Paul ... Paul ... Paul !!!

[Mujahid Mohammed]

What is there to examine?

Dear brother
The statement made in the scriptures or basically what has been presented in terms of who is the author. As my brother has asked. He is asking a question to try and get an understanding of what is being said. And to see if his understanding is correct

Sorry I gotta go to the masjid we will talk later insha Allah hopefully soon I may post something myself and I would love for your examination and input on it. Thanks

 

[Feathers in Hair]

If I may, if there are any of those among us that don't have English as their first language, I would love to act as an emissary, since I think a good deal of our misunderstanding is due to how we phrase things. (For example, things might sound aggressive when people are simply trying to learn about something.)

I would be more than happy to find other ways of phrasing things so that people's posts are not seen as accusatory. Please PM me, and I can suggest ways to re-word it, if you'd like. You can then run it by your friends to make sure I have not changed what you are trying to say, because I wouldn't want to be doing that.

Let us be forever gentle to each other, and work toward furthering understanding between all faiths.

 

[joeboonda]

Many Bible readers have been perplexed here by what, at first glance, seems to be a plain contradiction. The one statement says the companions of Paul heard a voice; the other, that they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to Paul. The student who reads Greek can easily solve the difficulty. The construction of the verb "to hear" (akouo) is not the same in both accounts. Acts 9:7 uses it with the genitive, Acts 22:9 with the accusative. the construction with the genitive simply expresses that something is being heard or that certain sounds reach the ear; nothing is indicated as to whether a person understands what is heard. The construction with the accusative, however, describes a hearing which includes mental apprehension of the message spoken. Therefore it becomes evident that the two passages are not contradictory. Acts22:9 does not deny that the associates of Paul heard certain sounds, it simply declared that they did not hear in such a way as to understand what was being said. Our English idiom in this case simply is not as expressive as Greek. Another explanation, which many scholars prefer, is that the phrase "hearing a voice" in Acts 9:7 could mean hearing Paul's voice but not hearing the voice that spoke to Paul. And though Paul falls to the ground, it does not say the others did NOT fall to the ground, so there is no inconsistency there either.

There are many SEEMING inconsistencies in the Bible, when looked at a bit closer, can be resolved, and many books have been written to help us understand them better. The book "Bible Difficulties and Seeming Contradictions" by William Arndt is among those. If you are honestly looking for answers, and not just 'attacking' the Bible as Feathers and myself kinda get that feeling from your posts, the answers are there. Hope that helps.

 

[Scott1]

He is asking a question to try and get an understanding of what is being said.

I get ya... I gave my opinion and he chose not to respond... I'll continue to wait.

 

[TashaN]

Thanks to everybody who posted in here ..

I get ya... I gave my opinion and he chose not to respond... I'll continue to wait.

even though your first post disappointed me but i'll come again to tell you what was my point.

- why in the first passage it appaers that third person is talking : he fell ? is it that someone is telling the story rather than Paul himself.

- in the second passage it appaers that Paul himself is talking saying And I fell unto the ground.

and please help me out to understand my main confusion which is:

How do you read and understand the story?

1- hear the voice but see no man ( fell unto the ground alone ).
2- see indeed !!! the light but they heard not the voice ( fell unto the ground alone ).
3- all fallen to the earth( all of them).


Peace ...

 

[michel]

If I may, if there are any of those among us that don't have English as their first language, I would love to act as an emissary, since I think a good deal of our misunderstanding is due to how we phrase things. (For example, things might sound aggressive when people are simply trying to learn about something.)

I would be more than happy to find other ways of phrasing things so that people's posts are not seen as accusatory. Please PM me, and I can suggest ways to re-word it, if you'd like. You can then run it by your friends to make sure I have not changed what you are trying to say, because I wouldn't want to be doing that.

Let us be forever gentle to each other, and work toward furthering understanding between all faiths.

Ditto; English isn't my mother tongue, and, as The truth knows, he can come to me anytime.

 

[TashaN]

So the point of all this is that the large company of people who would have been with Paul on the road to Damascus that day basically did the same thing. They reported they heard a sound and/or a voice, but couldn't make out the words.

possible .. why not but do you think it's the same with Jesus story and that everyone was expressing what did he saw, hear ?

but they were all together .. maybe some heard the voice and some not but is it possible that some saw the light and some not, some fell to the ground and some not.

could you please make the picture more clear for me?

 

[Scott1]

How do you read and understand the story?

Well, that is not the question you originally asked... you asked:

NOW ... WHICH STORY DO WE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE FROM THE SAME PERSON !!!

To which I replied, all of them.

The Bible is not a historical "play by play"... if you choose to read it that way, God bless... but please don't expect me to explain the Bible in such a way.... I know you seem to me new at learning about the Bible, and the first thing you should learn (in my opinion) is that different Christians read the Bible in different ways... I, a Roman Catholic, read and interpret the Bible quite differently than a Protestant Christian would etc etc...

To me, the Bible has only one word = CHRIST... and if not for the Roman Catholic Church, I would not believe in the Bible.

Your brother in the love of the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day,
Scott

 

[michel]

To me, the Bible has only one word = CHRIST... and if not for the Roman Catholic Church, I would not believe in the Bible.

Back the wagon up a sec, Scott.

Isn't it true though, that to you, Christ is a mediatrix, instead of a mediator?

1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; 12:4

 

[Scott1]

Back the wagon up a sec, Scott.

Isn't it true though, that to you, Christ is a mediatrix, instead of a mediator?

1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; 12:4

Nope...thanks for asking.

 

[TashaN]

Well, that is not the question you originally asked... you asked:
To which I replied, all of them.

forgive my ignorance and skip my question which say which story we supposed to believe because The Bible is a holy book and any christians supposed to be believe all of it in order to be a real christian as i supposed to believe everything in Quran to be a real muslim.

So, regarding to my pervious post and the confusion i have what do you say about my question How do you read and understand the story?

If you answered me so i'll highly aperciate it and again if i couldn't understand so i'll try to search until i get my answeres from other sources and i'm gald that at least i shared information and thoughts with you.


Peace ...

 

[Feathers in Hair]

If I may step in, as an outsider, I think what people seem to be trying to say is that many people don't think that the Bible is not intended to be read as a historical linear explanation of events. There are some Christians that read it that way, but it seems like a great number don't. So even within Christianity, there are different ways of approaching things. What you might want to try is the method of not reading it as explanation, rather as a 'story'. Simply because the Bible is considered a holy book does not mean that all Christians have to believe all of it. In Christianity, you are allowed to interpret and believe those events that you wish to. You do not have to believe anything and there is no such thing as a 'real Christian', there are only Christians.

Hopefully, I haven't unknowingly misrepresented anything that anyone was trying to say, and if I said something wrong about Christianity, please feel free to correct me.

 

[michel]

How do you read and understand the story?

Truth, here's how you can understand the Bible:

• Through faith in Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour, you can have the Author Himself living with you.
• Always interpret the Bible literally, unless the context dictates otherwise.
• The Bible has it's own built-in dictionary and cross-referencing system.
• Pray to its Author before reading it.
• Always keep the context in mind (who's talking to whom, why is it being said the way it's being said, what are the verses just before and just after it, et.al.)

I hope this helps.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Well, that is not the question you originally asked...

Just wanted to clarify that the question was changed because I was trying to help think of ways to rephrase it. That's my fault that I didn't explain, and I'm sorry!

 

[michel]

If I may step in, as an outsider, I think what people seem to be trying to say is that many people don't think that the Bible is not intended to be read as a historical linear explanation of events. There are some Christians that read it that way, but it seems like a great number don't. So even within Christianity, there are different ways of approaching things. What you might want to try is the method of not reading it as explanation, rather as a 'story'. Simply because the Bible is considered a holy book does not mean that all Christians have to believe all of it. In Christianity, you are allowed to interpret and believe those events that you wish to. You do not have to believe anything and there is no such thing as a 'real Christian', there are only Christians.

Hopefully, I haven't unknowingly misrepresented anything that anyone was trying to say, and if I said something wrong about Christianity, please feel free to correct me.

Okay ... no comment ... I thought up so many ways to say something ... but I'll just shush.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Okay ... no comment ... I thought up so many ways to say something ... but I'll just shush.

I thank you for showing wisdom. Please remember, I'm not saying that this is true for all Christians, I'm simply trying to put it best for a person who is not of that faith to understand.

 

[michel]

I thank you for showing wisdom. Please remember, I'm not saying that this is true for all Christians, I'm simply trying to put it best for a person who is not of that faith to understand.

Not a problem.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Frubals to you for your understanding! (And I'd be more than happy for you to create another thread in the "Religious debates"section, quote the above and say all the things you'd like to say (within reason, I would hope, hehehee!) since I'm sure that there's a lot there you and others might disagree with. I know it's frustrating when you're wanting to say things but can't within the context of the thread! )

 

[Scott1]

So, regarding to my pervious post and the confusion i have what do you say about my question How do you read and understand the story?

As an apologetic defense of Paul's authority as an Apostle.


In Christ,
Scott

 

[TashaN]

As an apologetic defense of Paul's authority as an Apostle.


In Christ,
Scott