On the question of what Paul did after his conversion – the readers were pretty one-sided. 44% of you said that he went to Jerusalem after his conversion. Half as many thought that he did not go to Jerusalem after his conversion (next, at least). The same ammount of people thought that there was no tension in the passages at all (user added). One person said that they had not “… looked at this in depth recently, but I remember Galatians speaking in the context of his revelation of the mystery of Christ”

My personal view is that Paul did what he said in Galatians, he spent some time in Damascus, then went to Arabia for a few years, returned to Damascus for a while and then finally went to Jerusalem where he spend just enough time to establish that he was in agreement with the other Apostles in major points of theology, but not enough time to learn theology from them. In regards to the tension between Acts 9:19-31 and Galatians 1.13-24, I think that each author has different points they want to convey. Luke is very much concerned with the unity of the Apostle’s message and makes it seem that Paul, after many nights in Damascus, went to Jerusalem, where all the Apostles were found to have a relatively unified message. Paul, writing much earlier to a community that was in turmoil over the correct interpretation of the Law, needs to establish his credentials independently from the Jewish apostles so that he can speak with authority on matters of the Law.

So, while I think there are some tensions here, they don’t disprove anything, just illuminate the goals of each writer.

I’d like to get your thoughts on the matter, especially those that added their own answers to the poll.