Was Paul told what to do by Ananias or didn't he immediately confer with flesh and blood?

Then the Lord said to him (Paul), “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.” (Acts 9:6).

There is no point for the Lord Jesus to refer Paul to Ananias, who was known to be a devout man of the Law. (Acts 22:12)

The possibility that Luke is a deceiver has to be tested. TEST ALL THINGS (1 Thes 5:21).

Luke isn't an apostle (Mat 10:2-4). He doesn't rank first in the ministry (1Cor 12:28, Eph 4:11).
Therefore any attempt to elevate Luke's work to apostolic status is to be firmly resisted.

those who desire an opportunity to be regarded
just as we (the apostles) are in the things of which they boast.
....... are false apostles (2 Co 11:12-13).

Admittedly Luke didn't place his work in the canon as equal to apostolic word of God. But Rome did compile the canon.

Where is the apostolic witness that Paul's sight was taken away to be restored? This goes right against the gospel message for Jesus came to give sight to the blind, not to afflict Paul with blindness.

I am determined to TEST ALL THINGS (1 Thes 5:21) and what people accept as authoritative has no bearing on my obedience to that apostolic commandment.

Well since you aren't answering any of my questions or even engaging them despite my attempt to help you achieve resolution I'll try one last time.

By what standard are you seeking to "Test all things"? Scripture? It's there in the book and when I provided a lens for understanding that you seemed to not hear and just said something about an "apostolic witness". I asked what you mean by that and you have provided nothing other than to suggest errancy in the word.

You must have some means of measurement that is clearly defined otherwise no one will be able to help you.


I'm not sure why the Lord commanding Paul to seek out someone to restore his sight is all that challenging to understand. Certainly he could have done so immediately but he chose to use a human vessel to effect that aim. Perhaps that would be a better question if your focus is understanding?

Is it possible that God told Ananias to tell Paul to head to Arabia?

I don't seek help from you.

CLEAR BINDING APOSTOLIC INSTRUCTIONS:
that you may learn in us
not to go BEYOND WHAT IS WRITTEN,
that none of you may be puffed up
on behalf of one against the other (1 Cor 4:6).


....... the household of God, having been built
on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20).

When you TEST ALL THINGS (1 Thess 5:21), then you will find that Luke wasn't a foundational apostle (Mat 10:2-4).

Why have you elevated his hearsay (Luke 1:2) to equality with the word of God?

Luke wasn't present at the ministry of Jesus to the apostles, nor was he present at Paul's conversion.
He wasn't even a Jew (Col 14:11, 14). Salvation is of the Jews (John 4:22).

That's how I see it too ^ .

The text only states:

"15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake." - Acts 9


…right... its contents [what it consisted of], so to speak.

Then the Lord said to him (Paul), “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.” (Acts 9:6).

There is no point for the Lord Jesus to refer Paul to Ananias, who was known to be a devout man of the Law. (Acts 22:12)

Ananias wasn't a prophet and the author of this fable wasn't an apostle.

If you believe its possible, then I don't see how you can conclude your views about Luke.

But, as in many online discussions, your mind is probably already made up.

For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake (Ac 9:16).

Even Luke's god states that there was no need for humans to teach Paul anything.

You should have realised by now how inconsistent Luke's fables are.

Then the Lord said to him (Paul), “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.” (Acts 9:6).

Colossians 1:24-28 [see also 2Cor11:16-33] -

24 Now I rejoice in the sufferings for you, and I am filling up in my flesh that which is lacking of the tribulations of Christ for His body, which is the church, 25 of which I became a minister according to the administration of God having been given me toward you, to complete the word of God, 26 the mystery having been hidden from the ages and from the generations, but now having been manifested to His saints, 27 to whom God has willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the [sure-] hope of glory, 28 whom we preach, admonishing every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, so that we may present every man perfect in Christ.

known to be a devout man of the Law. (Acts 22:12) Then the Lord said to him (Paul), “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.” (Acts 9:6).


I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ (Ga 1:12).

Ananius had nothing to teach Paul.
Luke presents him as a Christian (Acts 9:17) and known to be a devout man of the Law. (Acts 22:12).

Thanks for pointing out that inconsistency.

Paul needed justification by grace through faith, which he neither received that from Ananius, nor was he taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ (Ga 1:12).

Acts 11 -

"26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."

Now, if you'd said "a believer," I could agree that that's how Scripture presents him in Acts 9.

nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus (Ga 1:17).
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter (Gal 1:17-18).

You have a lot of explaining to do to keep Luke's fables in your canon.

Luke presents him as a Christian (Acts 9:17) and known to be a devout man of the Law. (Acts 22:12).

I am not about to argue about semantics. The issue was that Luke presented Ananius as both a Christian and a devout Jew.


If you cannot discern the difference, then your conversation is no longer tenable.

The possibility that Luke is a deceiver has to be tested. TEST ALL THINGS (1 Thes 5:21).

Luke isn't an apostle (Mat 10:2-4). He doesn't rank first in the ministry (1Cor 12:28, Eph 4:11).
Therefore any attempt to elevate Luke's work to apostolic status is to be firmly resisted.

those who desire an opportunity to be regarded
just as we (the apostles) are in the things of which they boast.
....... are false apostles (2 Co 11:12-13).

Admittedly Luke didn't place his work in the canon as equal to apostolic word of God. But Rome did compile the canon.

Where is the apostolic witness that Paul's sight was taken away to be restored? This goes right against the gospel message for Jesus came to give sight to the blind, not to afflict Paul with blindness.

I have made myself quite clear. You need to provide the scriptural principles, which should have been used to include Luke in your canon, for you made the claim that he is inspired and I contest that.

But you, dear friends, remember the words proclaimed beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ (Jud 17).

Jude admits that he isn't a foundational apostle (Eph 2:20).
Is it your intention to build on sand or is it due to the fact that you were deceived (Rev 12:9, 17:2)?

You seem to be attacking what I'm saying so I'll give it a rest and let someone else answer you.

You don't believe Luke to be the word of God predicated just on God telling Paul to go a particular place and he would be told what to do. You seem to take issue with the Lord blinding someone and I question that, because as I already stated Jesus talked a lot on the spiritual and "spiritually" Paul's eyes were opened that day to Yeshua, despite having physical sight prior he was murderous against Christians because his spiritual sight was not opened.

Have you considered that potentially being told what to do when he reached that place had nothing to do with Ananias and that Paul received further instruction from there that is not recorded? Or perhaps it did have something to do with the meeting. The entirety of Paul's long life cannot be known from scripture...only what is inspired and is necessary to the work of the word. No one's life is completely laid out...

At what time did Paul typically go to sleep. What were his favorite foods? Did he ever like rock climbing? See where I'm going with that?


Also I would highly encourage you to read the story of Elisha in regards to blindness and tell me that the Lord doesn't strike enemies with blindness. Saul was an enemy...he became a friend by the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Luke isn't an apostle (Mat 10:2-4). He doesn't rank first in the ministry (1Cor 12:28, Eph 4:11).
Therefore any attempt to elevate Luke's work to apostolic status is to be firmly resisted (2 Co 11:12-13).


There is little point in further conversation, when I am misquoted.

It is up to you to test all things (1 Thes 5:21) and then to make an informed choice to believe Paul's apostolic word of God and/or to accept Luke's hearsay (luke 1:2) as equal to that word of God.



Are you aware Paul quoted Luke and declared his quote As Scripture?
Also the Greek word translated as “told” in your assertion, is a very specific word that easily abates your assertions.

You want to argue a point with little context and rudeness. You may be having a bad day or you may be floundering. I pray that God can harmonize your objections to His Word to your life. Your attitude speaks of more issues than a simple verse in Scripture.