In Galatians 1:20 Paul swears before God that his account of events is the truth. Here is what Paul says occurred after the revelation:

"...I did not confer with any human beings, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus. (NRSV)

Yet the author of Acts contradicts virtually everything that Paul says occurred during his conversion; his reasons for going to Jerusalem; what occurred while he was in Jerusalem; and what was agreed to while he was in Jerusalem.

Acts begins its fraudulent account of Paul's conversion by not having Saul go away to Arabia after the revelation, but being blinded and told to enter Damascus where he would be told the meaning of the revelation. The Paul of Acts is then lead into Damascus where he confers with a man who baptizes him and explains the meaning of the revelation to him, after which, he remains in Damascus until he is forced to flee to Jerusalem.

Paul says after going to Arabia he returned AGAIN to Damascus. Thus it is self-evident that the revelation had not occur while traveling to Damascus, but had occurred in Damascus its self. The claim in Acts that Saul was sent to Damascus to bind and bring back to Jerusalem those that belonged to "The Way" is utter nonsense. Rome was not in the business of defending synagogues or in upholding Jewish precepts. It is absurd to think that Roman authorities would consider it a criminal offense if Jewish precepts were not being properly observed in Damascus, SYRIA. Or would have stood idly by while people under Roman authority were being chained and dragged off to Jerusalem.

In spite of how Paul says he received his gospel in Galatians 1:12 "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Acts purposely spins a different tale, yet doesn't even keep its own accounts straight. In its first two accounts of Saul's conversion, Acts 9: 3-19 & 22:5-16, Saul is made reliant upon the baptism of Ananias in order to be told the meaning of the revelation.

Yet in its third account, Acts 26:12-20, Saul is not blinded, nor does he enter Damascus to be baptized by Ananias before being told what he is to do; he is told the meaning of the revelation before he enters Damascus. In this account it is not Ananias or the disciples who enlighten Paul, but it is Paul who brings light to them.

Act 9:7 claims that the men who were with Saul heard the voice, yet Acts 22:9 says they didn't hear the voice.

Some translations of the Bible (the New International Version and the New American Standard, for example) try to remove the contradiction in Acts 22:9 by translating the phrase quoted above as "did not understand the voice..." However, the Greek word "akouo" is translated 373 times in the New Testament as "hear," "hears," "hearing" or "heard" and only in Acts 22:9 is it translated as "understand." In fact, it is the same word that is translated as "hearing" in Acts 9:7 quoted above. The word "understand" occurs 52 times in the New Testament, but only in Acts 22:9 is it translated from the Greek word "akouo." (Paul Carlson: New Testament Contradictions)

Those who want to argue more about the meaning of "akouo," should ask themselves first, "Why would God allow what He inspired to be mistranslated until the most recent generations?"

Acts 9:7 says the men with Saul stood speechless, but Acts 26:14 says they had all fallen down.

Why did the light only blind Saul?

In Galatians, God is the source of the revelation; but in Acts, Jesus is the source of the revelation.

It is unmistakably clear in Galatians that after the revelation Paul understood that he was to preach to the Gentiles, rather than to the Jews. Yet the Paul of Acts is determined to preach not to the Gentiles, but to the Jews. And in Damascus he confounds the Jews as he rushes from one synagogue to another trying to prove to Jews that Jesus is the Messiah. In Acts the Gentiles must resort to asking Paul to preach to them.

Even when the Paul of Acts belatedly declared that he will leave the synagogues and go to preach exclusively to the Gentiles, it isn't due to his sudden understanding of the revelation, but is simply due to his being angry for being rejected by the Jews. Nevertheless, his threat is vain, for the Paul of Act is utterly powerless in resisting the seductive call that a synagogue radiates.

Even after an agreement is made in Jerusalem as to who would preach to whom, it has no effect whatsoever upon the Paul of Acts.

In Galatians, Paul says three years after returning to Damascus (from Arabia), he went to Jerusalem to visit Peter. Yet Acts is claiming the reason for Saul's journey to Jerusalem was due to being forced to escape from Damascus and flee for his life, because the Jews were plotting to kill him. And unlike Paul's account of going to Jerusalem to visit with Peter, Saul is fleeing to Jerusalem to try to join the disciples of the Jerusalem church.

Paul says other than seeing James while he visited with Peter, he saw none of the other apostles. Yet Acts claims that Saul did meet the apostles. It says Saul wanted to join the disciples, but they were afraid of him, so Barnabas interceded on his behalf and introduced him to the apostles.

Acts claims that after Saul was introduced to the apostles, he went in and out among them in Jerusalem and preaches boldly. Whereas, Acts 22:18-21 claims that upon returning from Damascus to Jerusalem, Jesus tells Saul that he must leave Jerusalem immediately, for he is known in every synagogue as one who persecuted them, and that his testimony would not be accepted in Jerusalem.

Paul says that while he was in Jerusalem he saw Peter and James and that he left Jerusalem after 15 days. He also says that although he was not personally known in the churches in Judaea (includes Jerusalem), God was glorified in their churches because of what they had heard of him.

Yet Acts claims that not only was Saul going in and out among them in Jerusalem, but that his preaching created such a controversy that the brethren had to help him escape from Jerusalem so he could flee for his life! And that it is after the trouble making Saul fled from Jerusalem that peace was restored in the churches throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria.

Regarding Paul's statement of not being personally known by face in the churches in Judaea, but that they had only heard of him. Does one really want to argue that the churches in Jerusalem were not of Judaea? Or that Acts doesn't claim that Saul personally lead the raids on the churches in Judaea?

The following Chapters are currently being revised