What happened to Paul on the road to Damascus?

[Wootah]

Acts 9 English Standard Version (ESV)
The Conversion of Saul
9 But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven shone around him. 4 And falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? 5 And he said, Who are you, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 6 But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do. 7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. 8 Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

What happened to Paul on the road to Damascus?

[Seth]

Epileptic fit fills the bill or other brain dysfunctions.

[JehovahsWitness]

Epileptic fit fills the bill or other brain dysfunctions.

That or divine revelation. Indeed revelation is more likey as epileptics dont usually report having conversations with unseen entities during their episodes.


JW

[bluegreenearth]

Granted the evidence is limited. Of course it is. Very little evidence from the first century or close to it which reported on the activities of first century Judea has come down to us. As for the poor quality of evidence, against what historical standard are you determining it to be poor? It seems to me the book of Acts represents very strong historical evidence in regards to Paul. The internal evidence suggests the author of Acts was a companion not only of Paul himself but was in the presence of the leaders in Jerusalem. Even if we arent willing to grant those two points, Acts is still written quite close to the life Paul by a near contemporary and would therefore still constitute good historical evidence by comparison to other history.

The issue is not with the historicity of Paul's existence but with some of the claims about his life. The evidence for the more mundane claims about Paul's life that have an implicit empirical basis may be of a sufficient quality to be acceptable by historians. However, the evidence for the supernatural claims which have no implicit empirical basis is not sufficient to establish a supernatural resurrection as a historical event. At best, the historical evidence only supports the claim that Paul believed he encountered a resurrected Jesus on his way to Damascus.

Of course. But that isnt really saying much. We have to say that it is impossible to precisely determine what actually happened in regards to any event from ancient history.

It may be impossible to precisely determine what actually happened in regards to any event from ancient history, but we can at least attempt to rank proposed explanations according to their possibility and plausibility. The first step in that process is to examine whether a proposed explanation has an implicit empirical basis as I've previously described.

How do you propose to do that objectively without simply preferring a set of explanations because they seem to align with your world view? Would it not be better to go with the explanation that has the greatest explanatory scope and power?

The criteria of having an implicit empirical basis functions to objectively determine which explanations are possible regardless of anyone's worldview. The problem of going with the explanation that has the greatest explanatory scope and power is that it does not account for whether that explanation is even possible. An explanation with the greatest explanatory scope and power would be completely useless to us if it described something that we couldn't know to be possible. Sure, a supernatural resurrection would explain Paul's experience on the road to Damascus, but how can we know that a supernatural resurrection is even possible? Just having the ability to conceive of something doesn't make it a possibility.

[bluegreenearth]

Epileptic fit fills the bill or other brain dysfunctions.

That or divine revelation. Indeed revelation is more likey as epileptics don't usually report having conversations with unseen entities during their episodes.


JW

That or advanced extra-terrestrial aliens intervening in the course of human development. Indeed, extra-terrestrial intervention is more likely because that explanation only has to extrapolate the existence of extra-terrestrial carbon-based lifeforms and technology from known physical and biological processes unlike divine revelation which has to rely upon something not known to be possible.

...or Paul's story could have been embellished or strategically fabricated for the purpose of being more persuasive to potential converts. I prefer the extra-terrestrial explanation, though, because it is more entertaining.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 44 by bluegreenearth]

And why would carbon based be more likely than non-carbon based?

...or Paul's story was embellished or strategically fabricated for the purpose of being more persuasive to potential converts.

That's a possibility but I cannot imagine how you would go about proving that.

If we take the evident course of his life and recorded independent testimony of his subsequent activities, it seems more likely he did indeed experience what he claimed rather than that was engaging in some kind of willful deception.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 44 by bluegreenearth]

And why would carbon based be more likely than non-carbon based?

We have no empirical evidence for the existence of non-carbon based life. However, you are correct to imply that silicon-based life has been speculated to be a possibility as well.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Acts 9 English Standard Version (ESV)
The Conversion of Saul
9 But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven shone around him. 4 And falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? 5 And he said, Who are you, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 6 But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do. 7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. 8 Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

What happened to Paul on the road to Damascus?

Acts 9:
[9] And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.

Acts very specifically indicates that Paul went three days without drinking. Three days without drinking, especially in an arid climate, is considered being at deaths door. So Paul was severely dehydrated. What are the symptoms of severe dehydration?

Symptoms
by Mayo Clinic Staff
Severe dehydration, a medical emergency, can cause:

Extreme thirst
Extreme fussiness or sleepiness in infants and children; irritability and confusion in adults
Very dry mouth, skin and mucous membranes
Lack of sweating
Little or no urination " any urine that is produced will be dark yellow or amber
Sunken eyes
Shriveled and dry skin that lacks elasticity and doesn't "bounce back" when pinched into a fold
In infants, sunken fontanels " the soft spots on the top of a baby's head
Low blood pressure
Rapid heartbeat
Rapid breathing
No tears when crying
Fever
In the most serious cases, delirium or unconsciousness
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/dehydr ... N=symptoms

After his recovery, Paul believed that he had experienced a face to face meeting with Jesus, who had been executed some years earlier.

The clues to what happened to Paul as he traveled to Damascus are there in the details of the story. While traveling to Damascus Paul collapsed, and suffered near death hallucinations due to severe dehydration. OR, Paul actually had an encounter with A DEAD MAN. Which is roughly as realistic a possibility as having an encounter with the Easter bunny.

[Yahwehismywitness]

That or advanced extra-terrestrial aliens intervening in the course of human development. Indeed extra-terrestrial intervention is more likely because that explanation only has to extrapolate the existence of carbon-based lifeforms and technology from known physical and biological processes unlike divine revelation which has to rely upon something not known to be possible.

A plausible explanation is recorded in several sources he worked for the High Priest that was Sadducee evil man says AC. Hervy's book sent Saul out to persecute and kill believers. Don't believe that would make you very popular typically murderers hide. Also it is no revelation or dream the high Priest authority was there he knew them. It is not far reaching to consider they concocted plot to cover this murderous past and make money for Sadducees. He said he robbed churches 2 Corinthians 11

This is what Hervy said about high priest: described him as "a violent, haughty, gluttonous, and rapacious man,

Rapacious-aggressively greedy or grasping.

Robert Eisenman's book identifies Paul as deeply compromised by Roman contacts

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 44 by bluegreenearth]

And why would carbon based be more likely than non-carbon based?

...or Paul's story was embellished or strategically fabricated for the purpose of being more persuasive to potential converts.

That's a possibility but I cannot imagine how you would go about proving that.

If we take the evident course of his life and recorded independent testimony of his subsequent activities, it seems more likely he did indeed experience what he claimed rather than that was engaging in some kind of willful deception.

At best, Paul may have indeed sincerely "believed" he experienced a resurrected Jesus on his road trip to Damascus, but historians cannot responsibly conclude a supernatural resurrection was the more likely explanation for his experience without an implicit empirical basis. In any case, Paul's sincere belief would not preclude him from at least embellishing some of the details about his experience if it meant more people would be persuaded to share his theological belief.

There are examples of this type of human behavior all over the place and would not be unexpected given Paul's evangelical motives. People who believe they've encountered something supernatural often exaggerate their experiences in order to artificially boost their persuasiveness because they understand such claims are difficult for other people to believe. Sometimes this happens subconsciously where a person's brain supplements the memory of a nebulous experience to compensate for insufficient information.

Either way, we don't necessarily have to prove that Paul exaggerated some of the details in his testimony or subconsciously altered his memory of the Damascus road experience for us to know those are possible and plausible explanations to be considered. What we shouldn't do is presuppose the supernatural explanation is a reliable candidate when it hasn't yet been demonstrated to be a possibility. Until an implicit empirical basis can be established to demonstrate the possibility of the supernatural explanation, we have no way to calculate its plausibility compared to other candidate explanations which are known to be possible.

[Zzyzx]

.
It is worth noting that Paul/Saul says VERY little about the supposed road incident.

Instead, the story is told by the author of Acts, whoever that may have been. His account is, at best, a second-hand / hearsay / folklore rendition written long afterward by someone who is not known to have been present -- and possibly an embellishment, exaggeration, or fabrication.

Rex Wyler says,in The Jesus Sayings, page 43, that historians consider Acts, written in the 90s, an anonymous work that freely mixes history with legend. Authorship some decades after the death of Paul means that this anonymous author would not have received the story from Paul himself. So Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus was either a tradition of unknown provenance or entirely a literary creation written by 'Luke'.

Charles W. Hedrick says in Paul's Conversion/Call: A Comparative Analysis Of The Three Reports In Acts, page 424, that the account in Acts 22 assumes and builds upon the account in Acts 9, hence, for the account in Acts 22 to be logically consistent, it must be read in the light of Acts 9. In page 428, he says that Acts 26:12-18 and 22:4-21 are compositions by Luke and their differences from each other and the account in Acts 9 are due to Luke's literary style and method. Thus, the accounts attributed in Acts to Paul are in fact written by the author of Acts, himself.

To ascertain whether the first account, in Acts 9:3-8, is based on fact, we need to go back to Paul's own epistles. If Paul told all the presbyters about this experience, as described in Acts 22:6-11, and also told King Agrippa a similar story, recounted in Acts 26:13-19, then we can expect him to be equally frank when writing to the Galatians. Yet in In Galatians 1:16 ("To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:"), there is no hint of this. Note that Paul says that God revealed his Son "in me," not "to me" (although some translations do incorrectly give this as "to me"). The significance of this is that for Paul, the revelation was internal, not an external vision or appearance. Note also that he did not immediately tell anyone about his conversion, instead travelling to Arabia, perhaps to meet King Aretas who also ruled Damascus at this time, and only then going to Damascus.
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ ... s-differen