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?

[Goose]

Skepticism should be the default position.

Then by default you should be skeptical that "Skepticism should be the default position."

[Zzyzx]

.
We have this tale from two thousand years ago that was evidently written by an unknown person (author of Acts) who was not a participant in the storied event and who was writing years or decades afterward.

The tale was variously copied by hand and translated through various languages. It tells of supernatural events and contains conflicting accounts, while claiming that there were witnesses (but no witness accounts exist).

What could possibly be wrong with accepting the tale (hook, line, and sinker) as absolute truth?

What could possibly be wrong with basing current life decisions on the tale being true and accurate?

[Goose]

[Replying to post 80 by Goose]

Where are you getting this idea they “left Paul at the mercy of a Christian man� (I’m presuming you mean Ananias)? The text explicitly says Ananias went and entered the house where Paul was (Acts 9:17). Paul is also recorded as saying that Ananias was a devout man according to the law and had a good reputation among the Jews in Damascus (Acts 22:12).

If you were a German, and good friends with an Nazi SS officer whose job was rooting out and rounding up Jewish people to send to the concentration camps, would you allow a Jewish person to get anywhere near your friend the Nazi SS officer while he was in a state of complete helplessness? The fact that Ananias was able to enter into the house where Paul lay and put his hands on him indicates that Paul's "companions" had left him and moved on.

You are assuming Paul’s companions felt the same way about followers of the Way as Paul did. The text says nothing about their views of followers of Jesus. The companions may have left Paul under the care of someone in Damascus and moved on once they knew Paul would be looked after. What would be the problem with that? Another possibility is that the companions of Paul remained but Ananias simply waited until the companions had left the house where they were staying before entering to see Paul.

At that point in Paul's life close friends who knew Paul well would never have allowed Ananias the Christian man to get anywhere near Paul if they could have helped it.

So many unsupported assumptions being made here. Not only are you assuming Paul’s companions felt the same way about followers of the Way as Paul but you’re also assuming here Paul’s companions knew Ananias had entered the house. You are also assuming Paul’s companions knew Ananias was a follower of Christ. Paul’s testimony in Acts suggests Ananias was a Jew who followed the Way and that he had a good reputation among the Jews in Damascus.

Prove Paul was “sick and delusional� and “close to death.� Physically incapacitated, in the sense he couldn’t see, I will grant.

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

...

3 days without water

...

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

...

Sick and delirious from the effects of dehydration, Paul was convinced after his recovery that he had met with and spoken to a man that had been executed some years earlier. That is the definition of delusional.

Okay this seems to be the crux of your argument. Paul was without food and water for three days in the desert, dehydrated, and delusional.

Firstly, the book of Acts records the chronology in such a way that Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus where he lost his sight occurs first (Acts 9:1-8). Then Paul was led by the hand to Damascus (Acts 9:8). So he wasn’t at all sick or delusional at this point Then Paul is said to have gone without food and water for three days (Acts 9:9). So even if he were severely dehydrated this would have occurred three days after his encounter with Jesus. That point alone is enough to sink your theory.

Secondly, this three days without food and water that Paul underwent appears to be an intentional fast. This was not unprecedented.

"Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish.'" - Esther 4:16:

And then in 5:1: "On the third day Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the palace, in front of the king's hall."

Thirdly, we don’t know the number of hours that may have passed as the text doesn’t say. The point is that “three days� is not necessarily three full 24 hour periods. In Jewish understanding a day begins and ends around sunset. Jews also sometimes count part of day as one “day.�

�In Jewish communal life part of a day is at times reckoned as one day� - Jewish Encyclopedia

So in the context of how Jews reckoned time “three days� could mean part of a day (regardless of how little of that day), plus one whole day (a full 24 hour period from sunset to sunset) , plus part of day (regardless of how little of that day).

We see this in the accounts regarding Jesus’ death and resurrection.

“Sir, we remember that when [Jesus] was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I am to rise again.’ Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until the third day,� – Matthew 27:63-64

Jesus dies sometime between the “ninth hour� (this is around 3 P.M. by our time reckoning) and sunset. This is the first “day� although it is only a partial “day.�

The Sabbath then begins Friday at sunset and continues until Saturday at sunset. This is a full day (a full 24 hour period) and is the second day.

The third day begins at sunset on Saturday. Jesus’ tomb is discovered empty after the Sabbath early Sunday morning (Matthew 28:1). This is another partial “day� but nonetheless counts as the third “day.�

Now let’s apply this to Paul. So what this means is that Paul may have had his last meal and drink on, say, a Saturday only, say, an hour before sunset and then eaten and drank again, say, an hour after sunset on Sunday and this, in Jewish time reckoning, could be counted as “three days.� Yet in our sense of time reckoning this may have been as little as around 26 hrs give or take an hour or two.

As for Paul spending three days in a desert climate. Firstly, Paul spent his three days without water at the house of a man named Judas who lived on Straight street in Damascus (Acts 9:11). So Paul wasn't in the desert per se. He was indoors, out of the heat.

Further, the climate of Damascus is considered to be a cold desert climate. Damascus’ daily mean temperatures range from, in the coolest month of January, 6.1 degrees C (43 F) to, in the warmest month of July, 27.3 C (81.1 F). The average daily high in the coolest month being 12.6 C (54.7 F). It can get hot in the summer months to be sure with an average of daily high of 37 C (98.6) in the hottest month of July. And I’m not sure that even that is enough to cause severe dehydration. Otherwise that the hottest months Damascus is not that bad really. Heck they even occasionally get snow.

Unless you have some way of establishing Paul was out doors in the hottest months, on the hottest days, you are very far from making a successful dehydration argument to say the least.

Let’s further consider Paul wasn’t a pasty white tourist from England. He was a local and climatized to the weather conditions.

So the bottom line here is that Paul was just as likely intentionally fasting indoor for little more than 24 hours during a time of year when the average daily temperature was only as high as 12.6 C (54.7 F). You’re making a number of unsupported assumptions to argue for severe dehydration.

Oh yeah? Then how do you know 2+2=4? How do you know that there are at least three widgets if there are four? How do you know A and ~A is a contradiction? How do you know you love your mother?

The point is, there are limits to what can be observed to be true.

The point is your claim that “the reality that we can observe is the limit of the reality that we can know� is patently false.

This is referred to as "knowledge." The limits of our "knowledge" are constantly expanding. But genuine knowledge is still limited to empirical observation. And then there are the things which can be imagined. Empirical observation plays no role in that which can be imagined. That which can only be imagined to be true is what I refer to as "make believe." Make believe, the set of things which can only be imagined, is essentially limitless.

So the fact that A and ~A is a contradiction and logically impossible to be the case is not genuine knowledge according to your logic. It’s just “make believe.�

The laws of physics derived from physical empirical observation represent the highest state of confidence that we have attained in understanding the universe we live in. The laws of physics are derived from much observation and experimentation resulting in achieving exactly the same result repeatedly and without fail. The application of these laws have led to working computers, smart phone and all of the other technology that is the hallmark of our modern technology. If the laws of physics are NOT inviolate as we now believe them to be, we are in the embarrassing position of having no idea why our technology works at all!

You’re not saying anything meaningful here. We have a good approximation of what we call natural laws. And because those laws tend to work the way we expect them to I can call my buddy on a cell phone. So what?

Ancient people on the other hand, as well as CERTAIN people today, worked on a different theory of how the universe works. Since they did not yet possess enough technology to acquire the information required, and were ignorant of the explanation for the naturally occurring natural phenomenon going on around them, lightning, thunder, earthquakes and the like, they made up answers. They presupposed solutions for which they otherwise had no means to answer. This was the "make it up and declare it to be true" method of attaining "knowledge." It causes people to imagine that they can attain heaven by committing suicide in an effort to interface with a spaceship trailing a comet.

The old ancient people wuz stupid canard. Sure they made mistakes, just as we do. What you need to do, is make an argument regarding Paul, not insinuate Paul was mistaken cuz ancient people wuz stupid.

The rest of your post is a Red Herring.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 103 by Goose]

You are assuming Paul’s companions felt the same way about followers of the Way as Paul did. The text says nothing about their views of followers of Jesus. The companions may have left Paul under the care of someone in Damascus and moved on once they knew Paul would be looked after. What would be the problem with that? Another possibility is that the companions of Paul remained but Ananias simply waited until the companions had left the house where they were staying before entering to see Paul.

According to Paul's own account Paul was involved in heavily persecuting Christians. I'm not assuming that. It's included in the text of Acts 9.

Acts 9:
[13] Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:
[14] And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.

So Ananias was well aware that Paul was involved in heavily persecuting Christians. Anyone who knew and cared about Paul, had any such caring companions been present, would not have wanted a Christian man to come anywhere near Paul, who, in his incapacitated state would have been easy prey for his enemies.

Acts 9:
8] And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.

[17] And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

Paul was unprotected. Why? Because Paul's "companions" were simply traveling companions and not his close personal friends. After they led him safely into Damascus they left him on his own to recover, or not, and continued on their way.

Again, this is Paul's version of events after his recovery. Paul was the afflicted man. After Acts 9:8 there is no further mention of his "traveling companions." And no testimony from any of the companions concerning hearing a disembodied voice. That's Paul's, the afflicted man's, version of events.

Just as Paul asserts in 1Cor.15:
[6] After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

But you see, we don't ACTUALLY have five hundred witnesses to a reanimated dead man. We certainly don't have five hundred testimonies to such an event. We have a STORY of five hundred witnesses to a reanimated dead man. Provided by a man who wasn't personally present to witness ANY of the post crucifixion appearances which the disciples of Jesus claimed occurred after his execution.

We do have several objections however. We have every reason to doubt the claim that the corpse of Jesus became reanimated and subsequently flew off up into the sky.Just as we have every reason to doubt that Paul, while in a state of incapacitation, met with and communed with A DEAD MAN!

Why do we have reason to doubt it? Because flying reanimated corpses contradict all common experience and common sense, not to mention the laws of physics. And, outside of the disciples of Jesus, no one recorded any such "event" at the time it was supposed to have occurred.

Is there any indication that the disciples may have had a motivation to simply make up such a tale?

Matthew 27:
[62] Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
[63] Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.

Well, yes actually, there is.

So many unsupported assumptions being made here. Not only are you assuming Paul’s companions felt the same way about followers of the Way as Paul but you’re also assuming here Paul’s companions knew Ananias had entered the house. You are also assuming Paul’s companions knew Ananias was a follower of Christ. Paul’s testimony in Acts suggests Ananias was a Jew who followed the Way and that he had a good reputation among the Jews in Damascus.

I see no indication that Paul's traveling companions knew that Ananias entered the house, because I see no indication that any of Paul's traveling companions were still present. As you yourself have indicated "The companions may have left Paul under the care of someone in Damascus and moved on once they knew Paul would be looked after." Hardly the actions of concerned personal friends.

Okay this seems to be the crux of your argument. Paul was without food and water for three days in the desert, dehydrated, and delusional.

Firstly, the book of Acts records the chronology in such a way that Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus where he lost his sight occurs first (Acts 9:1-8). Then Paul was led by the hand to Damascus (Acts 9:8). So he wasn’t at all sick or delusional at this point Then Paul is said to have gone without food and water for three days (Acts 9:9). So even if he were severely dehydrated this would have occurred three days after his encounter with Jesus. That point alone is enough to sink your theory.

Upon what do you base your claim that Paul "intentionally" underwent a three day fast? Because there is no indication of any such thing in the text of Acts. You wouldn't be making that up and declaring it to be true, would you?

You also keep disregarding the fact that this story represents the version of events as related by the afflicted man. Even you have conceded that Paul was incapacitated.

Okay this seems to be the crux of your argument. Paul was without food and water for three days in the desert, dehydrated, and delusional.

Firstly, the book of Acts records the chronology in such a way that Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus where he lost his sight occurs first (Acts 9:1-8). Then Paul was led by the hand to Damascus (Acts 9:8). So he wasn’t at all sick or delusional at this point Then Paul is said to have gone without food and water for three days (Acts 9:9). So even if he were severely dehydrated this would have occurred three days after his encounter with Jesus. That point alone is enough to sink your theory.

Secondly, this three days without food and water that Paul underwent appears to be an intentional fast. This was not unprecedented.

"Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish.'" - Esther 4:16:

And then in 5:1: "On the third day Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the palace, in front of the king's hall."

Thirdly, we don’t know the number of hours that may have passed as the text doesn’t say. The point is that “three days� is not necessarily three full 24 hour periods. In Jewish understanding a day begins and ends around sunset. Jews also sometimes count part of day as one “day.�

�In Jewish communal life part of a day is at times reckoned as one day� - Jewish Encyclopedia

So in the context of how Jews reckoned time “three days� could mean part of a day (regardless of how little of that day), plus one whole day (a full 24 hour period from sunset to sunset) , plus part of day (regardless of how little of that day).

We see this in the accounts regarding Jesus’ death and resurrection.

“Sir, we remember that when [Jesus] was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I am to rise again.’ Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until the third day,� – Matthew 27:63-64

Jesus dies sometime between the “ninth hour� (this is around 3 P.M. by our time reckoning) and sunset. This is the first “day� although it is only a partial “day.�

The Sabbath then begins Friday at sunset and continues until Saturday at sunset. This is a full day (a full 24 hour period) and is the second day.

The third day begins at sunset on Saturday. Jesus’ tomb is discovered empty after the Sabbath early Sunday morning (Matthew 28:1). This is another partial “day� but nonetheless counts as the third “day.�

Now let’s apply this to Paul. So what this means is that Paul may have had his last meal and drink on, say, a Saturday only, say, an hour before sunset and then eaten and drank again, say, an hour after sunset on Sunday and this, in Jewish time reckoning, could be counted as “three days.� Yet in our sense of time reckoning this may have been as little as around 26 hrs give or take an hour or two.

As for Paul spending three days in a desert climate. Firstly, Paul spent his three days without water at the house of a man named Judas who lived on Straight street in Damascus (Acts 9:11).

So Paul wasn't in the desert per se. He was indoors, out of the heat.

Further, the climate of Damascus is considered to be a cold desert climate. Damascus’ daily mean temperatures range from, in the coolest month of January, 6.1 degrees C (43 F) to, in the warmest month of July, 27.3 C (81.1 F). The average daily high in the coolest month being 12.6 C (54.7 F). It can get hot in the summer months to be sure with an average of daily high of 37C (98.6) in the hottest month of July. And I’m not sure that even that is enough to cause severe dehydration. Otherwise that the hottest months Damascus is not that bad really. Heck they even occasionally get snow.

Unless you have some way of establishing Paul was out doors in the hottest months, on the hottest days, you are very far from making a successful dehydration argument to say the least.

Let’s further consider Paul wasn’t a pasty white tourist from England. He was a local and climatized to the weather conditions.

So the bottom line here is that Paul was just as likely intentionally fasting indoor for little more than 24 hours during a time of year when the average daily temperature was only as high as 12.6 C (54.7 F). You’re making a number of unsupported assumptions to argue for severe dehydration.

"The lower elevations of Death Valley rarely get snow—only about once a decade on the valley floor—and that's usually just a dusting. In contrast, the neighboring community of Pahrump, about 60 miles away, had four to six inches of snow from the recent storm."
https://www.google.com/search?q=does+it ... e&ie=UTF-8

I wouldn't suggest going three days without drinking in death valley.

Death Valley Packing Checklist
What should I bring to Death Valley?
Water—at least one gallon per person per day.
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GG ... &gs_l=psy-

ab.3..0j0i22i30l9.5190.7594..8441...0.2..0.168.758.0j5......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i67j0i131i67j0i131j0i273.9DvC1N9POGQ&ved=0ahUKEwigpLashonoAhWykq0KHSnhABoQ4dUDCAs&uact=5

That Paul went without eating for three days is not important. Many of us have gone for three days without eating when we are feeling ill. I know I have. I daresay that you've never gone three days without drinking, however. Try it, and then report back to us.

LIVE SCIENCE
So how much water does a person need to lose before severe dehydration sets in? According to 2009 National Health Service guidelines in the United Kingdom, severe dehydration sets in when a person loses about 10 percent of their total weight to water loss — though that measurement is too difficult to use in practice.

But at up to 1.5 liters of water loss per hour on a hot day, that kind of dehydration can happen a lot faster than conventional wisdom suggests.

Once a person's water levels dip below a healthy amount, characteristic symptoms set in: thirst, dry skin, fatigue, light-headedness, dizziness, confusion, dry mouth, and speedy pulse and breathing, according to the University of Rochester Medical Center. Dehydrated children cry without spilling tears. Their eyes, cheeks and tummies become sunken; they grow listless, and their skin doesn't flatten when pinched and released.
https://www.livescience.com/32320-how-l ... water.html

WASHINGTON Sep 21, 2016
Authorities have ruled the death of an inmate at a jail run by a top law enforcement supporter of GOP nominee Donald Trump a homicide caused by “profound dehydration.�

Terrill Thomas, 38, was found dead in a Milwaukee County Jail cell on April 24, nine days after being arrested in connection with a shooting. Other inmates heard Thomas beg for water in the days before he died, the Journal Sentinel reported in July.

Inmates told the Journal Sentinel that the water in Thomas’ cell had been shut off for six days, and one inmate allegedly said to a guard, “If something happens to that man, it’s your fault.�
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dav ... 1497b5f12e

Wikipedia
Dehydration
Dehydration is thus a term that has loosely been used to mean loss of water, regardless of whether it is as water and solutes (mainly sodium) or free water. Those who refer to hypotonic dehydration therefore refer to solute loss and thus loss of intravascular volume but in the presence of exaggerated intravascular volume depletion for a given amount of total body water gain. It is true that neurological complications can occur in hypotonic and hypertonic states. The former can lead to seizures, while the latter can lead to osmotic cerebral edema upon rapid rehydration."

"For severe cases of dehydration where fainting, unconsciousness, or other severely inhibiting symptom is present (the patient is incapable of standing or thinking clearly), emergency attention is required. Fluids containing a proper balance of replacement electrolytes are given orally or intravenously with continuing assessment of electrolyte status; complete resolution is the norm in all but the most extreme cases."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehydration

The internet is absolutely loaded with information on the effects of dehydration. You're blowing against the wind here buddy.

The description of Paul's experience while traveling to Damascus is a classic description of the effects of profound dehydration. You might not like that diagnosis, but it clearly states that Paul was unable to drink for three days. Which makes Paul's state of dehydration, and the delusional state experienced by someone afflicted by profound dehydration, an undeniable fact.

It's right there in your book of revealed truths, and, although you may try mightily, you can't declare it away.

The point is your claim that “the reality that we can observe is the limit of the reality that we can know� is patently false.

The state of our knowledge is not about what we can know. Our knowledge has continuously increased over time. The state of our knowledge is about what we currently do know.

So the fact that A and ~A is a contradiction and logically impossible to be the case is not genuine knowledge according to your logic. It’s just “make believe.�

Is ~God firm and unassailable knowledge? Or approximate knowledge? Does God have infinite existence? Or did God have a beginning? Is God omnipotent, or is God fallible? Please give us the answers to these ongoing mysteries.

You’re not saying anything meaningful here. We have a good approximation of what we call natural laws. And because those laws tend to work the way we expect them to I can call my buddy on a cell phone. So what?

The point is, the obvious fact that the technology works represents undeniable proof that the science, i.e. the physics behind the science, is sound. On the other hand, when was the last time you encountered a flying reanimated corpse? In fact, when was the last time you encountered someone who lived 2,000 years ago? There is a difference between established undeniable facts and 2,000 year old ongoing empty claims, you see.

The old ancient people wuz stupid canard. Sure they made mistakes, just as we do. What you need to do, is make an argument regarding Paul, not insinuate Paul was mistaken cuz ancient people wuz stupid.

The rest of your post is a Red Herring.

No one is claiming that ancient people were stupid. Ancient people were ignorant, which is very different. We aren't smarter today than people were 2,000 years ago. But we today have the advantage of an additional 2,000 years of knowledge to draw from.

Individuals steadfastly refusing to accept the fruit of those 2,000 years of additional accumulation of knowledge and choosing instead to cling to ancient make believe born from a state of ignorance, now THAT'S stupid.

[Goose]

There are a number of Red Herrings in your last post which I’m just simply snipping out. We are talking about Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus, let’s try to stay on topic.

[Replying to post 103 by Goose]

You are assuming Paul’s companions felt the same way about followers of the Way as Paul did. The text says nothing about their views of followers of Jesus. The companions may have left Paul under the care of someone in Damascus and moved on once they knew Paul would be looked after. What would be the problem with that? Another possibility is that the companions of Paul remained but Ananias simply waited until the companions had left the house where they were staying before entering to see Paul.

According to Paul's own account Paul was involved in heavily persecuting Christians. I'm not assuming that. It's included in the text of Acts 9.

Irrelevant to the point being made about Paul’s companions. We know Paul persecuted the church.

Acts 9:
[13] Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:
[14] And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.

So Ananias was well aware that Paul was involved in heavily persecuting Christians. Anyone who knew and cared about Paul, had any such caring companions been present, would not have wanted a Christian man to come anywhere near Paul, who, in his incapacitated state would have been easy prey for his enemies.

Still assuming Paul’s companions felt the same way about followers of the Way as Paul. Still assuming Paul’s companions were present. Still assuming Paul’s companions knew Ananias was a follower of the Way. Assumption after assumption.

Acts 9:
8] And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.

Exactly. Paul couldn’t see, that was his “affliction� as you keep saying. His companions led him by the hand to Damascus which implies Paul was ambulatory. Remember that, Paul was on his own feet and walked the rest of the way to Damascus led by his companions. Hardly something someone who was severely dehydrated let alone near death would be capable of doing.

[17] And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

Paul was unprotected. Why? Because Paul's "companions" were simply traveling companions and not his close personal friends. After they led him safely into Damascus they left him on his own to recover, or not, and continued on their way.

What difference does it make if they were close friends of Paul or not? They could have been close friends, they could have been strangers travelling together for safety. It’s irrelevant. There was plenty of time between the moment of the experience with the risen Lord on the road and the rest of the trip to Damascus for Paul’s companions to tell Paul about their own experience. You really think the topic just didn’t come up? Remember Paul was blind, not deaf. If that wasn’t enough there’s no reason to think his companions could not have relayed their experience to Judas, the owner of the home where Paul was staying in Damascus, who in turn could have relayed the experiences of the companions to Paul. In short, plenty of time and opportunities for Paul to learn about the experiences of his travel companions.

Again, this is Paul's version of events after his recovery. Paul was the afflicted man. After Acts 9:8 there is no further mention of his "traveling companions." And no testimony from any of the companions concerning hearing a disembodied voice. That's Paul's, the afflicted man's, version of events.

The “afflicted man� who managed to walk the rest of the way to Damascus. By Paul’s own testimony, as recorded by Luke, he was blind from the light (Acts 22:11). Paul says nothing about being afflicted.

So many unsupported assumptions being made here. Not only are you assuming Paul’s companions felt the same way about followers of the Way as Paul but you’re also assuming here Paul’s companions knew Ananias had entered the house. You are also assuming Paul’s companions knew Ananias was a follower of Christ. Paul’s testimony in Acts suggests Ananias was a Jew who followed the Way and that he had a good reputation among the Jews in Damascus.

I see no indication that Paul's traveling companions knew that Ananias entered the house, because I see no indication that any of Paul's traveling companions were still present. As you yourself have indicated "The companions may have left Paul under the care of someone in Damascus and moved on once they knew Paul would be looked after." Hardly the actions of concerned personal friends.

You’re fixated on the “close personal friends� irrelevancy. For the life of me I don’t understand why you think this is so important. We don’t know the nature of the relationship between Paul and his travel companions but whatever they were to Paul they didn’t leave Paul on the road. They led him by the hand all the way to Damascus for crying out loud. That seems like the action of someone who cared. Presumably they took Paul to the house of Judas where he was stayed.

Okay this seems to be the crux of your argument. Paul was without food and water for three days in the desert, dehydrated, and delusional.

Firstly, the book of Acts records the chronology in such a way that Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus where he lost his sight occurs first (Acts 9:1-8). Then Paul was led by the hand to Damascus (Acts 9:8). So he wasn’t at all sick or delusional at this point Then Paul is said to have gone without food and water for three days (Acts 9:9). So even if he were severely dehydrated this would have occurred three days after his encounter with Jesus. That point alone is enough to sink your theory.

Upon what do you base your claim that Paul "intentionally" underwent a three day fast? Because there is no indication of any such thing in the text of Acts. You wouldn't be making that up and declaring it to be true, would you?

I gave the argument for why this was an intentional fast. You ignored that argument entirely and started rambling on about Death Valley.

You also keep disregarding the fact that this story represents the version of events as related by the afflicted man. Even you have conceded that Paul was incapacitated.

I conceded he was incapacitated in as much as he was blind. I’ve not conceded he was “afflicted� beyond that.

Okay this seems to be the crux of your argument. Paul was without food and water for three days in the desert, dehydrated, and delusional.

Firstly, the book of Acts records the chronology in such a way that Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus where he lost his sight occurs first (Acts 9:1-8). Then Paul was led by the hand to Damascus (Acts 9:8). So he wasn’t at all sick or delusional at this point Then Paul is said to have gone without food and water for three days (Acts 9:9). So even if he were severely dehydrated this would have occurred three days after his encounter with Jesus. That point alone is enough to sink your theory.

Secondly, this three days without food and water that Paul underwent appears to be an intentional fast. This was not unprecedented.

"Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish.'" - Esther 4:16:

And then in 5:1: "On the third day Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the palace, in front of the king's hall."

Thirdly, we don’t know the number of hours that may have passed as the text doesn’t say. The point is that “three days� is not necessarily three full 24 hour periods. In Jewish understanding a day begins and ends around sunset. Jews also sometimes count part of day as one “day.�

�In Jewish communal life part of a day is at times reckoned as one day� - Jewish Encyclopedia

So in the context of how Jews reckoned time “three days� could mean part of a day (regardless of how little of that day), plus one whole day (a full 24 hour period from sunset to sunset) , plus part of day (regardless of how little of that day).

We see this in the accounts regarding Jesus’ death and resurrection.

“Sir, we remember that when [Jesus] was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I am to rise again.’ Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until the third day,� – Matthew 27:63-64

Jesus dies sometime between the “ninth hour� (this is around 3 P.M. by our time reckoning) and sunset. This is the first “day� although it is only a partial “day.�

The Sabbath then begins Friday at sunset and continues until Saturday at sunset. This is a full day (a full 24 hour period) and is the second day.

The third day begins at sunset on Saturday. Jesus’ tomb is discovered empty after the Sabbath early Sunday morning (Matthew 28:1). This is another partial “day� but nonetheless counts as the third “day.�

Now let’s apply this to Paul. So what this means is that Paul may have had his last meal and drink on, say, a Saturday only, say, an hour before sunset and then eaten and drank again, say, an hour after sunset on Sunday and this, in Jewish time reckoning, could be counted as “three days.� Yet in our sense of time reckoning this may have been as little as around 26 hrs give or take an hour or two.

As for Paul spending three days in a desert climate. Firstly, Paul spent his three days without water at the house of a man named Judas who lived on Straight street in Damascus (Acts 9:11).

So Paul wasn't in the desert per se. He was indoors, out of the heat.

Further, the climate of Damascus is considered to be a cold desert climate. Damascus’ daily mean temperatures range from, in the coolest month of January, 6.1 degrees C (43 F) to, in the warmest month of July, 27.3 C (81.1 F). The average daily high in the coolest month being 12.6 C (54.7 F). It can get hot in the summer months to be sure with an average of daily high of 37C (98.6) in the hottest month of July. And I’m not sure that even that is enough to cause severe dehydration. Otherwise that the hottest months Damascus is not that bad really. Heck they even occasionally get snow.

Unless you have some way of establishing Paul was out doors in the hottest months, on the hottest days, you are very far from making a successful dehydration argument to say the least.

Let’s further consider Paul wasn’t a pasty white tourist from England. He was a local and climatized to the weather conditions.

So the bottom line here is that Paul was just as likely intentionally fasting indoor for little more than 24 hours during a time of year when the average daily temperature was only as high as 12.6 C (54.7 F). You’re making a number of unsupported assumptions to argue for severe dehydration.

"The lower elevations of Death Valley rarely get snow—only about once a decade on the valley floor—and that's usually just a dusting. In contrast, the neighboring community of Pahrump, about 60 miles away, had four to six inches of snow from the recent storm."
https://www.google.com/search?q=does+it ... e&ie=UTF-8

You ignored all the arguments.

I wouldn't suggest going three days without drinking in death valley.

You ignored every argument I made. Arguments which undermine, if not outright falsify, this whole idea Paul was without water for three whole days in a hot climate.

I daresay that you've never gone three days without drinking, however. Try it, and then report back to us.

It wasn’t three literal 24 hour days. See the arguments above you ignored.

But at up to 1.5 liters of water loss per hour on a hot day, that kind of dehydration can happen a lot faster than conventional wisdom suggests.

It may have only been around 6 - 12 degrees Celsius in Damascus. Hardly a hot day. See my arguments above which you ignored.

The internet is absolutely loaded with information on the effects of dehydration. You're blowing against the wind here buddy.

So say the guy assuming Paul was dehydrated. You need to address my arguments, not just repeat yourself. Paul was fasting, it wasn’t a literal three 24 hr days, and it may not have been very hot in Damascus at the time. Your argument implies first century Jews went around dehydrating themselves. That’s ridiculous.

The description of Paul's experience while traveling to Damascus is a classic description of the effects of profound dehydration.

You really think Paul and his companions would venture a trip to Damascus and not take the proper provisions such water? These guys weren’t tourists. There’s no reason at all to think Paul was without water during the journey let alone severally dehydrated.

You might not like that diagnosis, but it clearly states that Paul was unable to drink for three days.

The text doesn’t say Paul was “unable� to drink for three days. You made that bit up.

Which makes Paul's state of dehydration, and the delusional state experienced by someone afflicted by profound dehydration, an undeniable fact.

�Undeniable fact�? Easily refuted, see my arguments above which you ignored.

[Yahwehismywitness]

Paul was a murderer how many normal people would want his company . The answer is simple ones as violent as he was. Ananias was a Sadducee, high priest authority Acts 9:14. A. C. Hervey described High Pries Ananias as "a violent, haughty, gluttonous, and rapacious man

Rapacious aggressively greedy or grasping.

So it sounds like people Paul was used to being around said he worked for them Acts 26:12 They were not Christians did not believe in Resurrection , spirits or angels. Acts 23:8 Therefore it is impossible to accept Anansis had Yahweh's power to give Holy Spirit that is abomination to think a sinful man can do that and no where in the bible does anyone except Yahweh does that after baptism with water.

Again, Sadducees did animal sacrifices not baptisms. Saul pushed James the Just down temple steps for suggesting water baptism to the Sadducees.

Justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord. Proverbs 17:15
The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, but the prayer of the upright is acceptable to him. Proverbs 15:8
There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers. Proverbs 6:16-19
Jesus said to beware of the leaven of Pharisees and Sadducees. Matthew 16:6

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 105 by Goose]

There are a number of Red Herrings in your last post which I’m just simply snipping out. We are talking about Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus, let’s try to stay on topic.

Red herrings? You mean like this one?

Do you therefore deny the accuracy of the Bible? Do you deny that the Bible represents the Word of God?

Or this one?

Does God have infinite existence? Or did God have a beginning? Is God omnipotent, or is God fallible? Please give us the answers to these ongoing mysteries.

These "Red Herrings" go to the very heart of your belief system. Dodging them is at the very heart of the fallacy that is Christian belief.

Irrelevant to the point being made about Paul’s companions. We know Paul persecuted the church.

According to Acts, the Christian man Ananias was also aware that Paul persecuted Christians. Friends of Paul's would certainly have known it as well. And yet Paul's companions on the road to Damascus left Paul in a state of defenselessness and, apparently, went about their business.

Still assuming Paul’s companions felt the same way about followers of the Way as Paul. Still assuming Paul’s companions were present. Still assuming Paul’s companions knew Ananias was a follower of the Way. Assumption after assumption.

You mean like assuming that not eating or drinking for three days was the result of an intentional decision on Paul's part to fast, despite the fact that this allegation is based on NO such indication in the text?

The text does indicate that Ananias went to the house where Paul was and put his hands on him. There is no indication in the text that Ananias was in any way obstructed from doing this. There is no indication in the text that any of Paul's traveling companions were present when Ananias came to the house where Paul was residing. AS a result, we have no reason to suppose, and every reason to conclude, that Paul was NOT traveling with close personal friends.

Exactly. Paul couldn’t see, that was his “affliction� as you keep saying. His companions led him by the hand to Damascus which implies Paul was ambulatory. Remember that, Paul was on his own feet and walked the rest of the way to Damascus led by his companions. Hardly something someone who was severely dehydrated let alone near death would be capable of doing.

The alternative was to be left to die. But Paul didn't die. He managed to make it into the city. And he, ultimately, recovered.

Presumably, Paul's traveling companions had water, which they would have shared with Paul. Paul's inability to drink is an indication that Paul had a physical problem. There are numerous possibilities. More on this subject later in this post.

What difference does it make if they were close friends of Paul or not? They could have been close friends, they could have been strangers travelling together for safety.

That the "companions" were simply a group of strangers traveling together for safety has been my point all along. You are attempting to indicate that Paul got his version of events from his traveling companions. But after leading Paul into the city, the traveling companions were out of the story. So we are left with Paul's version of events, based on what he understood and remembered after he had recovered. But Paul was suffering from severe dehydration. His memory, and therefore his version of events, is colored by his delusional condition.

The “afflicted man� who managed to walk the rest of the way to Damascus. By Paul’s own testimony, as recorded by Luke, he was blind from the light (Acts 22:11). Paul says nothing about being afflicted.

Acts specifically indicates that Paul did not drink for three days. That indicates, without question, that Paul was "afflicted" with severe dehydration.

You’re fixated on the “close personal friends� irrelevancy. For the life of me I don’t understand why you think this is so important. We don’t know the nature of the relationship between Paul and his travel companions but whatever they were to Paul they didn’t leave Paul on the road. They led him by the hand all the way to Damascus for crying out loud. That seems like the action of someone who cared. Presumably they took Paul to the house of Judas where he was stayed.

From post # 77 of this string
All that is relevant is that Paul’s companions experienced something.

You keep attempting to dictate relevancy. But as it has been shown, Paul's companions left no details about what occurred. When Paul became incapacitated, his companions helped him into the city. After which they disappear from the story entirely. We are left with Paul's impression of what occurred during his illness. But Paul was the stricken man! His impression is colored by his delirium. How do we know that? Because he was hallucinating!

I gave the argument for why this was an intentional fast.

Your argument excludes the detail that no such intentional fast is mentioned in Acts. Not that it matters. Intentional or not, going for an extended period without drinking causes dehydration. Severe dehydration causes hallucinations. Such as seeing dead people.

You ignored that argument entirely and started rambling on about Death Valley.

You indicated that it occasionally snows in and around Damascus. It also occasionally snows in and around Death Valley. Death valley is perfectly capable of severely dehydrating and killing a person pretty quickly. Hence the name.

I conceded he was incapacitated in as much as he was blind. I’ve not conceded he was “afflicted� beyond that.

We don't need you to affirm or concede anything. We all have access to the text of Acts, and Acts tells us specifically that Paul went three days without drinking. Paul was therefore severely dehydrated. One of the symptoms of severe dehydration is hallucinations. Paul believed after his recovery that he met with and spoke to a man that had been dead for several years.

You ignored all the arguments.

I didn't ignore them. I simply didn't respond to your liking.

Speaking of responding... how about YOU responding. Has God existed eternally, or did God have a beginning? Is God omnipotent, or is God fallible? Is the Bible accurate, or is the Bible filled with various tall tales and untruths?

Here is another one. Provide the testimony of ANY of the five hundred "brethern" Paul asserts witnessed the risen Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15:6.

Enquiring minds want to know.

It wasn’t three literal 24 hour days. See the arguments above you ignored.

Acts SAYS that Paul went three days without eating or drinking. But going even 24 hours without drinking in an arid climate can begin to bring on the symptoms of dehydration.

It may have only been around 6 - 12 degrees Celsius in Damascus. Hardly a hot day. See my arguments above which you ignored.

Acts doesn't specify the season. It does indicate the effect that traveling had during this particular journey, however.

So say the guy assuming Paul was dehydrated. You need to address my arguments, not just repeat yourself. Paul was fasting, it wasn’t a literal three 24 hr days, and it may not have been very hot in Damascus at the time. Your argument implies first century Jews went around dehydrating themselves. That’s ridiculous.

Again I am assuming NOTHING. It's right there in Acts 9.
[9] And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.

Paul went three days without drinking. Paul was clinically dehydrated.

You really think Paul and his companions would venture a trip to Damascus and not take the proper provisions such water? These guys weren’t tourists. There’s no reason at all to think Paul was without water during the journey let alone severally dehydrated.

No. I suppose that they were carrying water. But for some reason Paul was unable to eat or drink. Acts doesn't specify why, but there are physical ailments that cause an inability to swallow. It's known medically as dysphagia.

Wikipedia
Dysphagia
Dysphagia is difficulty in swallowing.[1][2] Although classified under "symptoms and signs" in ICD-10,[3] in some contexts it is classified as a condition in its own right.[4][5][6]

It may be a sensation that suggests difficulty in the passage of solids or liquids from the mouth to the stomach,[7] a lack of pharyngeal sensation or various other inadequacies of the swallowing mechanism. Dysphagia is distinguished from other symptoms including odynophagia, which is defined as painful swallowing,[8] and globus, which is the sensation of a lump in the throat. A person can have dysphagia without odynophagia (dysfunction without pain), odynophagia without dysphagia (pain without dysfunction) or both together. A psychogenic dysphagia is known as phagophobia.

Signs and symptoms
Some patients have limited awareness of their dysphagia, so lack of the symptom does not exclude an underlying disease.[9] When dysphagia goes undiagnosed or untreated, patients are at a high risk of pulmonary aspiration and subsequent aspiration pneumonia secondary to food or liquids going the wrong way into the lungs. Some people present with "silent aspiration" and do not cough or show outward signs of aspiration. Undiagnosed dysphagia can also result in dehydration, malnutrition, and kidney failure.

Some signs and symptoms of oropharyngeal dysphagia include difficulty controlling food in the mouth, inability to control food or saliva in the mouth, difficulty initiating a swallow, coughing, choking, frequent pneumonia, unexplained weight loss, gurgly or wet voice after swallowing, nasal regurgitation, and dysphagia (patient complaint of swallowing difficulty).[9] When asked where the food is getting stuck, patients will often point to the cervical (neck) region as the site of the obstruction. The actual site of obstruction is always at or below the level at which the level of obstruction is perceived.

The most common symptom of esophageal dysphagia is the inability to swallow solid food, which the patient will describe as 'becoming stuck' or 'held up' before it either passes into the stomach or is regurgitated. Pain on swallowing or odynophagia is a distinctive symptom that can be highly indicative of carcinoma, although it also has numerous other causes that are not related to cancer.

Achalasia is a major exception to usual pattern of dysphagia in that swallowing of fluid tends to cause more difficulty than swallowing solids. In achalasia, there is idiopathic destruction of parasympathetic ganglia of the Auerbach's (Myenteric) plexus of the entire esophagus, which results in functional narrowing of the lower esophagus, and peristaltic failure throughout its length.

Complications
Complications of dysphagia may include aspiration, pneumonia, dehydration, and weight loss.

Differential diagnosis
All causes of dysphagia are considered as differential diagnoses. Some common ones are:

Esophageal atresia
Paterson-Kelly syndrome
Zenker's diverticulum
Esophageal varices
Benign strictures
Achalasia
Esophagial diverticula
Scleroderma
Diffuse esophageal spasm
Polymyositis
Webs and rings
Esophageal cancer
Eosinophilic esophagitis
Hiatus hernia, especially paraesophageal type
Dysphagia lusoria
Stroke
Fahr's disease
Wernicke encephalopathy
Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease
Parkinson's disease
Multiple sclerosis
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysphagia

[JehovahsWitness]

Paul went three days without drinking. Paul was clinically dehydrated.

HOW COULD PAUL HAVE SURVIVED THREE DAYS WITHOUT WATER?

ACTS 9:9

For three days he [Saul] did not see anything, and he neither ate nor drank.

I haven' t been following the discussion so I dont know what point is being made regarding the possible degree of dehydrated Paul/Saul may have suffered from during his fast (most if us are in fact slightly dehydrated since few of actually drink the 6-8 glasses of water a day recommended), but if the narrator is counting days as was the Hebrew custom "three days" could mean any part of three consecutive days which could amount to as little as 25/26 hours. Hardly enough to put someone at the brink of death.

"A short time in the morning of the seventh day counted as the seventh day; circumcision takes place on the eighth day, even though, of the first day only a few minutes remained after the birth of the child, these being counted as one day." -- The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol.4, pg.474,

“In Jewish communal life part of a day is at times reckoned as one day; e.g., the day of the funeral, even when the latter takes place late in the afternoon, is counted as the first of the seven days of mourning.� idem

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

...Paul's companions ...left Paul in a state of defenselessness and, apparently, went about their business.

We dont know if Pauls travelling companions were friends or not, they could have just been hired hands for all we know. Even if they were his accomplises, and fellow zealots, they could. We just dont have that kind of detail, possibly because the narrator didn't see such details as essential to the narrative (and I can't say I disagree).

What we do know is the account says Saul/Paul was in the house (and presumably under the care of) one Judas of Demascus and hardly abandoned to wander blind and disorientated through the city streets.

It seems his "conversion" was on the road to Demascus, so at the very least we can imagine, if Sauls companions were indeed fellow zealots unaffected by what happened to them on the road, its unlikely he wanted to sit down with them and work out a contingency plan of how they would continue their search for Christians given this new set of circumstances. The account says Saul was praying and had gone without food, so it seems fair to presume he Saul wanted a degree of solitude. I imagine then he, at the very least told his companions he wished to be alone.

If the host had enough room for guests (and from the narrative guests of some social standing) , its not unreasonable to assume the house was large enough for Saul to be accorded a measure of solitude, probably having his own room. Whether his companions were in the house or left the next day or indeed where sitting starring at him occassionally asking him if he's sure he didnt want a sandwich, is as I said, pretty irrelevant.

According to Acts, the Christian man Ananias was also aware that Paul persecuted Christians. Friends of Paul's would certainly have known it as well. And yet Paul's companions ...left Paul in a state of defenselessness and, apparently, went about their business.

I dont know if this has been written to suggest that Christians somehow represented a threat to Paul' security (blind or sighted) but if so, that would be false.

There is nothing in scripture to suggest the Christian community struck back in some kind of "guerrilla warfare", attacking their attackers. Paul represented a threat to the Christians but the Christians represented no threat to Paul. The Christian response to persecution and arrest was either to lie low or to flee, they were decidedly non violent, so an armed guard at the door would not have been necessary even if the Christians did know Paul was in town (which is unlikely).




JW

[marco]

What happened to Paul on the road to Damascus?

We cannot know. We can make a modern medical diagnosis but that seems a waste of breath. It would have been useful to have a full account by the victim himself.

However, since the NT is alive with metaphor and symbol it might be correct to treat "blindness" as ignorance of faith and truth. When he realised that Christians were on to something, he was cured of his blindness. The Amazing Grace pop song has :


"I once was lost, but now am found;
Was blind, but now I see."


Perhaps Paul's "experience" inspired John Newton. But we've moved on a lot from donkey rides to Damascus and heavenly choirs giving the address of some street, then allowing Paul to hobble or ride for days to find that heavenly address. It all sounds so silly to modern ears. A religious treasure hunt!