What happened to Paul on the road to Damascus?

Wootah · Post by **Wootah** » Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:34 pm

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.

bluegreenearth · Post by **bluegreenearth** » Thu Mar 05, 2020 8:13 pm

[Replying to post 77 by Goose]

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.

We have two distinct types of historical claims here. One claim is about what Paul "believed" happened on the road to Damascus and the other is about what "historically" happened on the road to Damascus. Because the historical evidence we have is Paul's written testimony, there is a low but non-zero chance that Paul fabricated the entire account of his Damascus road experience. So, we can accept the historical evidence is reliable enough to establish what Paul probably "believed" happened but not what historically occurred because we only have his subjective testimony.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that Paul's written testimony does not mention anything about what his companions may have experienced. Those details are described in the book of Acts which was not written by Paul or a companion who was with Paul at the time of his experience on the Damascus road. We can't even be certain that the author of Acts was relaying second-hand information. Therefore, the historical evidence is not sufficiently reliable to conclude anything about what Paul's alleged companions either believed or what historically happened to them.

What evidence is there this detail regarding the companions was embellished? Who did the embellishing, Paul or the author of Acts? Simply claiming it could have potentially been embellished isnt a counter argument.

Further, if the detail of the companions was embellished then we would expect the embellisher to have had the companions also directly witness the risen Christ.

As previously indicated, I'm not aware of Paul mentioning what his companions may have experienced. The author of Acts describes Paul's companions but was not himself a companion at the time. So, it is difficult to know if the author of Acts included the details about the companions as an embellishment or not. However, I was only proposing the possibility of embellishment and not claiming it was absolutely embellished.

As for the expectation that the embellisher would have claimed the companions also directly witnessed the risen Christ, such a claim would have invited unwanted inquiry into the identities of those individuals why they weren't equally motivated to endorse Christianity.

We dont need that. We have Pauls testimony recorded in Acts attesting to his companions on the road to Damascus.

No, we have Paul's testimony recorded in the epistles. We cannot determine if the report in Acts is even second-hand information.

The cause is irrelevant at this point. All that is relevant is that Pauls companions experienced something.

It is relevant if we are attempting to establish what historically happened. Sure, it would be interesting to learn what the companions believed about the experience but that doesn't establish what historically took place.

It doesnt need an implicit empirical basis to qualify as a possible explanation. If you think it does, prove it.

It is not my burden of proof to demonstrate the supernatural is possible or impossible because I'm not claiming it is either. If you are claiming the supernatural is possible, the burden is on you to prove it.

I'll provide comments to the rest of your post in a separate installment because this response is long enough already.

bluegreenearth · Post by **bluegreenearth** » Thu Mar 05, 2020 10:25 pm

[Replying to post 77 by Goose]

You are assuming the reality we think we observe is the limit of reality. I dont make that assumption.

No, I'm recognizing that there is a metaphysical reality, conceptual reality, and empirical reality. Our ability to acquire knowledge of each of those realities is limited.

Only if one assumes our observed reality is the limit of reality. Our observed reality is finite and quite limited.

Because we are limited in our ability to acquire metaphysical knowledge, we are forced to operate within the boundaries of our conceptual and empirical realities regardless of what the metaphysical possibilities might be. For this reason, proposing a metaphysical possibility has no value to us if it can never be demonstrated to exist within the boundaries of the empirical reality in which we operate.

Ive already demonstrated that, logically.

How does a logical possibility serve to explain anything if it cannot be demonstrated to exist within the boundaries of the empirical reality in which we operate?

Its sufficient to establish a baseline of possibility. Thats what you are doing with your implicit empirical basis argument for an explanation to qualify as a possible explanation.

Once again, how useful is a baseline of possibility when the criteria allow for possibilities that cannot be demonstrated to exist within the boundaries of the empirical reality in which we operate?

If an explanation must be known to exist in reality to serve as a possible explanation for anything, that rules out numerous explanations such as abiogenesis, the multiverse, etc. Many of these explanations are held by numerous atheist scientists. Not to mention that standard rules out every single historical explanation since, strictly speaking, no historical explanation can be known to exist.

That is actually a very good point. Given a narrow interpretation of the reasoning I described, you are correct to a certain extent. As a fallible thinker, I reserve the right to update and clarify my reasoning. In this case, I may have overextended my earlier retraction in regards to the example about the extra-terrestrial alien. Even though an extra-terrestrial alien has not been demonstrated to exist, it may actually serve as a possible explanation for something but not because it is logically possible. The reason an extra-terrestrial alien is within the realm of possibilities is because that logically possible concept can be extrapolated from things that are known to empirically exist like carbon-based life and the process of biological evolution. As such, the concept of an extra-terrestrial alien has an "implicit" empirical basis.

The same applies to all logically possible concepts that can be extrapolated from things that are known to empirically exist. For instance, the logically possible concepts of abiogenesis and the multiverse qualify as possible explanations because all of their component parts have a known empirical existence. The component parts of the abiogenesis concept are individual materials and processes that have each been independently observed to empirically exist. The component parts of the multiverse concept are individual properties of physics known to empirically exist in the observable universe. Conversely, the logically possible concept of a supernatural resurrection does not qualify as a possible explanation because the "supernatural" component has not been demonstrated to empirically exist. Now, if a logically possible concept of a natural resurrection were proposed, that would qualify as a possible explanation as long as all its component parts could be demonstrated to empirically exist.

Thats patently false. Metaphysical possibilities can be falsified.
1. If I was born on Mars, then Id be a Martian.
2. Im not a Martian.
3. Therefore, I was not born on Mars.

If someone proposes a logically impossible claim, then it isn't a metaphysical, conceptual, or empirical possibility in the first place. Besides, the example you described was a conceptual possibility that was falsified; not a metaphysical possibility. Here is an example of metaphysical possibility:

1. If I am a brain in a vat, then the reality I perceive is an elaborate simulation.

How do we falsify that Metaphysical possibility?

But you said in another thread your epistemology has the starting premise that you have no way to rule-out the possibility that everything else I consciously experience could potentially be part of an elaborate simulation. Given this starting premise (a kind of brain in a vat scenario) you cant even prove to yourself that what you perceive to be your external reality is actually external and real. It might all be taking place in your imagination since you might be a brain in a vat. How would you know you werent? So you cant even establish it is the case that something actually exists in your own external reality. Given this starting premise, however, you said you can at least acquire knowledge of things that empirically exist and distinguish them from things I know only exist as concepts. But that distinction is trivial and arbitrary given the starting assumption that you might be a brain in vat. You have a personal preference for explanations with implicit empirical basis because you have a preference for them. Given the starting premise you might be a brain in a vat there is no meaningful difference between the validity of logical possibility and one you perceive to exist in your external reality with an implicit empirical basis. There are all equal possible explanations since they might all be products of your imagination.

Since I cannot know if the empirical reality I perceive is the metaphysical reality, I have no choice but to operate within the empirical reality I perceive. I don't have an arbitrary personal preference for explanations with an implicit empirical basis but it is the only method I have to distinguish between things that only exist as imaginary concepts and things that empirically exist in the reality I perceive.

Again only a limit for someone who sets the limit of possible explanations at that which they perceive to be physically possible. I dont share your view and you have no way to impose it on me.

I do not seek to impose anything on you. I'm merely demonstrating how I think critically about these issues and giving you an opportunity to either help me identify errors in my fallible reasoning (which you have) or consider where errors could potentially exist in your own fallible reasoning. As critical thinkers, we should always be open to the possibility of being mistaken.

Why is that the case when you cant even prove to yourself that the reality you think you observe is real?

I can't prove the empirical reality I observe is the metaphysical reality, but at least the empirical reality I perceive contains patterns and properties that are observably consistent. Because of this observable consistency, I can classify these patterns and properties as being objective in the reality I perceive.

No, the best one will outstrip all others in explanatory scope and power. How can we claim to be open minded if we a priori put limits on possible explanations because they dont seem to align with our world view? Further, given the starting premise you might be a brain in a vat, they all just might be imaginary explanations anyway. How can you demonstrate an explanation actually exists in reality if you might be a brain in a vat?

The fact that the criteria for possibility is controlled by what corresponds to the empirical reality I perceive has nothing to do with how open minded I am. My mind is not closed to the supernatural just because I've acknowledge my inability to know if it is a possible explanation or not. I suppose it could be argued that there is a "possibility" for the supernatural to be a possibility, but that would be an intellectually dishonest strategy for smuggling in the supernatural as a "possible possibility" when there are other explanations which are known possibilities.

Im not claiming a logical possibility alone demonstrates something is the case. No possibility alone (including your preferred ones with an implicit empirical basis) demonstrates something is the case. Possibilities establish a baseline of what is possible, nothing more.

A baseline that contains logical possibilities that have not been demonstrated to be empirically possible defeats the purpose of having a baseline of possibilities for explanations that have to apply in my perceived empirical reality. The reason to establish a baseline in this context is for it to serve as a boundary between explanations that have been demonstrated to be empirically possible and explanations that are impossible or not known to be empirically possible. Regardless of the explanatory scope and power of a logically possible explanation, if the explanation is extrapolated from something that is not known to empirically exist, how could I ever be confident that it is the best explanation when it has to apply in the empirical reality I perceive to exist?

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Fri Mar 06, 2020 5:28 am

bluegreenearth wrote: [Replying to post 77 by Goose]

You are assuming the reality we think we observe is the limit of reality. I dont make that assumption.
No, I'm recognizing that there is a metaphysical reality, conceptual reality, and empirical reality. Our ability to acquire knowledge of each of those realities is limited.

Only if one assumes our observed reality is the limit of reality. Our observed reality is finite and quite limited.
Because we are limited in our ability to acquire metaphysical knowledge, we are forced to operate within the boundaries of our conceptual and empirical realities regardless of what the metaphysical possibilities might be. For this reason, proposing a metaphysical possibility has no value to us if it can never be demonstrated to exist within the boundaries of the empirical reality in which we operate.

Which "us" are you referring to? "Us" as in those immediately engaged in the present online exchange or us as in humanity? In either case, examining metaphysical possibilities is of great value to "us" not only because this helps us understand the workings of the human mind, but because it just may be that the truth about the nature of our present reality may well lie beyond the physical.

JW

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Fri Mar 06, 2020 5:54 am

bluegreenearth wrote:...if the explanation is extrapolated from something that is not known to empirically exist, how could I ever be confident that it is the best explanation when it has to apply in the empirical reality I perceive to exist?

You might not be able to but why should that be problematic? Reality doesn't care about your feelings, it doesnt care if it can be explained, or even if you are convinced by it, it simply is.

You cannot possibly know everything that can exists, even empirically. How then can you be confident that what is "best explanation" for all realities? Does this pose a problem? No, you just operate within the limits of your present day perceptions. What I presume you don't do is dismiss the possibility of realities beyond your present perceptions, for therein lies not only a narrow mind but the antithesis of scienctific enquiry. How do you know whether at the very pinnacle of our knowlege of the physical there may not be a portal to a dimensions that we have no knowlege of or even languge for?

Using what we know to set the limits for what we don't is the very definition of ignorance.

JW

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Fri Mar 06, 2020 6:25 am

bluegreenearth wrote:How does a logical possibility serve to explain anything ...?

Logicsl possibilities are not explanations, they serve to identify what is seen to be a possibility . Its all in the name. It means if someone tells us about a man coming back from the dead, or a voice from the unknown, we may accept such things could indeed have happened instead of immediately dismissing them as "impossible".

bluegreenearth wrote:
How does a logical possibility serve to explain anything if it cannot be demonstrated to exist within the boundaries of the empirical reality in which we operate?

Your quesstion reads as if its a given that "[logical possibilities] cannot be demonstrated to exist within the boundaries of the empirical reality"? Indeed "an inexplicable demonstration of something that has up to that point been merely a logical possibility" might be the very definition of a miracle (or a scientific discovery).

JW

bluegreenearth · Post by **bluegreenearth** » Fri Mar 06, 2020 8:16 am

JehovahsWitness wrote: In either case, examining metaphysical possibilities is of great value to "us" not only because this helps us understand the workings of the human mind, but because it just may be that the truth about the nature of our present reality may well lie beyond the physical.

Examining metaphysical possibilities may have some philosophical value but have no pragmatic value as explanations for empirical phenomenon.

bluegreenearth · Post by **bluegreenearth** » Fri Mar 06, 2020 8:45 am

JehovahsWitness wrote: You might not be able to but why should that be problematic? Reality doesn't care about your feelings, it doesnt care if it can be explained, or even if you are convinced by it, it simply is.

The metaphysical reality is what it is. I'm concerned with understanding the empirical reality.

JehovahsWitness wrote:You cannot possibly know everything that can exists, even empirically. How then can you be confident that what is "best explanation" for all realities? Does this pose a problem? No, you just operate within the limits of your present day perceptions. What I presume you don't do is dismiss the possibility of realities beyond your present perceptions, for therein lies not only a narrow mind but the antithesis of scienctific enquiry. How do you know whether at the very pinnacle of our knowlege of the physical there may not be a portal to a dimensions that we have no knowlege of or even languge for?

Using what we know to set the limits for what we don't is the very definition of ignorance.

As you indicated, I have no choice but to operate within the limits of my perceptions. Whatever may or may not exist beyond the empirical reality I perceive is the metaphysical reality. I can only make philosophical speculations about the metaphysical reality which does not help me understand the empirical reality I perceive.

bluegreenearth · Post by **bluegreenearth** » Fri Mar 06, 2020 8:55 am

JehovahsWitness wrote: Logicsl possibilities are not explanations, they serve to identify what is seen to be a possibility . Its all in the name. It means if someone tells us about a man coming back from the dead, or a voice from the unknown, we may accept such things could indeed have happened instead of immediately dismissing them as "impossible".

I never indicated anything about dismissing the supernatural as "impossible." My contention is that I cannot know if the supernatural is either possible or impossible in the empirical reality I perceive.

JehovahsWitness wrote: Your quesstion reads as if its a given that "[logical possibilities] cannot be demonstrated to exist within the boundaries of the empirical reality"? Indeed "an inexplicable demonstration of something that has up to that point been merely a logical possibility" might be the very definition of a miracle (or a scientific discovery).

A logical possibility, when demonstrated to empirically exist, can serve as a possible explanation for something observed in the empirical reality I perceive. When the supernatural is demonstrated to empirically exist, it may then be a possible candidate explanation. No problem there. Now, I just need to wait for the supernatural to be demonstrated to objectively exist in the empirical reality I perceive.

Red Wolf · Post by **Red Wolf** » Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:36 am

I have read Acts 9:1-15 many times....let me show you what I see in this passage.
And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,

2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

threatenings and slaughter Sounds like Paul was a nasty fellow willing to kill people. How could he had been a good Jew?
Here we have this nasty fellow, totally unrepentant, and he has this Damascus road experience where he wants us to believe Jesus spoke to him.
How can we believe Jesus would choose such a sinner as Paul to abolish the Law, the Sabbath, the Festivals, and Circumcision? Especially after Jesus had already told Peter that "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" [Matthew 16:19] It doesn't seem logical.

4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

You have to realize that Paul tells this story 3 times in Acts. Some contradictions arise.
In this version of Pauls story, Jesus has relatively little to say. But look what Jesus says at a later telling of this story. Acts 26 ."I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

I believe this inflation of Jesus' remarks points to the fact that Paul fabricated this whole story. In addition in Acts chapter 9, there is no mention of Jesus appearing to Paul.
But in this telling of his story Jesus appeared to him. [ I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, ] Isn't that an important part of the story that if true, would certainly have been mentioned in Acts 9?
Another small detail...in Acts 9, Paul says the men with him "stood." But later Paul says "we were all fallen to the earth" [Acts 26:14] Were they standng or did they fall to the ground?
Yet another small detail at Acts 9:7 Paul says that the men with him heard a voice but at Acts 22:9 Paul says..."but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."

The Bible has a standard for truth...""that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established."' [Mathew 18:16]
Where are Paul's witnesses? He has none. You only have Paul claiming that Jesus spoke to him....or maybe he appeared to him [This is really hard to believe since supposedly the bright light blinded him.]

Can you see how one can be skeptical of the truth of this story?

Red Wolf

Clownboat · Post by **Clownboat** » Fri Mar 06, 2020 11:45 am

Red Wolf wrote: I have read Acts 9:1-15 many times....let me show you what I see in this passage.
And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,

2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

threatenings and slaughter Sounds like Paul was a nasty fellow willing to kill people. How could he had been a good Jew?
Here we have this nasty fellow, totally unrepentant, and he has this Damascus road experience where he wants us to believe Jesus spoke to him.
How can we believe Jesus would choose such a sinner as Paul to abolish the Law, the Sabbath, the Festivals, and Circumcision? Especially after Jesus had already told Peter that "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" [Matthew 16:19] It doesn't seem logical.

4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

You have to realize that Paul tells this story 3 times in Acts. Some contradictions arise.
In this version of Pauls story, Jesus has relatively little to say. But look what Jesus says at a later telling of this story. Acts 26 ."I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

I believe this inflation of Jesus' remarks points to the fact that Paul fabricated this whole story. In addition in Acts chapter 9, there is no mention of Jesus appearing to Paul.
But in this telling of his story Jesus appeared to him. [ I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, ] Isn't that an important part of the story that if true, would certainly have been mentioned in Acts 9?
Another small detail...in Acts 9, Paul says the men with him "stood." But later Paul says "we were all fallen to the earth" [Acts 26:14] Were they standng or did they fall to the ground?
Yet another small detail at Acts 9:7 Paul says that the men with him heard a voice but at Acts 22:9 Paul says..."but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."

The Bible has a standard for truth...""that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established."' [Mathew 18:16]
Where are Paul's witnesses? He has none. You only have Paul claiming that Jesus spoke to him....or maybe he appeared to him [This is really hard to believe since supposedly the bright light blinded him.]

Can you see how one can be skeptical of the truth of this story?

Red Wolf

We also need to ask ourselves questions like 'what is more likely'? That Mohammed flew up to heaven on a winged horse, or that the story was embellished (or even possibly 100% fiction)?

This is the question we must ask ourselves in regards to Paul meeting a resurrected Christ. The claim itself is not impressive and does not make dead bodies able to reanimate any more than it allows horses to fly.

Any person that is willing to believe the claims of Paul, should believe the claims made by Joseph Smith and his companions as those claims have actual companion witnesses and don't involve reanimated bodies. Yet most don't and that seems logically inconsistent.