THE BAPTISM OF REPENTANCE!

Written by callingchristians.com

John the Baptist (Yahya al-Islam) was calling people to repentance in the wilderness. They would confess their sins and be 'dunked' into the water as act of repentance.

"In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” - Matthew 3:1-2 (NIV).

"People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River." - Matthew 3:5-6 (NIV).

"Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John." - Matthew 3:13 (NIV).

"Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented." - Matthew 3:15 (NIV).

----------

According to the New Testament, Jesus came to John to be baptized. The only kind of baptism which John offered was for the baptism for the repentance of....sins!

Note: Nowhere in the Gospel According to the Unknown Author of Matthew does any scribe state that Jesus was sinless.

Bible copied from ancient scriptures !!

There are a large number of striking similarities between the book of Proverbs in the bible and the Egyptian Instruction of Amenemope that have been composed during the 12th dynasty. modern scholars agree that there is enough compelling evidence to support the originality of the Instruction of Amenemope. Here are a few examples of the parallel verses:

Proverbs 22:17-18: “Incline thy ear, and hear the words of the wise: and apply thy heart to my doctrine. Which shall be beautiful for thee, if thou keep it in thy bowels, and it shall flow in thy lips.”

Amenemope ch1: “Give thine ear, and hear what I say, And apply thine heart to apprehend; It is good for thee to place them in thine heart, let them rest in the casket of thy belly; That they may act as a peg upon thy tongue.”

Proverbs 22:22: “Do no violence to the poor, because he is poor: and do not oppress the needy in the gate.”

Amenemope ch1: “Beware of robbing the poor, and oppressing the afflicted.”

Proverbs 23:1: “When thou shalt sit to eat with a prince, consider diligently what is set before thy face.”

Amenemope ch23: “Eat not bread in the presence of a ruler, And lunge not forward with thy mouth before a governor. When thou art replenished with that to which thou has no right, It is only a delight to thy spittle. Look upon the dish that is before thee, And let that (alone) supply thy need.”

--------------------------------------------------------

There is an interesting correlation between the Gathas of Zarathushtra Yasna (the sacred texts of the Zoroastrians) and the chapter of creation and book of Isaiah in the Old Testament. This can be largely attributed to the influence that the Mesopotamians held over the Israelites during the time the Israelites were living in Babylon. Strangely, the book of Yasna asks questions which are answered directly in the book of Isaiah. There are countless other examples of influences from Zoroastrianism, but this one is very compelling. Some examples of these similarities texts are:

Yasna 44.3 :4-5: “who made the routes of the sun and stars? By whom the moon waxes and wanes?”

Isaiah 40:26: “Lift up your eyes on high, and see who hath created these things: who bringeth out their host by number, and calleth them all by their names: by the greatness of his might, and strength, and power, not one of them was missing.”

Yasna 44.4:1-3: “who fixed the earth below and kept the sky above from falling?”

Isaiah 40:12: “Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and weighed the heavens with his palm? Who hath poised with three fingers the bulk of the earth, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?”

--------------------------------------------------------

there are some remarkable parallels between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Buddha, Mithras, and Zarathustra.

Jesus: “And as you would that men should do to you, do you also to them in like manner.” (Luke 6:31)

Buddha: “Consider others as yourself.” (Dhammapada 10:1)

Jesus: “And to him that striketh thee on the one cheek, offer also the other. And him that taketh away from thee thy cloak, forbid not to take thy coat also.” (Luke 6:29)

Buddha: “If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and utter no evil words.” (Majjhima Nikaya 21:6)

argument busted

Is Jesus the son of God because he raised the dead? If so, then what about Ezekiel who is said to have raised many more dead bodies than Jesus ever did. Ezekiel is said to have raised a whole city from the dead (Ezekiel 37:1-9)

If we are looking for Godly powers and miracles as proof of godliness then what about Joshua who is said to have stopped the sun and moon for one whole day: (Joshua 10:12-13). Can anyone but God Almighty do this?

Elisha is said to have raised the dead, resurrected himself, healed a leper, fed a hundred people with twenty barley loaves and a few ears of corn, and healed a blind man: (2 Kings 4:35, 13:21, 5:14, 4:44, and 6:11.)

Elijah is said to have raised the dead, and made a bowl of flour and a jar of oil inexhaustible for many days (1 Kings 17:22 and 14.)

To say nothing of Moses (pbuh) and his countless miracles. Of his parting of the sea, of his changing of a stick into a serpent, of his changing of water into blood, ..etc. And so forth...

Even Jesus (pbuh) himself tells us that miracles by themselves do not prove anything:

"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect" (Matthew 24:24)

So even false Christs can supply great wonders and miracles of such magnitude that even the most knowledgeable among men shall be deceived.

Jesus (pbuh) had a beginning (the begetting) and an end ("and he gave up the ghost") Melchizedec, however, is said to have had no beginning of days nor end of life but was "made like unto the Son of God" !.

"For this Melchizedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. Now consider how great this man [was], unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils."
(Hebrews 7:1-4)

Solomon is said to have been with God at the beginning of time before all of creation, Proverbs 8:22-31.

Well then, is Jesus (pbuh) god because he performed his miracles under his own power while others needed God to perform them for them? Let us then read:

Matthew 28:18 "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."

Luke 11:20: "But if I with the finger of God cast out devils."
Matthew 12:28 "But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God."

John 5:30: "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."

John 10:25: "the works that I do in my Father's name."

John 8:28-29 "...I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him."

Acts 2:22 "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know"

So we see that even the apostle of Jesus (pbuh), Peter "the Rock,"* bore witness many years after the departure of Jesus not that Jesus was "God, the Son of God, who did miracles through his Omnipotence," rather, he openly bore witness before all those present that Jesus was "a man." He then went on to make sure that the masses would not be mislead by Jesus' miracles into thinking that he was more than a man by emphasizing that it was not Jesus who did the miracles, rather, just as was the case with countless other prophets before him, it was God Himself who did these miracles and that God's prophets are simply the tools through which He performed His miracles. In other words, the point that Peter was trying to drive home to these people was for them to remember that just as Moses' parting of the seas did not make him God or the son of God, and just as Elisha's raising of the dead did not make him God or the son of God, so too was the case with Jesus.

What was the goal behind the performance of these miracles? Let us read John 11:42 where we find that just before Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, he made a point of making sure that the crowd would not misunderstand what he was about to do or why he did it, so he publicly stated before God while they were listening that, just as was the case with all previous prophets, the reason why he was given these miracles was in order to prove that God had sent Him and he was a true prophet:

"And I knew that Thou hearest me always; but because of the people standing around I said it, that they may believe that Thou didst send Me.".(John 11:42)

Paul's saying "angel from heaven preaching the gospel" refuted

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!  (Galatian 1:8)

This saying by Paul is misinterpreted by deceptive Christians only to conceal the truth. When Muslims ask Christians “why do you  reject the Quran as the Word of God”, in response they turn to Galatians 1:8.

Here’s the problem with there answer. Firstly, they ignore what was the reason behind his letter.

Galatians is a letter written by the apostle Paul (1:1) to “the churches in Galatia” (1:2).

The Galatian people were Gauls (also known as Celts) who had emigrated from Western Europe to Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) in the 3rd century BC. Galatia is mentioned twice in Acts as “Galatia and Phyrgia” (Acts 16:6; 18:23).

It is clear from the letter that these were churches that Paul had established: Paul speaks of “the gospel…we preached to you” (1:8), and in 4:12-16 Paul describes the circumstances in which he came to preach the gospel to them.

Paul has evidently heard some disturbing reports that the Galatian churches were being misled by false teaching, with this Paul had to make his stand and inform the church to stand by his “gospel”

Notice how Paul was emphasising “the gospel we preach”.  Paul was concerned “other gospels” were making an impact on the people. The question is what gospel were they preaching which made Paul so concerned?

We understand by Paul’s own admission he was referring to the people of Galatian exclusively not to accept any other gospels other than his. Paul was using various persuasive ways to convince he was speaking the truth. Thus, he used the example of an angel from heaven to emphasis how serious the matter was. This example in no way was carries any validity that angels from heaven cannot preach the gospel to messengers. Either Paul was worried his deceptive schemes would be exposed and he would be under fire by the people or he was complete drunk when making such an absurd claim.

Jesus himself never made such a claim regarding angels from heaven. but for the sake of argument let’s put the gospels to the test and see if they fit with Paul gospel and angel from heaven.

who named him Jesus, Joseph or Mary?

According to the Book of Matthew, Joseph was commanded by the Angel to keep his name Jesus.

But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

And she will have a son, AND YOU (Joseph) ARE TO NAME HIM JESUS... (Matthew 1:20-21)

The above verse is contradicted by Luke in his Book, Mary was commanded by the Angel Gabriel to keep his name Jesus.

"Don't be afraid, Mary," the angel told her, "for you have found favor with God!

Listen! You will become pregnant and give birth to a son, AND YOU (Mary) ARE TO NAME HIM JESUS. (Luke 1:30-31)

What a contradiction, neither of the writers knew who the angel commanded to name him Jesus. seems like the Holy Ghost (angel from heaven) gave them mix messages. Now using Pauls criteria which gospel is correct?

We have tons of mix messages which contradict each so called gospel side by side, the question is which gospel is correct if the revelation was inspired by the holy ghost?

Luke says Mary and Joseph both went from Nazareth to Bethlehem for a census ordered by Caesar Augustus, which would have during 6AD when Quirinius was the governor of Syria and soon after Mary gave birth and had Jesus. (Luke 2)

Matthew on the other hand says Jesus, Joseph and Mary all went to Egypt, escaping King Herod who ordered all baby boys to be killed, soon after King Herod died, they went back to Nazareth. this would have taken during 4BC? There is no mention of a census or Mary and Joseph travelling to Nazareth (Matthew 2)

This is a problem especially when using Pauls criteria “angel from heaven preaching” Quirinius was the governor of Syria starting from the year 6 common era. King Herod died in the year 4BCE. If Jesus was born under the rein of King Herod, then the census could not have happened under Quirinius, there’s a 10-year gap.

Which gospel is correct since they both were inspired by the holy ghost (angel from heaven)

Paul himself was unreliable and known liar. Paul confessed he lied to his audience to convert them.

concerning whom the accusers, having stood up, were bringing no charge of the crimes of which I was expecting. Instead, they had some points of dispute with him about their own religion and about a dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed was alive. (Acts 25:18-19)

Why should be believe in Paul when he confessed, he was lying to the people he was preaching?

If my lie is spreading the truth of God why am I judged a sinner (Romans 3:7)

Here Paul without hesitation is admitting he was a blatant liar who deceived people into believing falsehood. From this we can conclude the argument brought before Fetus and the Jewish leaders in Acts 25 shows Paul was the one who came up with the resurrection idea.

"Instead, they had some points of dispute with him about their own religion and about a dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed was alive" (verse 19)

Or else why would they bring this up if it was a messianic prophecy which the Jewish leaders would have known? What's worse Paul standing on trial once again lied in front of his audience.

"Then Paul made his defense: “I have done nothing wrong against the Jewish law or against the temple or against Caesar.” that’s strange for a man who openly confessed he was lying to spread the truth? (verse 8)

"If my lie is spreading the truth of God why am I judged a sinner " (Romans 3:7)

Paul goes a step further by elaborating how deceptive he would go just to prove his point as found in Philippians

But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice, (Philippians 1:18)

Imagine a man who openly confess and elaborates his evil dirty motives into deceiving people to believe his lies.  Note the gospel accounts were written decades after Paul wrote his letters. The gospels writers themselves used Paul's theology that Jesus was crucified and resurrected. Paul was a big influence on naive people. Bear In mind Paul was also a ruthless man who persecuted innocent 1st century Christians.

Paul also speaks about gospels circulating during his time, that is before the 4 canonical gospels were written.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— (Galatians 1:6)

Christians claim there was only one gospel during the 1st century and all apocrypha gospels were written much later, centuries after them. Can Christians show us these gospels Paul was referring to and different? What's fascinating about this is, these gospels which Paul is referring to were written and preached decades before Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.

These gospels which are lost now were circulating before Pauls conversion. Imagine Paul was killing Christians for preaching Jesus was not crucified. Take for example

Here's a quote from The Apocalypse of Peter :

The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."

And I saw someone about to approach us resembling him, even him who was laughing on the tree. (The Apocalypse of Peter 81)

Here's a quote from the Acts of John :

And my Lord standing in the midst of the cave and enlightening it, said: John, unto the multitude below in Jerusalem I am being crucified and pierced with lances and reeds, and gall and vinegar is given me to drink. But unto thee I speak and what I speak hear thou. I put it into thy mind to come up into this mountain, that thou mightest hear those things which it behoveth a disciple to learn from his teacher and a man from his God… (Jesus Continues): But this is not the cross of wood which thou wilt see when thou goest down hence: neither am I he that is on the cross, whom now thou seest not, Thou hearest that I suffered, yet did I not suffer; that I suffered not, yet did I suffer; that I was pierced, yet I was not smitten; hanged, and I was not hanged; that blood flowed from me, and it flowed not; and, in a word, what they say of me, that befell me not, but what they say not, that did I suffer. (the Acts of John 97)

Now Christian can argue with the dating system, which wouldn't change the fact these gospels were in circulation. Whether they argument it's from the 2nd century or not, the fact here is the 4 canonical are also from the 3rd - 4th onward as we have no early manuscripts dating back to the 1st or 2nd century. The bottom line is, Christians during Paul's time were disputing the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, which Paul lied to make it true.  No matter how hard Paul tried he got caught red handed and his lies exposed! 

Pauls made up vision

Paul himself makes no mention of a conversion on the road to Damascus, whereas Acts of the Apostles has not one, but three accounts:

·   At Acts 9:3-8, Paul was blinded by a light and fell down, then heard Jesus, who told Paul that he would be told what to do when he was in the city. His men did not see the light, but heard the voice. They remained standing.

·   At Acts 22:6-11, Paul told the people he was blinded by a light and fell down, then heard Jesus, who again told Paul that he would be told what to do when he was in Damascus. This time, his men saw the light but, unlike Paul, were not blinded, and did not hear the voice.

·   At Acts 26.13-19, Paul told Agrippa that he saw a brilliant light and heard Jesus, who gave him his mission, but did not command him to go to Damascus. He fell down, but there is no mention of blindness, nor is there any mention of the men seeing or hearing anything, although for some reason they also fell down. He told those at Damascus and Jerusalem about his conversion experience.

Was Acts 9:3-8 the true account of this event, and if so was Paul confused in his two separate accounts? How would we know?

Even conservative theologians acknowledge that Luke was not with Paul on the road to Damascus so, if Luke was the author of Acts, he must have received all three versions from Paul, or at least one version that he subsequently amended for his own reasons and placed in three different contexts.

Rex Wyler says,in The Jesus Sayings, page 43, that historians consider Acts, written in the 90s, an anonymous work that freely mixes history with legend. Authorship some decades after the death of Paul means that this anonymous author would not have received the story from Paul himself. So Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus was either a tradition of unknown provenance or entirely a literary creation written by 'Luke'.

We conclude Paul’s saying “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!” was complete nonsense and deceptive as the very gospels Christians read disagree with each other, proving Paul’s gospel was different to what the current gospels are. Here’s another example on Paul quoting from a different gospel.

In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.' " (Acts 20:35)

Also read:

In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. (1 Corinthians 9:14)

As well as:

2 Corinthians 12:8-9 — Paul quotes Jesus, but it doesn’t sound like Jesus, and the quote isn’t elsewhere.

(No such statement of Jesus is found elsewhere in the Bible.) I've done a extensive check, cross references and found nothing? Which tells us the current writers did not preach what Paul preached 

also It's not in the earliest papyrus (p46), likely cause it's damage from a hole in the paper.

below we read how the saying of Paul was taken out of context, from the book 

The Text of Galatians and Its History

By Stephen C. Carlson

Galatians

Although Galatians is the fourth of Paul's epistles in our Bibles, it is the first in Marcion's Apostolicon. As this is also the first epistle on which both Tertullian and Epiphanius comment, we might expect that their comments would be the most detailed, and perhaps least affected by 'fatigue.' However, as will be seen, while Tertullian appears to see a number of large omissions in Marcion's version of Galatians (McGal), Epiphanius only reports a one small difference.

Galatians 1:1-9

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) [1:1]

And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: [1:2]

Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, [1:3]

Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: [1:4]

To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. [1:5]

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: [1:6]

Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. [1:7]

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. [1:8]

As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. [1:9]

Several people (e.g. Harnack) have suggested that Marcion omitted "and God the Father" from v. 1:1, apparently based on testimony from Jerome, although this has been disputed. As is discussed under the heading 'Common Items' in Marcion's Apostolicon: The Pauline Epistles, when discussing First Corinthians Tertullian makes it clear that he saw at least v. 1:3 at the beginning of Marcion's version of Galatians (McGal), and so perhaps we would have expected him to comment on v. 1:1 if he saw any difference here. However, neither he nor Epiphanius do so, and (apart from the later comments when discussing 1 Cor) Tertullian's first comments on the text of Galatians itself are references to vv. 1:6-8. He comments on this being "the most decisive [epistle] against Judaism," and then quotes v. 1:6-7a:

Since also he makes mention of no other god ... it is clear enough in what sense he writes, "I marvel that you are so soon removed from Him who has called you to His grace to another gospel." ... When he adds, too, the words, "which is not another," he confirms the fact that the gospel which he maintains is the Creator's.

Tertullian quotes from Isa 40:9, 42:6, 52:9 and Mt 12:21, refers to v. 1:7 again, and then quotes most of v. 1:8, while omitting "unto you than that which we have preached unto you:"

But perhaps, to avoid this difficulty, you will say that he therefore added just afterwards, "Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel, let him be accursed," because he was aware that the Creator was going to introduce a gospel! 

This wording may suggest that Tertullian saw a slightly shorter version of v. 1:8, but Epiphanius, in his 'Elenchus 16 and 24' on 1 Cor 15:1, quotes this verse in full:

“Though we, or an angel, preach any other Gospel unto you than that which ye have received, let him be accursed.”

According to Nathaniel Lardner there is a possible variation in v. 1:7:

The Marcionite, in the dialogue ascribed to Origen, in citing the 7th verse of this chapter, inserts the words, "according to my gospel," after the word "another;"and in the end of the verse, after the word "pervert," instead of "the gospel of Christ," he read, ‘to a gospel different from that of Christ.’ These variations might be inserted from the Apostolicon of Marcion, as Dr. Mill thinks; or perhaps they might not be intended as an exact quotation, but only as an argument, consisting partly of the words of the apostle in this place, and partly of what the Marcionite had before quoted, which seems to be from Romans ii.16, together with his own explanation or comment.

While it is not certain what McGal contained here, there is no suggestion from either Tertullian or Epiphanius that it was different from what they saw in their copies of Galatians.

----------

Do not add or subtract from the word of God (Deuteronomy 4:2)

You will be blessed if you obey the commands of the LORD your God that I am giving you today.

,But you will be cursed if you reject the commands of the LORD your God and turn away from him and worship gods you have not known before. (Deuteronomy 11:27-28)

You must be careful to do everything I am commanding you. Do not add to it or subtract from it! (Deuteronomy 12:32)

Notice how Yahweh is concluding, "nothing should be added or subtracted from his command" all command of God must be followed. If however anyone chooses to reject his command then they are CURSED by God himself. Paul in Galatians declares anyone including an angel preaching a different gospel than what he did show be under God's curse.

Here's the irony. In one hand we have God declaring his words and on the other hand Paul. Out of the two on whom should be given more attention, God or Paul? Naturally God.  Paul is a nobody when it comes to the words of God.

Here's where it gets interesting. Both Jesus and Paul added and subtracted from the words of God thus, falling under the curse of God.

Jesus made many abrogation from divorce to anger to lust etc.. Paul also added his own words by declaring all food is lawful and one does not have to circumcise and above all the law of the Torah is outdated and invalid.

Paul has the audacity to say, God curse is upon those who preach a different gospel, yet the scum was under Gods curse himself by adding how own words taking away the Jews from the Torah.

Amazing the two common verses Christians use on Muslims fail!

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8)

Who is a liar but he that denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denies the Father and the Son. (1 John 2:22)

Here's the sucker punch!

1) Not to accept any other gospel even if an angel from heaven

This writing is not from the time of Paul.The earliest manuscript dates back to the 3rd century P46 . We have nothing from the 1st, 2nd century thus, there no direct evidence that Paul wrote it

2) Anyone who rejects Jesus as Christ and the son is the antichrist

This writing is not from the time of John.The earliest manuscript dates back to the 4th century GA 01, א - Codex Sinaiticus. We have nothing from the 1st, 2nd or 3rd century. there is no direct evidence that John wrote it

How embarrassing both verses used against Muslims don’t even go back to the "alleged authors"

------------------------

According to Paul the Laws of Old Testament are man made

You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.(Leviticus 11:8)

You must not eat any fat or any blood.' (Leviticus 3:17)

"Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. (Colossians 2:21-22)

Notice how Paul says commandments such as the ones found in Leviticus the law of God is man made and shouldn't be followed

I robbed other churches by receiving support from them so as to serve you. (2 Corinthians 11:8)

Pauls made up vision

Paul himself makes no mention of a conversion on the road to Damascus, whereas Acts of the Apostles has not one, but three accounts:

• At Acts 9:3-8, Paul was blinded by a light and fell down, then heard Jesus, who told Paul that he would be told what to do when he was in the city. His men did not see the light, but heard the voice. They remained standing.

• At Acts 22:6-11, Paul told the people he was blinded by a light and fell down, then heard Jesus, who again told Paul that he would be told what to do when he was in Damascus. This time, his men saw the light but, unlike Paul, were not blinded, and did not hear the voice.

• At Acts 26.13-19, Paul told Agrippa that he saw a brilliant light and heard Jesus, who gave him his mission, but did not command him to go to Damascus. He fell down, but there is no mention of blindness, nor is there any mention of the men seeing or hearing anything, although for some reason they also fell down. He told those at Damascus and Jerusalem about his conversion experience.

Was Acts 9:3-8 the true account of this event, and if so was Paul confused in his two separate accounts? How would we know?

Even conservative theologians acknowledge that Luke was not with Paul on the road to Damascus so, if Luke was the author of Acts, he must have received all three versions from Paul, or at least one version that he subsequently amended for his own reasons and placed in three different contexts.

Rex Wyler says,in The Jesus Sayings, page 43, that historians consider Acts, written in the 90s, an anonymous work that freely mixes history with legend. Authorship some decades after the death of Paul means that this anonymous author would not have received the story from Paul himself. So Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus was either a tradition of unknown provenance or entirely a literary creation written by 'Luke'.