.
Why not go straight to Jerusalem?
Seems odd. The men who knew, loved and followed Jesus were in Jerusalem. They would have, presumably, rejoiced at the news that he had appeared to someone.
Yet Paul went in the completely opposite direction. He went away into Arabia and did not go to the men who knew the living Jesus for three years.
If I had a vision of my dead cousin who died tragically in his early 20s and he gave me a message, I would not wait three years and tell it to everybody except my aunt and uncle. The first people I would want to communicate with would be the people who'd buried him and missed him so terribly.
Jesus had two dads, and he turned out alright.~ Andy Gussert
“Feminism has fought no wars. It has killed no opponents. It has set up no concentration camps, starved no enemies, practiced no cruelties. Its battles have been for education, for the vote, for better working conditions…for safety on the streets…for child care, for social welfare…for rape crisis centers, women’s refuges, reforms in the law.
If someone says, “Oh, I’m not a feminist,” I ask, “Why, what’s your problem?”
Paul was being taught by the ressurected Christ at Sinaii
Why would one have to go there to be taught?Christ could appear anywhere.It would seem to make more sense to have gone to Arabia to preach.Does the Bible say anymore on this trip?
Ga 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
this evidently occured between vs 19 and 26 in Acts 9
Ac 9:19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. 20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. 21 But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? 22 But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. 23 And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: 24 But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him. 25 Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket. 26 And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.
I think there are lots of important issues relating to Christianity and its impact on human society, in the past and in the present. I don't think this question is one of those important issues. If there were some evidence pointing to an answer, it would certainly be of interest to historians, for example, but I gather that the only answers to the question are speculative, which makes resolution unlikely.
What am I missing here, as to the importance of this topic?
I prayed for deliverance from the hard world of facts and logic to the happy land where fantasies and prejudices reign. But God spake unto me, saying, "No, keep telling the truth," and to that end afflicted me with severe Trenchant Mouth. So I'm sorry for making cutting remarks, but it's the will of God.
He went somwhere to be by himself and think what it all meant. Had he gone crazy? He ended up with a theology which certainly the risen Christ did not teach him.
I seem to recall someone making a lot of this reference in Galatians. I think it was Hermann Detering. If I remember right the assumption of that scholar was that Galatians was written by Marcion and eponymously attributed to Paul, who may have been Simon the Magician. If so the delay grants legitimacy to Paul as not needing the blessing of the Jerusalem Pillars because he was an equal apostle. Then Acts is written with an aim to bring Paul (and with him the Marcionites) into the orthodox fold. I'm going from memory so undoubtebly got some things wrong but I think I got the gist.
There are any number of reasons that could have moved St. Paul to go to Arabia first. He just didn’t name them.
Apparently this absence of mention is supposed to mean something earth-shattering. What that is, is a mystery to me.
I think Paul's had some cousins in Arabia that he enjoyed hanging out with. When he finally left he was tanned, rested, and ready.
The devil can quote Scripture for his purpose; and the text of Scripture which he now most commonly quotes is, “The Kingdom of heaven is within you.” That text has been the stay and support of more Pharisees and prigs and self-righteous spiritual bullies than all the dogmas in creation; it has served to identify self-satisfaction with the peace that passes all understanding.
