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?

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

Well then historians will have to remain silent and we will have to form an opinion withouut them.
Historians are not in a position to prove or disprove such autobiographical testimony, the details surrounding the event are sound enough but after that they can leave the room as their input is no longer required. We are left to analyse the available evidence and decide based on that what we personally believe about the biographical testimony.

I take it your belief is it was inaccurate. My belief is it is accurate. I trust you are not going to claim you are voicing anything but your own personal (unprovable) belief on the matter.




JW

[bluegreenearth]

I take it your belief is it was inaccurate. My belief is it is accurate. I trust you are not going to claim you are voicing anything but your own personal (unprovable) belief on the matter.

It is not my "belief" that Paul's testimony was inaccurate but that it is one plausible possibility. I haven't examined all the explanations that have an implicit empirical basis to compare their plausibilities and form a definitive belief yet. I think another possible explanation is that Paul's testimony could accurately describe what he sincerely believed happened on the road to Damascus, but he mistakenly attributed the cause of his experience to a supernatural force instead of a natural physiological, psychological, or neurological condition. If that could be demonstrated as the most plausible explanation, then I could believe Paul's testimony was accurate in that context.

[Goose]

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.

Hold on a minute. If the historical evidence is good enough to support the claim Paul believed he encountered a resurrected Jesus on his way to Damascus then its also strong enough to support the claim Paul had companions with him on his journey to Damascus who also experienced something.

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.

I dont have a problem with that being the first step. But I see no good reason to make it the only step. I see no good reason to limit the possibilities to only ones with, as you continue to call it, an implicit empirical basis.

The criteria of having an implicit empirical basis functions to objectively determine which explanations are possible regardless of anyone's worldview.

But it seems your criteria merely prefers a kind of Empiricsim which is certainly an epistemological world view. As Ive mentioned before, there are different kinds of possibilities such as epistemic, metaphysical, and logical possibilities for example.

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.

But thats only a problem for one who limits the possible to that which is physically 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.

Firstly, it wouldnt at all be completely useless if were the explanation with the greatest explanatory scope and power. It would be, by definition, the best explanation.

Secondly, again you are assuming the only things that are known to be possible are the things with an implicit empirical basis.

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?

One way we can know that a resurrection is even possible is that a resurrection does not violate the laws of logic.

Just having the ability to conceive of something doesn't make it a possibility.

Sure it does. You did that yourself in post 44 of this thread when you conceived of and argued for, advanced extra-terrestrial aliens intervening in the course of human development.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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.

Well then historians will have to remain silent and we will have to form an opinion withouut them.
Historians are not in a position to prove or disprove such autobiographical testimony, the details surrounding the event are sound enough but after that they can leave the room as their input is no longer required. We are left to analyse the available evidence and decide based on that what we personally believe about the biographical testimony.

I take it your belief is it was inaccurate. My belief is it is accurate. I trust you are not going to claim you are voicing anything but your own personal (unprovable) belief on the matter.




JW

Homer, Hesiod, Theocritus, Euripides and Virgil, all wrote of a race of one eyed giants called the cyclops. And yet historians are fairly unanimous in their opinion that no such race of one eyed giants ever existed. But it seems clear that our ancient ancestors widely belived the cyclops to be be genuine.

Why?

Because in earlier times, when the Earth had yet to be fully explored and people were ignorant, such strange and exotic beings as one eyed giants seemed perfectly plausible. As did winged lions, winged horses, half man half bulls, horses with a single horn, leprechauns, faeries, trolls, gnomes, elves, ogres, witches, and, well the list goes on. (Here is a more detailed listing, if you are interested). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_ ... _creatures

Many such legends still persist among uneducated superstitious peoples, even today. But these myths and legends are generally considered nonsense by modern educated adults. The sort of stories and myths that children often believe with all their hearts. But not adults.

So -- if I told you that once while I was hiking through the desert, everything began to grow dark. And that during a period when I was unable to drink for three days, I began to hear voices. And that I encountered the Easter bunny. Would you find the claim of meeting the Easter bunny believable?

That would first largely depend on whether or not you already believed with all your heart that the Easter bunny was real -- wouldn't it!

[mitty]

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

Either way, it's just the writer's metaphorical way of saying that Paul changed his mind, and instead of using a light-bulb-inspiration the writer used an imaginary voice in the sky instead, given that light bulbs hadn't been invented then.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[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.

It is true that Paul himself does not detail his experience while traveling to Damascus. The story is taken from Acts, written, presumably, by one of Paul's followers. This man is known to history, traditionally, as Luke. The author of the Gospel According to Luke. Modern experts, even secular ones, generally conceed that Acts of the Apostles, and the Gospel According to Luke, were most probably written by the same individual.

Paul himself refers to the experience that resulted in his conversion only in passing.

Galatians 1:
[11] But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
[12] For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
[13] For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
[14] And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
[15] But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
[16] To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
[17] Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Given the details provided in Acts there is no reason to suppose that Paul's conversion was not genuine, and was affected by his subsequent conviction that what he believe that he experienced during a period when he was deathly ill, delirious, and being prayed over by a Christian man, actually occurred just as he remembered it after he recovered.

We today have every reason to DOUBT, however, that during his incapacitation Paul actually met with and spoke with AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAD BEEN DEAD FOR SEVERAL YEARS. Such a claim is NOT historical, since it contradicts all common experience, and common sense.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 53 by Goose]

Hold on a minute. If the historical evidence is good enough to support the claim Paul believed he encountered a resurrected Jesus on his way to Damascus then its also strong enough to support the claim Paul had companions with him on his journey to Damascus who also experienced something.

Acts indicates that Paul was traveling to Damascus with other travelers. But not that these others were Paul's close friends. Paul's "companions" left Paul the harsh persecutor of Christians, and at a time when he was totally helpless, with a Christian man to be cared for and continued on with their business. Hardly the actions of "close friends."

Did Paul's companions also experience "something" on the road to Damascus? Well, according to the author of Acts they did. But the author of Acts, a later follower of Paul's, was not personally present to have witnessed the events himself. The story is based on what Paul, the afflicted man, believed occurred after his recovery. But the "companions" themselves left no such testimony.

[Yahwehismywitness]

Serial killers often have personality disorders
Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes called sociopathy, is a mental disorder in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others. People with antisocial personality disorder tend to antagonize, manipulate or treat others harshly or with callous indifference. They show no guilt or remorse for their behavior.
Serial killers exhibit predatory behavior

believes other people are inferior, which makes it easy for him to justify hurting or preying on others. Serial killers don't have normal human empathy, but they're very good at pretending like they do, so it's incumbent upon the rest of us to learn how to recognize fake empathy when we see it. Chances are, if your instinct tells you someone is just going through the motions when it comes to exhibiting empathy, love, or concern, then your instincts are probably correct.

Serial killers are manipulative
but they're also very good at making sure you don't know you're being manipulated.

Serial killers exhibit 'sensation-seeking' behavior
Serial killers often suffered some kind of childhood abuse


Read More: https://www.grunge.com/110562/traits-se ... paign=clip

[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

Either way, it's just the writer's metaphorical way of saying that Paul changed his mind, and instead of using a light-bulb-inspiration the writer used an imaginary voice in the sky instead, given that light bulbs hadn't been invented then.

Unless you are employing your mind reading capacities I cant see how you can prove that. I understand that is what you believe ( we all have beliefs and I doubt if you are an exception) but are you claiming to know this?



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 54 by Tired of the Nonsense]

What has any of that got to do with what I said? My comment was about the limits of historical proof especially when it comes to individual conversations and personal testimony. I should think that over and above of that, both you and I employ exactly the same mechanism when deciding what we choose to believe.

We both I presume are capable of witholding judgement and putting aside confirmation bias in favor of coming to the most logical conclusion after analysing the available information. If that is not the case for you, and you are incapale of accepting a logical conclussion if it conflicts with your predetermined beliefs, I understand your position but claim no ownership of it.



JW