Judas Iscariot: Saved for a while.

[JLB]

Is it your opinion that people are "saved" (i.e. A true/genuine believer in Jesus Christ as Lord and thusly would be judged as one of His sheep without actually obeying Jesus? I mean, if Saul was saved outside the city per your claim, yet Jesus told him to go "into the city and ...", Paul had not done what Jesus told him he must do.

I can lead you to what the scriptures say:

9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Romans 10:9-10


Do you believe with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation?


Paul never preached the Gospel, after he was baptized and filled with the holy Spirit.

17 And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized.
19 So when he had received food, he was strengthened. Then Saul spent some days with the disciples at Damascus.
20 Immediately he preached the Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God. Acts 9:17-20


That is the point I have made from the scriptures.

Jesus Christ never empowered an unbeliever to preach the Gospel, therefore Judas was a believer along with the rest of the Apostles, when he was sent to preach the Gospel to the lost, and heal the sick, raise the dead, and cast out devils.





JLB

 

[MarkT]

Luke 22:3
Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.

John 6:70
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

Let's see. There's Judas and there is Satan. I wonder which one is a devil?

According to Jesus, one of the twelve is a devil. Satan was not one of the twelve.

The Devil, also called Satan, is the serpent of old. Rev. 12:9

Or Mark 4:15 was a reality for these men and Satan/devils did actually enter their hearts and Jesus actually addressed those entities in man that are not man, like the thousands of other examples of this fact we have in the N.T.

Mark 4:15 doesn't say anything about Satan entering anybody. It says when some hear the word, Satan comes and snatches it away so the word isn't in them.

When Jesus called Judas the son of perdition, he was talking about the man who would betray him. "Woe to the man". He is not talking about a spirit. "The Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” Mt. 26:24

Likewise El'ymas the magician was a son of the devil. "But Saul, who is also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him 10 and said, “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord? 11 And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind and unable to see the sun for a time.” Immediately mist and darkness fell upon him and he went about seeking people to lead him by the hand". Acts 13:9-11 RSV

Luke 8:2
And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,

Luke 8:30
And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.

The RSV says seven demons.

 

[MarkT]

Jesus Christ never empowered an unbeliever to preach the Gospel, therefore Judas was a believer along with the rest of the Apostles, when he was sent to preach the Gospel to the lost, and heal the sick, raise the dead, and cast out devils.

The word of God fell on Judas like it fell on the other apostles, but it didn't make him clean.

John 13:11
For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, “You are not all clean.”

 

[smaller]

According to Jesus, one of the twelve is a devil. Satan was not one of the twelve.

Using your form of reasoning Peter would be Satan. Matt. 16:23

The Devil, also called Satan, is the serpent of old. Rev. 12:9

Brilliant deduction.

Mark 4:15 doesn't say anything about Satan entering anybody.

I'd suggest otherwise. It doesn't take a spiritual genius to see that sin indwells our flesh, Romans 7:17, that sin indwelling our flesh is "NO MORE I" Romans 7:20 and sin is of the DEVIL. 1 John 3:8.

Make of the facts in conjunction with Mark 4:15 as you will. But your position should also understand that the scriptural facts will be rejected by that adverse working.

It says when some hear the word, Satan comes and snatches it away so the word isn't in them.

Acts 26:18, 2 Cor. 4:4 and Eph. 2:2 OPENLY proves the above scriptural facts as well. I'm only surprised more "believers" don't get the picture. But then again, not really, seeing the reality of it.

When Jesus called Judas the son of perdition, he was talking about the man who would betray him.

Jesus said no such thing about Judas. People "read that" into the scripture. Paul makes the "correct" connection of the "son of perdition" in 2 Thes. 2:3 and 2 Thes. 2:8-9 showing the "son of perdition" to be that Wicked, Satan. Since Satan also entered Judas one should be able to follow the trail of facts to a logical conclusion.

"Woe to the man". He is not talking about a spirit. "The Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” Mt. 26:24

People make the same mistake when they read the term "MAN" as they do when they read the term "ANGEL." The terms are deployed to multiple agencies. Even Lucifer is termed "A MAN" in the scriptures. Most take Lucifer to be the DEVIL, of course.

Likewise El'ymas the magician was a son of the devil. "But Saul, who is also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him 10 and said, “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord? 11 And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind and unable to see the sun for a time.” Immediately mist and darkness fell upon him and he went about seeking people to lead him by the hand". Acts 13:9-11 RSV

Your position doesn't understand that scriptures don't see "just man." It's only your position that sees man because it doesn't see past the surface of the matters and sees fleshly only.

 

[chessman]

The Lord Jesus revealed who He was, and Saul believed, and submitted himself to obey, and did what the Lord instructed him to do.

Not until he entered into the city and was told what he must do.

Acts 9:6 (NKJV) So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do You want me to do?” Then the Lord said to him, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”​

The Lord told him to go into the city

9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart

Please post the Scripture where Saul confessed with his mouth "Lord Jesus". I pointed this out to you already. Saul was blind and address the voice as "Lord" before and after while outside, not "Lord Jesus".

And Saul had not obeyed the Lord until he arose AND went "into the city" AND was told what you must do, there inside the city.

 

[chessman]

Do you believe with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation?

If you confess "Lord Jesus" AND believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord (God in flesh) risen from the dead for the forgiveness of your sins, yes. But I also believe people that are mute and cannot speak with their mouths can 'speak' with their 'hearts'.

Do you believe Peter can make a confession with Judas' mouth?

 

[MarkT]

Using your form of reasoning Peter would be Satan. Matt. 16:23

I said, according to Jesus, "one of the twelve is a devil." Satan was not one of the twelve'. How did you get Peter would be Satan from my statement?

I'd suggest otherwise. It doesn't take a spiritual genius to see that sin indwells our flesh, Romans 7:17, that sin indwelling our flesh is "NO MORE I" Romans 7:20 and sin is of the DEVIL. 1 John 3:8.

Make of the facts in conjunction with Mark 4:15 as you will. But your position should also understand that the scriptural facts will be rejected by that adverse working.


Acts 26:18, 2 Cor. 4:4 and Eph. 2:2 OPENLY proves the above scriptural facts as well. I'm only surprised more "believers" don't get the picture. But then again, not really, seeing the reality of it.

Paul talks about the sinful body and sin working in him. Romans 7:13-25 Nothing there about Satan or Judas.

1 John 3:8 says, "He who commits sin is of the devil." Judas was of the devil.

Neither verse is related to Mark 4:15 in anyway, and Mark isn't related to what we are talking about.

Jesus said no such thing about Judas.

He certainly did.
John 17:12
While I was with them, I kept them in thy name, which thou hast given me; I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled.

People "read that" into the scripture. Paul makes the "correct" connection of the "son of perdition" in 2 Thes. 2:3 and 2 Thes. 2:8-9 showing the "son of perdition" to be that Wicked, Satan. Since Satan also entered Judas one should be able to follow the trail of facts to a logical conclusion.

Paul was talking about what must take place before the coming of our Lord in the letter to the Thessalonians. re. the coming of the antiChrist, the man of lawlessness. He wasn't talking about Judas. Judas was the son of perdition who betrayed Jesus. The antiChrist is the son of perdition who will appear before the second coming. They are both destined for hell/perdition.

 

[smaller]

People read the same mistake when they read the below. If they were paying attention it's talking about devils not people.

Matthew 13:38
The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one

 

[smaller]

I said, according to Jesus, "one of the twelve is a devil." Satan was not one of the twelve'.

Yeah. That would be the actual devil. No point making Judas the devil when the devil obviously had entered Judas.

How did you get Peter would be Satan from my statement?

Satan spoke through Peter no differently than Satan worked in Judas. Your position uses a double standard if you don't do with Peter what you do with Judas. Matt. 16:23

Paul talks about the sinful body and sin working in him. Romans 7:13-25 Nothing there about Satan-.

1 John 3:8 is a fact for all sin in everyone.

1 John 3:8 says, "He who commits sin is of the devil." Judas was of the devil.

Neither verse is related to Mark 4:15 in anyway, and Mark isn't related to what we are talking about.

Of course they are connected. Not saying readers can see the obvious.

 

[atpollard]

People read the same mistake when they read the below. If they were paying attention it's talking about devils not people.

Matthew 13:38
The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one

Devils are fallen angels and are not literal 'children' of the wicked one. Thus this must still be viewed as a metaphorical 'children of the wicked one' and not a literal children. Given the surrounding context (like the children of the kingdom clearly being those redeemed by Christ), it makes far more sense for this verse and those immediately following it to all be talking about men with an emphasis on the two great classes of men: Those destined for redemption (wheat) and those destined for destruction (tares).

It is not talking about devils. They are not children of the wicked one. Evil men are children of their father the devil ... Jesus was fairly clear in his explanation of this point.

 

[JLB]

But I also believe people that are mute and cannot speak with their mouths can 'speak' with their 'hearts'.

All things are possible to him who believes... Mark 9:23

 

[JLB]

Please post the Scripture where Saul confessed with his mouth "Lord Jesus". I pointed this out to you already. Saul was blind and address the voice as "Lord" before and after while outside, not "Lord Jesus".

6 So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do You want me to do?” Acts 9:6

Paul believed Jesus, and who He said He was, and therefore began to submit himself to obey, and acknowledged Him as Lord.



JLB

 

[smaller]

Devils are fallen angels and are not literal 'children' of the wicked one.

We know the devil has "children." John 8:44. Since we also know there was initially, presumably only one Satan and later many devils, it's a safe sight that children of the wicked one are devils. If not people end up thinking people are devils.

People are shown by scriptures to be "captives" or "servants/slaves" of the wicked one, not children. Acts 26:18, 2 Cor. 4:4 etc.

Since the parties, man and devil are in one location, man, it's typical to mistake and see only man.

Thus this must still be viewed as a metaphorical 'children of the wicked one' and not a literal children.

I'd suggest the wicked one and the children of same are real entities, not metaphors. It was no mere metaphor that entered into Judas. Luke 22:3, etc.

Given the surrounding context (like the children of the kingdom clearly being those redeemed by Christ), it makes far more sense for this verse and those immediately following it to all be talking about men with an emphasis on the two great classes of men: Those destined for redemption (wheat) and those destined for destruction (tares).

We know the devil and his messengers are slated for destruction. Matt. 25:41, Matt. 23:33, Rev. 20:10. No metaphors will be tossed to the LoF.

It is not talking about devils. They are not children of the wicked one. Evil men are children of their father the devil ... Jesus was fairly clear in his explanation of this point.

When positions have to do all kinds of dancing around to avoid the obvious they aren't accepting the narrative facts of the reality of devils nor the fact that they make men captives and are, as such, in the same location as man. Which is what Jesus shows us in scriptures such as Mark 4:15 and the other seed parables.

For the seed parables we are given the parable accounts, then the "reality" accounts. Only Jesus' disciples "HEAR" the reality accounts, which reality accounts were not given to the masses, the general populace. It's a common mistake to not see parables/allegories/similitudes as real matters. The wicked one is a reality, as are his children. But they are unseen, which makes it problematic for anyone to really accept. We believe it because the scripture says it's so. Just as we believe "all" mankind has sinned and has sin. Romans 3:9, Gal. 3:22. Sin is not forensic and can not be proven, empirically. We can't cut open the flesh and find it and analyze it nor can it be seen as "of the devil" as only scripture shows these facts. 1 John 3:8, 2 Cor. 12:7.

We also know that believers can have "devilish wisdom" from James 3:15 for example, which is an internal matter, and yes, the devil is obviously in the picture.

 

[atpollard]

I'd suggest the wicked one and the children of same are real entities, not metaphors. It was no mere metaphor that entered into Judas. Luke 22:3, etc.

Do you deliberately twist words, or can you really not follow what I posted suggesting that the term 'children' was metaphorical? I neither claimed nor implied that Devils were not real.

With whom did Satan copulate to procreate these 'Devils'?
I read that God created the Angels and Satan led a third of them in a revolt against God, for which Satan and his fallen angels (Devils) were cast out of heaven. This did and does not make them metaphorical, it just makes the Devils NOT the literal, biological children of Satan.

 

[chessman]

Saul confessed Jesus as his Lord, was called "brother" and then baptized ...

9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead

Saul never said "Lord Jesus" with his mouth, confessing Jesus as 'His Lord' with his mouth until after he entered into the city and was baptized with the Holy Spirit inside the city. And Saul was Ananias' Jewish brother and carried a letter in his hand from the High Priests to other Jewish brothers in the city authorizing Saul to arrest Christians. Plus, Saul was led into the city by other Jewish brothers wanting to do that very thing (arrest Christians). "Brother" in this context was being used as in a fellow Jew. Just as "Lord" was being used by Saul to inquire if the voice was the voice of God.

Saul did NOT confess with his mouth "the Lord Jesus" while on the road outside of Damascus. You did not quote Scripture where Lord Jesus came out of Saul's mouth. He replied to the voice as "Lord" (not Lord Jesus) both before and after he heard the voice say he was "Jesus" while he was still blind and could not see and being led by persecutors. Per the verse you posted above, and as I've been pointing out all along, Saul was not saved while outside of Damascus because (among other reasons) he did not say "Lord Jesus" nor had he obeyed yet what Jesus told him he must do (go inside the city) nor was he baptized with the Holy Spirit of God outside the city (a requirement under this site's SoF for "genuine believers").

You didn't answer my question, you provided proof Saul was not saved until he really did confess with his mouth Jesus is His Lord. And you proved Biblically that Judas was not saved by Peter's confession too. Plus you implied you don't actually affirm what constitutes a "genuine believer" within this site by not answering my question.

Additionally, per Paul's own testimony to King Agrippa:

Acts 26:11-12, 19-20 (NKJV) And I [Saul] punished them often in every synagogue and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly enraged against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities. “While thus occupied, as I journeyed to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, “Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles ...​

There are at least three testimonies made by Paul himself that condradict your claim that Saul was converted while outside the city of Damascus (versus inside the city after obeying the things he must do including being baptized/indwelt with the Holy Spirit of God):

1. He was occupied with authority for the persecution of Christians until he traveled "to Damascus", not to some point just outside Damascus as you are claiming. As he entered the city being still led by those seeking to persecute/arrest Christians.

Acts 22:11 (NKJV) And since I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of those who were with me, I came into Damascus. ​

It could not be stated more clearly. Saul was led by the hand of those who were with him as he came into Damascus.

2. He declared Jesus Christ "first to those in Damascus", not first to those outside of Damascus who were journeying with him.

3. He did not disobey the things he was told he "must do" in his vision. He went "into the city" and was baptized with the Holy Spirit inside the city.

As to your point about Saul being called a "brother" by Ananias. Saul and other Jews routinely addressed fellow Jews as "brothers" whether they were following Jesus Christ as Lord or killing Christians. Ananias and Saul were Jewish brothers (under the Law) well before Saul's conversion (and after too). For an example see how Paul addressed the mob of Jews in Jerusalem wanting to kill him for converting Jewish brothers to Christians:

Acts 22:1, 5 (NKJV) “Brethren and fathers, hear my defense before you now.” ... as also the high priest bears me witness, and all the council of the elders, from whom I also received letters to the brethren, and went to Damascus to bring in chains even those who were there to Jerusalem to be punished.​

Ananias was a brother in good standing with the Jewish brothers in Damascus. The authority for Saul to arrest Christians was written to those Jewish brothers.

Acts 22:12 (NKJV) “Then a certain Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good testimony with all the Jews who dwelt there, ​

Paul's witness is that he made it "to Damascus" as a persecutor of Christians, not to some spot outside of Damascus then converted before he made it to the street address inside the city and was baptized with the Holy Spirit. Not to mention that Ananias addressed Saul as a "brother" before Saul was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Which is really the fundamental question necessary to defend your OP's claim ("Judas Iscariot: Saved for a while") under this sites Statement of Faith concerning genuine believers.

One more time; Do you affirm that "genuine believers are born again by the Holy Spirit of God, and are indwelt, baptized into the body of Christ"; Yes or no?
[That's from the SoF. You should really be able to affirm Yes to this question if you really believe it, rather than avoiding answering it.]

Note that under the policy and rules of A&T forum, avoiding answering this question weakens your 'case' in this thread claiming ("Judas Iscariot:Saved for a while"). Plus it implies that you do not really affirm this sites' SoF on what constitutes a "genuine believer".

I can lead you to what the scriptures say:

And you can answer people's questions rather than avoiding answering them, too. Will you answer:
Yes or no; Are genuine believers born again by the Holy Spirit of God and indwelt, baptized into the body of Christ?

 

[smaller]

Do you deliberately twist words, or can you really not follow what I posted suggesting that the term 'children' was metaphorical? I neither claimed nor implied that Devils were not real.

What you seemed to be attempting was to make people devils.

If we understand that there is a kingdom and a family, adverse to God, unseen, that kind of slant serves no purpose.

With whom did Satan copulate to procreate these 'Devils'?

Mark 4:15 and the other real parables show us "how" the devil takes his holds.

I read that God created the Angels and Satan led a third of them in a revolt against God, for which Satan and his fallen angels (Devils) were cast out of heaven.

A large portion of christianity has a myth narrative about the devil and his messengers, claiming they were, at some point, Holy. Scriptures do not make that claim. John 8:44 and 1 John 3:8 should be sufficient to dispel such notions.

This did and does not make them metaphorical, it just makes the Devils NOT the literal, biological children of Satan.

Never claimed they were biological. That is obviously not the case.

But to say we don't have thousands of examples in the N.T. of Satan and devils being 'in' mankind, being addressed 'in' mankind, being cast out of mankind, being rebuked 'in' man, is not an accurate assessment. We do have a mountain of scriptural evidence of unseen operators IN mankind. Just as we see with Judas.

The only odd thing is why so many don't see it and don't factor this into their positional understandings, and see instead, just man.

Scripture revolves around the actions of 3 basic players. Every line of scripture should be read with that fact in mind. Those players are God/Satan and Man. We know for example from Mark 4:15 that the LAW arouses the unseen resistance party. Romans 7:13 and 1 Cor. 15:56 show an identical statement of fact.

With matters of Judas we should be aware of the same matters. That GOD was involved. That Satan was involved, and Judas was involved. Scripture does show us that the intentions of God were being played out, and Gods Own Will is always the over riding factor of Priority in understandings. Acts 4:26-28.

 

[atpollard]

People are shown by scriptures to be "captives" or "servants/slaves" of the wicked one, not children. Acts 26:18, 2 Cor. 4:4 etc.

John 8:39-47
39 They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus *said to them, “If you are Abraham’s children, do the deeds of Abraham. 40 But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. 41 You are doing the deeds of your father.” They said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father: God.” 42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but [fn]He sent Me. 43 Why do you not understand [fn]what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks [fn]a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of [fn]lies. 45 But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me. 46 Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? 47 He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them,because you are not of God.”

Jesus says otherwise.

 

[smaller]

Jesus says otherwise.

John 8:34
Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

1 John 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Those who have not assessed their own relationship with sin being of the devil will never assess what happened with Judas, accurately. They'll only see Judas. They won't see Gods Will being executed in the matters, Acts 4:-26-28 and they won't see or factor in the resistance of the devil. All of which transpired not only in Judas, but in all the disciples.

Matthew 26:56
But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.

 

[GodsGrace]

People read the same mistake when they read the below. If they were paying attention it's talking about devils not people.

Matthew 13:38
The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one

How do you reason this Smaller??
If the "children of the wicked one" are devils,
then the "children of God" are Gods.

Mathew 13:38 is explaining the parable of the tares amoung the wheat.
The one who sows good seed is Jesus.
The field is the world.
The good seed are the Sons of the Kingdom (of God). They are men following God.
The tares are the sons of the evil one. They are men following satan.

It clearly states in Mathew 13:39
The enemy who sowed the tares is the devil. He influenced the men who follow him, and they listened.
Both the good seed and the tares will be judged at the end of the age, at the harvest.

 

[GodsGrace]

Oh, I thought you meant his first question in verse 5, prior to voice announcing it was Jesus. I see your point now.

But Saul didn't say it was the resurrected Christ at this point.

Paul, in his retelling of the account in Acts 22, which I think provides additional important clarification details:

Acts 22:8-11, 14-16 (NKJV) So I answered, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And He said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.’ “And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me. So I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Arise and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all things which are appointed for you to do.’
​

The reason, it seems, Paul said "What shall I do, Lord" was because (So I said ...) the others had not heard what was said ("I am Jesus"). I get a picture of, well "astonishment" as 9:6 says in Paul's reply to the voice. He saw a bright light and heard a voice that the others did not hear. He was 'dazed and confused', so to speak. Yes, the voice said, "I am Jesus" but his reaction was fear and astonishment. Frankly, I don't see how his response makes him a believer in the risen Lord Jesus. And he was a believer in the Lord (the Father) all along. So his response is reasonable, either way. That's why he was persecuting Christians. Saul was never an Atheist. It seems more like he's a scared and astonished Pharisees who's wondering if he's hearing voices, hearing God the Father or just in a general state of confusion to me. I know I would be, given his situation. But either way, he'd not been filled with the Holy Spirit yet nor baptized. That happens in Damascus, not on the road. That's were he received confirmation and became assured of what he heard spoken. When Ananias confirmed it.

And since I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of those who were with me, I came into Damascus.
​

Notice Saul doesn't say that I could not see for the glory of Jesus. He still just calls it "that light". So in Damascus, he get's the details and puts it all together:

Then he said, ‘The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth.
For you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’​

Paul is witnessed to in detail while in Damascus (not on the way) what he had seen and heard and witnessed there on the road by another 'witness' sent by God. He had his three witnesses to confirm it. The others traveling with him, could not be a witness to what was said as they didn't hear what was said. And what's more direct, is that only in Damascus is where his sins were washed away (not on the road).


Yes before and after the voice said that it was Jesus Saul suspected the voice was the voice of the Lord (not necessarily Lord Jesus. Paul said he was astonished and replied to the voice once again as "Lord", not Lord Jesus (a Creedal claim). But Saul had prayed to the Lord his whole life. Plus he needed another witness per the Law. Again, especially since he said he was astonished at what was said on the road.

Did he believe Jesus was Lord before receiving his sight back and receiving the Godly additional witness from Ananias and the washing of his sins and being baptized with the Holy Spirit in Damascus??? It's possible, I suppose, but he had no other witness of the message until Ananias confirmed it to him.

I think the Damascus conversion makes more sense.

Hi Chessman,
I'm commenting here because what you say is wrong based on what I know about salvation.

My comments refer to your statement above which I've highlighted and underlined.

Acts 22:8
Paul says "Who art thou Lord?" NASB

At this point he might have been referring to the light as lord, a person or LORD, referring to God Father. He did not yet know to whom the voice belonged.
But the voice answers " I am Jesus, the Nazarene, whom you are persecuting." NASB

Acts 22:10
Paul says "What shall I do Lord.?"
At this point Paul knows that it is Jesus speaking to him - the Jesus he had been persecuting.

So,
1. You say there were no other witnesses. Jesus is His own witness. He does not require witnesses.
Did you have a witness besides God when you became saved?

2. Paul had a supernatural experience on his way to Damascus. He addressed the Light as Lord, AFTER being told who the light was.
I'd say that, yes, the second time he uses the word, Lord, Paul means that he is saved and considers Jesus his Lord.

3. WHEN are our sins washed? When we believe, or when we are baptized?
When we believe. It is not necessary to be baptized to be saved.

Acts 10:35
The man who fears God and does what is right is welcome to Him.
In Acts 22: 6-7 Paul sees the light and falls from his horse. He literally feared God. Of course fear means respect, etc.

We are saved BEFORE we can DO anything for God. However the doing comes later, as it also did for Paul.

We are saved when we believe - justification.
THEN come the works - sanctification.

Wondering