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?

[Danmark]

For reasons aforementioned, epilepsy is difficult to diagnose. https://www.epilepsysociety.org.uk/how- ... ml6lkNlCqA

Another way to put this is that there are a variety of other phenomena that can be mistaken for epilepsy. The ultimate point for this argument is the label you give Saul's medical/physiological experience is not as important as the high probability it was physiological, not metaphysical.

[Goose]

The article is critical of the epilepsy diagnosis based on details described in the book of Acts.

Right because the argument that Paul had an attack of temporal lobe epilepsy on the road to Damascus is based on the details in Acts. Those same details falsify that argument.

However, the book of Acts has not been demonstrated to be a reliable source.

If that's your counter argument then it follows you can't make any arguments about what happened to Paul on the road to Damascus from Acts since it hasn't been demonstrated to be reliable.

The Acts of the Apostles is a book written in support of Paul's Christianity.

That’s an odd thing to say considering almost half of Acts is dedicated to the exploits of Peter, the guy often cited by sceptics as being at odds with Paul.

It is hardly a neutral account, and therefore unreliable.

Virtually every account from antiquity can be said to be hardly neutral therefore virtually every account from antiquity is unreliable by your reasoning here. Great, let’s start throwing out our history books.

However Christian apologists use it to make their claims. The 'counter' simply, for the sake of argument, takes those details and holds the apologist to account for them.

And so you should.

So both arguments hold.

Okay, so you agree the Christian argument holds.

It is an unreliable source, but even if we assume reliability, 'those facts' claimed lead to a conclusion that contradicts the theme Acts pushes, that Paul had a miraculous encounter with Jesus.

Well that’s just it, “those facts� falsify the epileptic explanation of Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus. See the article published in the Journal of Neurology in in this post by Dr. Brorson and Brewer. Which is the conversation you jumped in on here.

--

It wasn’t two full days. And you’ve already conceded Paul and his companions would have had water with them.

So, you're dismissing Acts 9:9 And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank?

No, not dismissing it all. See this post for the argument.

Thank you for reminding me of this argument:

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.

Two problems with this argument. The minor first, you simply ASSUME Paul was not delusional when he first lost his sight.

It’s not an assumption. It’s an inference.

• 1. If Paul was so severely dehydrated that he was at the point of hallucinating, then Paul was so severely dehydrated he could not continue the journey to Damascus.
  
  2. Paul was not so severely dehydrated he could not continue the journey to Damascus.
  
  3. Therefore, Paul was not so severely dehydrated that he was at the point of hallucinating. (via Modus Tollens)

It makes more sense that he was either delusional or non communicative from the moment of the initial event and that was so traumatic he could neither eat nor drink for the reported three days.

Maybe to you. But to me I think it makes more sense, given the context of Paul being a devout religious Jew who thought he had just encountered the Lord, that this “three days� without food and drink is better explained as an intentional fast.

THEN, after all of that, he wakes and recounts his dreams/delusions/hallucinations which are taken by some as evidence of a 'divine revelation.' In other words, the entire Pauline story is based on the initial ravings of someone reporting only after he'd passed out, lost his sight, and could neither eat nor drink for 3 days.

The text says nothing about Paul passing out. In fact it says that after his experience Paul’s companions led him by the hand to Damascus’ where he was said to be praying in the house of Judas. Paul seems to have been quite lucid through the whole experience.

--

If your argument is accompanied by empirical evidence that actually demonstrates Paul could not have been epileptic, then I presume it would be fair to consider.

It’s the same kind of evidence you think supports the epilepsy argument. Remember you don’t have empirical evidence that Paul was epileptic. You have no medical records, no tests have been performed, no doctor met Paul and made the diagnosis. What you have is circumstantial evidence taken from his letters and used to make the inference that Paul was epileptic. So it’s only fair that I can use that same kind of circumstantial evidence to falsify the inference that Paul was epileptic.

• 1. The symptoms of epilepsy were described in detail in the New Testament (Mark 9:17-29). (premise)
  
  2. These epileptic symptoms were associated with demonic influence and demonic possession (Mark 9:17-29, Matthew 17:14-20, Luke 9:42).(premise)
  
  3. Those who were thought by the church to be under the influence or possessed by a demon would not be accepted as an apostle in the early church (1 Cor 10:20-21; 2 Cor 11:12-15; 1 Tim 4:10). (premise)
  
  4. Paul was a accepted as an apostle by the early church (Romans 1:1, 11:13; 1 Cor 15:9; Gal 2:9) (premise)
  
  5. If Paul did display the symptoms of epilepsy, then Paul would not be accepted as an apostle by the early church. (premise)
  
  6. Paul did not display the symptoms of epilepsy. (from 4&5 via Modus Tollens)
  
  7. If Paul did not display the symptoms of epilepsy, then Paul was not epileptic. (premise).
  
  8. Therefore, Paul was not epileptic. (from 6&7 via Modus Ponens)

You are greatly over simplifying the symptoms of epilepsy. Epilepsy isn't one disease or condition. There are many kinds of epilepsy with different symptoms and patterns. Your own source refers to the the fact an individual "MAY" suffer from the list of symptoms.

This only makes the epileptic diagnosis argument harder to sustain.

Regardless, the symptoms may frequently be in the eye and ear of the beholder.

Identical seizure conduct may be interpreted by one as 'demonic possession' and by another as religious ecstasy or delusion.
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pr ... sm/5956982

The author in that link describes her first seizure.

�I didn’t feel any of this the first time I had a seizure. I was on a plane, alone and exhausted, and the first awareness I had that I was seizing was the feeling that my mind had dropped into a black hole—a vacuum without language. I grasped blindly in that darkness for a way to articulate what I was feeling, but as language came back, I was suddenly locked in tiny, tight convulsions, unable to breathe or move, ‘knowing’ that unless I could get someone to notice me, I would die. Somehow I managed to hurl myself across the passenger row of seats, onto the lap of a male passenger, who’d been absorbed in his iPad the whole time. Knowing I’d been seen, that I was safe, I let go of consciousness.�

That seems very much like the kind of seizure experience that would have caused the early church to think Paul was demon possessed if Paul had displayed symptoms like this.

[Goose]

[Replying to post 154 by Goose]

Premise 2 implies epileptic symptoms would always be associated with demonic possession.

They would be in the early Christian church. I provided supporting evidence from three sources that held that view.

This has not been historically demonstrated.

It was the prevailing view throughout antiquity.

• Ancient descriptions and concepts
  
  The earliest detailed account of epilepsy is in the British Museum, London. It is part of a Babylonian text on medicine, Sakikku [All diseases], which was written over 3000 years ago, i.e. before 1000 BC. I have had the privilege of working with a Babylonian scholar, James Kinnier Wilson, on the translation of this text (Figure 1.1) (7). The Babylonians were keen observers of clinical phenomena and provide remarkable descriptions of many of the seizure types (miqtu) that we recognize today, including what we would call tonic clonic seizures, absences, drop attacks, simple and complex partial seizures and even focal motor (Jacksonian) or gelastic attacks. They also understood some aspects of prognosis, including death in status as well as post-ictal phenomena. The Babylonians had no concept of pathology, however, and each seizure type was associated with invasion of the body by a particular named evil spirit. Thus treatment was not medical but spiritual.
  
  This supernatural view has dominated thinking about epilepsy until quite recently and even now remains a deeply rooted negative social influence in some parts of the world. It was, however, unsuccessfully challenged by the School of Hippocrates in 5th-century BC Greece, which �rst suggested that the brain was the seat of this disorder, as it was the mediator also of the intellect, behaviour and the emotions. In a famous text Hippocrates stated: “I do not believe that the Sacred Disease is any more divine than any other disease but, on the contrary, has speci�c characteristics and a de�nite cause. Nevertheless because it is completely different from other diseases it has been regarded as a divine visitation by those who, being only human, view it with ignorance and astonishment. ... The brain is the seat of this disease, as it is of other very violent diseases� (8). Interestingly, Hippocrates also had some notion that epilepsy could become chronic and intractable if not treated early and effectively, although it is not clear exactly what treatments he had in mind: “Moreover it can be cured no less than other diseases so long as it has not become inveterate and too powerful for the drugs which are given. When the malady becomes chronic, it becomes incurable.�
  
  Unfortunately the Hippocratic concept of a treatable brain disorder had little influence on the prevailing supernatural view, as is well described in the scholarly history of epilepsy from the Greeks to the late 19th century by Temkin (9). - Atlas: Epilepsy Care In The World 2005, The World Health Organization, pg. 16

If Paul's epileptic symptoms manifested in such a way that they were conducive to and consistent with the theology of early Christianity, then the church would not necessarily have presumed he was possessed by a demon.

You are arguing in a circle here. You are assuming in the antecedant your conclusion that Paul had epilepsy. What evidence is there to support the antecedent here?

So, your argument does not conclusively falsify the epilepsy hypothesis.

I think it does. At least your counter doesn’t prevent the conclusion.

[Danmark]

Goose:

Okay, so you agree the Christian argument holds..

This is disingenuous, at best. You know full well I was speaking of the two arguments you claimed you had disproved. Willfully misrepresenting what another writes demonstrates you have no effective argument to make.

[Goose]

This is disingenuous, at best. You know full well I was speaking of the two arguments you claimed you had disproved.

Easy now. I didn’t know that from your comment. Your comment seemed to imply you were saying both the Christian argument and the counter argument holds.

The Acts of the Apostles is a book written in support of Paul's Christianity. It is hardly a neutral account, and therefore unreliable. However Christian apologists use it to make their claims. The 'counter' simply, for the sake of argument, takes those details and holds the apologist to account for them. So both arguments hold. It is an unreliable source, but even if we assume reliability, 'those facts' claimed lead to a conclusion that contradicts the theme Acts pushes, that Paul had a miraculous encounter with Jesus.

You can see where your wording here in bold implied on the one hand the Christian argument, on the other hand the counter argument, and that BOTH arguments hold. You can at least understand the confusion given how you worded this, can’t you?

Willfully misrepresenting what another writes demonstrates you have no effective argument to make.

That’s right, don’t bother clarifying the position. Just accuse the opponent of willful misrepresentation and claim it demonstrates they have no effective argument. What a convenient way to avoid responding to the arguments and simultaneously imply a hollow victory.

[Yahwehismywitness]

Paul had a miraculous encounter with Jesus.

It is unbelievable to many people Jesus said he would be in heaven until he returned and all eyes would see his return. Revelation 1:7, Matthew 24:26, Acts 1:9-11, Matthew 24:30, Matthew 25:31, Matthew 16:27, 2 Peter 3:10, John 14:1-3

Option for Saul(Faith without works is dead) :Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.� Acts 2:38

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. John 14:26

Others are trying to make explanation of what happened and dehydration is very reasonable explanation or he was lying

[Zzyzx]

.

Others are trying to make explanation of what happened and dehydration is very reasonable explanation or he was lying

Another very real possibility is that the writer of Acts (whoever he was) made up or greatly embellished the story. Paul/Saul said VERY little about it in his writings, but Acts told the story (years or decades later). It could have been a big sales pitch for the new splinter-group religion that was being developed in competition with Judaism.

[Yahwehismywitness]

Another very real possibility is that the writer of Acts (whoever he was) made up or greatly embellished the story. Paul/Saul said VERY little about it in his writings, but Acts told the story (years or decades later). It could have been a big sales pitch for the new splinter-group religion that was being developed in competition with Judaism.

I have been reading 1000 page book by Robert Eiseman on James the Bishop mentioned in Acts. By reading one could assume a certain fear of Saul/Paul even after his dehydration trauma. Book links him to Herodians he admitted Romans 16:11 writes: “Salute Greet Herodion, my kinsman, he had political connections to same people that stoned and killed opposition. After his arrest Saulus/Paulus was not merely a plebian rabbi. He had political clout. When Saul/Paul is arrested, the commander assigns, get this, 470 men to guard Paul’s life!

“Get ready a detachment of two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen and two hundred spearmen to go to Caesarea at nine tonight. 24 Provide horses for Paul so that he may be taken safely to Governor Felix.� (Acts 23:23)

200 soliders
70 horsemen
200 spearmen

Yes, Paul was a Roman citizen, but Roman citizen’s didn’t normally receive 470 body guards. Saul/Paul was being protected because he was connected to the family of Herod Agrippa.

Normal folks probably frightened

[Clownboat]

For all who have been following this thread, there is something Polonius pointed out that I think needs to be repeated:

"In none of Paul's epistles (53-64 AD)does he say anything about a conversion experience on the road to Damascus.

This story was added to scripture in Acts of the Apostles written about 80 AD long after Paul's death."

These facts don't tell us if the claim is true or not, but they should not be ignored.
I personally find it odd that Paul would not have provided a detailed account of meeting the risen Christ.

Instead we get from Paul:
1 Corinthians 15:8 â–º
and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Galatians 1:15-16 â–º
But when God, who set me apart from my mother's womb and called me by his grace, was pleased (16) to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.

Paul claims that Jesus was revealed/appeared to him.
Acts seems to invent the story (after Paul was dead conveniently) and supplies us with the details.
Make of that what you will...

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 162 by Goose]

As was previously indicated by a few others in this thread, epilepsy manifests through a variety of different symptoms. Not every person with epilepsy displays the same symptoms consistently. The references you've cited refer to specific symptoms that may have been absent or less noticeable to Paul during his experience on the road to Damascus. It could also be the case that another physiological condition could have been responsible for Paul's symptoms.