The Gospels are quite different in detail and parts of their message. Just compare the Jewish Gospel of Matthew with the proto-Gnostic Gospel of John.

Or look at the contradictions between Acts and Paul's letters. They describe same events quite differently.

One example would be the discrepancies between Acts' version of Paul's conversion in Acts 9 and Paul's own version in Galatians 1.

Acts claims that Paul went immediately to Damascus and then somewhat later to Jerusalem to meet with the followers and the disciples of Jesus. In Galatians Paul claims that he immediately went to Arabia and then later returned to Damascus. And he then is proud to tell that he only met the disciples after 3 more years! The disciples in this case only being Peter and James. Paul is proud to tell everyone that he didn't have contact with them earlier and didn't get the information about Jesus from them but from his visions.

This is only one example, I can give you more.

Nice interpretation, but interpretations should never be viewed as being inerrant.

The text says 'I returned AGAIN to Damascus' which doesn't necessarily indicate that this was the place he was starting from. He has been to Damascus before and we returned there several times. So?

Paul himself also doesn't refer to the alleged account of him having being blinded and having being led to Damascus to get healed. Only one source tells this: Acts. Not too believable then.


That's not what the text is saying. That's your subjective interpretation of the text.

And who were these disciples that Saul was spending his days with in Damascus? Surely not Jesus' disciples. Paul claimed that he didn't talk to the disciples until 3 years after his experience and that he didn't get his information from men at all. Acts only says Paul remained in Damascus for 'many days' not 'several years'. Quite a difference in quantity.

Acts 9:26-29 also tells of Paul's alleged meeting with Jesus' disciples and of Paul merrily going with them around Jerusalem when Paul actually claims that he met only Peter because there was no one else around. Except for James, Jesus' brother.

So that's another contradiction right in the same chapter. 

I'll refer to the other contradictions later.

LOL, alright.  We can agree that perhaps his starting place wasn't Damascus in the account of Galatians.  So?  The problem here is the assumption that Damascus "wasn't" his starting place in order to find a contradiction.  The text doesn't lend such support.  If the text doesn't state that he "wasn't" in Damascus, then why assume a contradiction?  Based upon the text, Paul suggests he was in Damascus before by using the words "returned again unto Damascus."  In other words, that could have been his starting point and the reason he felt no need to include it as a part of journey.  Why assume a mistake when it isn't explicit?




Why not?  Does Paul have to corroborate everything Acts says in order for it to be believable?  If so, then why?



All I'm offering is a reasonable interpretation of the text that shows there is no reason to assume a contradiction.  


Why not?





Paul never said that.  He never said that he didn't talk to the disciples until his visit three years later.  He said he didn't go to Jerusalem to see them before he went to Arabia.  There is no reason to believe that all the disciples were gathered in a single place, namely Jerusalem.  Their could have been a few in Damascus as well as Jerusalem.  Also, there is no good reason to assume that every time the term "disciples" is used, that it refers exclusively to the twelve.  Just a thought.




I don't understand your point.  





You really out to read this chapter more carefully.  The account in Acts doesn't say that Paul met with "Jesus'" disciples (as if it were the 12), but rather the disciples.  And like I said before, the generic term "disciples" doesn't refer exclusively to Jesus' inner circle.  If that were the case, then by calling himself a disciple in the same passage, Paul must have thought himself as being one of the original twelve, which is plainly not the case.  I think the term "apostles" has been reserved for the twelve partly for this reason.  

And when the passage says that Barnabas took Paul to see the apostles, why assume it meant the entire twelve as if they were always joined at the hip doing nothing apart?  Peter and James were apostles, and therefore when Acts says that Paul met the apostles, there is no contradiction.  He met the apostles when he met the "pillars" of the church.




Personally, I don't think so.  You have yet to prove there were contradictions in your referenced verses before you can point to "other" contradictions.  Let's not put the carriage before the horse.

No, it is my view that I've seen no contradictions in the NT.

Marc,

Thanks for the response.  I wont be able to post something until tomorrow afternoon.  Later.

I won't get into the discussion because I believe that the lessons are the same and are far more important the the details or the contradictions or alleged contradictions.

We have two observers writing 2ooo years ago and the miracle is that they have the same lesson.

God Bless

Of course there is. You ignored my follow-up questions about Paul meeting the apostles and/or disciples.

And there is no indication that Acts' alleged events of Paul in Damascus occurred BEFORE Paul's immediate voyage to Arabia. You have to presuppose that even though it doesn't make sense if looked up from Paul's letters.

Your follow up questions weren't pertinent to the point of whether Paul's starting place was Damascus or not.




Even if this were the case, Marc, the burden does not rest on me to show the time line.  All I have to do is show that your assumption is disputable, which it is.  What this does is move your conclusion of a legitimate contradiction to a possible contradiction.  What it boils down to is you believe there is a contradiction because you have presupposed it to be the case.  You may be right, but there is no way to show it unless you can prove that your presupposition is grounded in hard facts.