I confused by this note. It says that the Acts account is legend but then it says that “to see” really means he got acquainted with Peter. This could mean that he did “visit” them but he did not get acquainted with them in Acts. This note seems to weaken its own argument as I read along. I would love to get more insight on this.

those fifteen days he stays with peter in Jerusalem i fell was the period he used to know more about what traspire between Jesus and the disciples. they may have talk at lenth about the gosple they have recieved and how to pass it on to other. Paul may have told him how he meet Jesus and the vision he recieved while peter may have told him how Jesus chooses him andgive him the authority of leadership among the apostles. they are both great in their apostleship. the differences were, Paul an apostle to the gentiles while peter to the Jews.

So, I am not influenced by anyone else (BTW I am being petulant!). I think that he is using then in a “name dropping” way! I know the (I presume) the brother of Jesus therefore that means more that the anyone else!

I like the way he emphasized that he “did go”, as opposed to the “nor did I go” in the verse before. It reads almost like a witness stand account of someone who is afraid to be considered untrustworthy and really tries to get his story straight.

Paul’s revelation at damascus is similar to moses' vision of the burning bush,and Elijah’s vision
Exo 3:1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb.
Exo 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
And Elijah in
1Ki 19:9 And he came thither unto a cave, and lodged there; and, behold, the word of the LORD came to him, and he said unto him, What doest thou here, Elijah?

So paul after his own vision must have gone to Mt.Horeb in Arabia for direct communication with God to get clarification from God regarding his future.

Paul had a dramatic conversion and, possibly, the Lord who spoke to him on Damascus Road kept driving the first steps. Thus it is with the charismatics, and Paul was one of them. Or when he said: “ I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus, is a "A casual expression at the end, and an expression brought in for a different purpose” (Cited by Dean Howson, In loc)

I think the gap of three years might be between Acts 9:21 and 22.

Paul in his letter to the Galatians, here is trying to defend his apostleship, first he talk about being called by God himself and christ, and that he began preaching without taking any order from the other Apostles but if they think that only those who visited the other Apostles are those the Galatians will accept: he also had visited them. that was why he used the statement: I did go to Jerusalem to see Cephas which is peter. that is another way of saying my apostleship is complete.

I take it at face value. Paul worked in the Damascus area for three years preaching that faith in Christ is sufficient for salvation and then paid a courtesy call to Jerusalmem

The Acts tell us that ‘Now Saul was with the disciples in Damascus three days’ (19) then ‘Now when many days were fulfilled’ (23), and that’s all. Hard to say whether ‘three days’ plus ‘many’ are ‘three years’…

Doxology or worship of God can be considered one of the fundamental responses of a believer to Gods love and goodness.If righteousness does not come through the law or works,then we acknowledge the goodness of Gods work through praising and thanking him.Just as people in relationship with each other like to feel acknowledged by the other party,so too God likes being acknowledged.Providing a human example,which earthly father does not like being acknowledged and thanked(at least occasionally) by their children?It sounds like God does as well.