Who met Paul on Damascus Road?

[tutle64]

Let's preface this debate with a bit of background. Paul was first introduced in the biblical drama as Saul in Acts 7:58. He not only dragged these members of The Way off to prison, but voted to have them killed (Acts 26:10). Paul then apparently converted and became an apostle. The most notable point that legitimized him was the Damascus Road conversion in Acts 9, 22, and 26. In this event, Paul was in the middle of persecuting The Way when suddenly he was met by a bright light. This light called itself Jesus, told Paul to do some things, then told him to get up. In two of the three stories, Paul is blinded. Some contradictions include who the light shined around, what Paul was blinded by, whether the men with him heard a voice, whether they saw a light, and whether they fell to the ground with Paul. My question for you is, who met Paul on Damascus Road? I am convinced that he could not have met Jesus because Acts 1:11, Rev 1:7, and Mat 24:30 all lead to the conclusion that Jesus would not come back until judgment day, coming on the clouds. I believe that Paul met Satan, disguised as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14), on Damascus Road. So again, who met Paul on Damascus Road?

[TRANSPONDER]

I believe that Paul met Satan, disguised as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14), on Damascus Road.

Why would you give 2 Cor 11:14 any weight, that was written by Paul? Who is warning about false apostles, do you think Paul was warning people about himself?

It's very common for people to project their own faults onto others. It's also common for people to warn others about the very things they themselves do.

Surely people can accuse people in truth. Do you have any example of Paul being the false apostle as you are suggesting?

It's quite natural that Saul/Paul would want to retain sole or dominant leadership of the new religion he was creating by warning Christians of others as "false prophets."

Many people suggest that Paul is the sole source of Christianity. This is utterly denounced by everything we know. A lot of people want to make Jesus a mythical figure, i.e. not historical, so they claim Paul made it all up, but this is only a bias push to make Christianity myth. I dont think anyone can really defend a position like that.


(i want to note it wouldnt even make sense logically to say Paul is the sole leader of Christianity and then claim he is a false disciple)

It is not denounced (you mean disproved oi rebutted) by 'everything we know', but by everything we are told by the Church and Christian apologists. We are told that the Gospels record what Jesus did and said, the apostles (the 12) passed that on to Paul and His Church is essentially ours today.

But I say unto you that whatever (if anything) Paul got form the apostles, be made up pretty much all Christian Dogma himself and set up his churches without much reference to the 12 or what they had to say about it, the Roman -based church evolved Pauline dogma beyond anything that Paul would have tolerated, and that is the basis of Gospel -Jesus, and the teachings and Rome eliminated any Christian church teaching anything other than Vatican doctrine.

We know that Bible - apologists will even use Church legends about Apostles crucified upside down or being told by a visionary Jesus to turn back O man and return to Rome to become Pope No 1 as evidence that the resurrection must have happened or why would they have allowed themselves to be martyred? But there is not a shred of decent evidence that any of them dies for anything other than from reaching eleventy -one. We do not know anything that debunks the idea that Paul invented Christianity, but an analysis of Romans is pretty good evidence (I say unto ye again) that he did indeed invent it, not pass on anything he got either from the apostles or from a Jesus in his head.

[Replying to Diogenes in post #7]

Remember according to Luke's account which he got from Saul and Paul's latter writings, everything 'Paul' said or wrote came AFTER he recovered from his delirium of 3 days. Three days without food or water. Paul was blind and near death. Everything he reported came after that near death experience. It is all wholly suspect. There is no reason to believe any of it; no reason to believe anything that requires the suspension of natural events; no reason to believe any of his claims come from more than a dream or hallucination borne from his in extremis condition.

Also to note, Jesus apparently went without food and drink for forty days and nights in the desert after his conversion and baptism.

We do know that such things can cause what are referred to as "hallucinations" and that many prefer to believe that the brain is what generates these alternate experiences, and that Revelation reads like any NDE/DMT report but - while admittedly tempting to believe such are brain productions....

I agree with this much of the post, tho' must point out Jesus only went without food for 40 days according to the report. 3 days w/o water is the max. 40 days... well, you wouldn't make it to 4, let alone 40.

I believe the scripture refers to 'fasting' which means he may have had water. OTOH these stories are seldom bound by reality.

I agree, and this is what I see as the 'Real Jesus' problem and even fallacy. It is a problem amongst skeptics and Bible critics, not just Believers and Christian apologists. The free interpretation of Gospel accounts, taken as ...Oh well....substantially true, with anything unbelievable just dismissed. I have seen this stuff from Jesus wading in shallow water to shore and the supposed healing properties of mud to explanations of sweating blood while praying and of course the daft mobile star explained as a conjunction of planets. And I've also been to blame. trying to wangle the resurrection -accounts into a story of disciples in white giving messages to the women at the tomb, and a twin brother of Jesus meeting Cleophas at Emmaus, while the actual Jesus was in Jerusalem appearing to Simon, when I should have dismissed such footling explanations, and now do, even since I twigged that that the gospels are not reliable nor eyewitness, but are largely invented and fabricated.

So, no; we do not have to speculate about whether fasting for an iconic 40 days might lead to hallucinations, when gMark (trumpeted as the Original gospel) says that Jesus was 'driven' into the wilderness by the 'spirit' and was with the wild beasts and ministered unto by angels. Not a scrap of a hint that he was starving. Why do we have proponents of gMark as the Basic gospel (which it isn't as it has considerable additions of its' own) and then take additions to that by Matthew and Luke as anything but invention? Like I say, the 'Real Jesus' mistake ia a woeful Buy into the 'weaving together' apologetic and swallowing the 'eyewitnesses differ' excuse of Bible apologists has fooled even skeptics and doubters into crediting a mess of Bible -stories that deserve no credit whatsoever, let alone trying to wangle them into some kind of actual event in Jesus' career.

Like I say - I was fooled myself; I swallowed the raising of Lazarus as a real event, and (on evidence) a faked miracle to impress his followers. But the problem of it not being in the synoptics finally clicked. It was actually invented by John. It really has to be. And no amount of excuses will really shake that, but it first requires the doubters to wake up and realise how they've been peddled the 'weave together' and 'eyewitnesses differ' false explanation of the Bible -apologists, and they appear to have all bought into it.

[1213]

(1) Jesus had to die on the cross so that man's sin could be forgiven, true?

(2) this could not have happened if Jesus had not been arrested and the Jews had not forced Pilate (who was - according to the gospels - inclined to let Jesus go free) to execute him, correct?

(3) Satan entering into Judas, and therefore in cahoots with the Jews who were were working to bring about Jesus' death, was therefore working to make God's plan happen, yes?No?

Not for the first time, Satan appears to be doing God's dirty work for Him.

Jesus forgave sins before his death and gave the same right to his disciples also without death. Actually that Jesus forgave sins was reason why people wanted to murder him. So, I think in Biblical point of view death was not necessary for to forgive.

The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, “Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?” But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, answered them, “Why are you reasoning so in your hearts? Which is easier to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you;’ or to say, ‘Arise and walk?’ But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (he said to the paralyzed man), “I tell you, arise, and take up your cot, and go to your house.” Immediately he rose up before them, and took up that which he was laying on, and departed to his house, glorifying God.
Luke 5:21-25

Whoever’s sins you forgive, they are forgiven them. Whoever’s sins you retain, they have been retained.”
John 20:23

And Biblical reason why Jesus was allowed to die is:

For to this end Christ died, rose, and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.
Romans 14:9

[1213]

...
How would Paul recognize the "voice of Jesus"? It wasn't the "son of man" that Paul saw...

Where does Paul say he saw a person? By what I know, he said only that he saw a bright light. And how would he recognize the voice, probably he just believed what the voice said, because of the miraculous event and the content and the situation.

[Diogenes]

Many people suggest that Paul is the sole source of Christianity. This is utterly denounced by everything we know. A lot of people want to make Jesus a mythical figure, i.e. not historical, so they claim Paul made it all up, but this is only a bias push to make Christianity myth. I dont think anyone can really defend a position like that.


(i want to note it wouldnt even make sense logically to say Paul is the sole leader of Christianity and then claim he is a false disciple)

It is (remotely) possible you may be factually correct about one or more of your claims, but your 'arguments' are classics as poor examples. No, I'm wrong. They're not good enough to even be poor. They should be used as instructive models for how not to argue.

"Many people suggest that Paul is the sole source of Christianity. This is utterly denounced by everything we know."
How is it denounced? You make a claim that you have "everything" to prove your claim, but don't mention even one.

"A lot of people want to make Jesus a mythical figure, i.e. not historical, so they claim Paul made it all up, but this is only a bias push to make Christianity myth."
This is not just factually incorrect, but your conclusion does not follow your premise. Most people agree Jesus was a historical figure, but that still does not mean Paul did not invent (or be victim to) his Damascus Road delusion. Paul may have been sincere, but food and water deprived and suffered from sunstroke or epilepsy or other medical condition. And few call Christianity a myth. It's a religion based on myths and false beliefs.

Finally, you are just plain logically wrong to say "it wouldnt [sic] even make sense logically to say Paul is the sole leader of Christianity and then claim he is a false disciple."
This claim makes no sense and the reason has already been pointed out. First, NO ONE claimed Paul is the "sole leader" of Christianity. He is the principal architect of the religion. Jesus is WHO the religion is about. Jesus never taught "Christianity." He was a faithful Jew who taught about the Kingdom of God. Jesus would be horrified to discover Paul and others made a personality cult about him and turned it into a new religion.

[TRANSPONDER]

(1) Jesus had to die on the cross so that man's sin could be forgiven, true?

(2) this could not have happened if Jesus had not been arrested and the Jews had not forced Pilate (who was - according to the gospels - inclined to let Jesus go free) to execute him, correct?

(3) Satan entering into Judas, and therefore in cahoots with the Jews who were were working to bring about Jesus' death, was therefore working to make God's plan happen, yes?No?

Not for the first time, Satan appears to be doing God's dirty work for Him.

Jesus forgave sins before his death and gave the same right to his disciples also without death. Actually that Jesus forgave sins was reason why people wanted to murder him. So, I think in Biblical point of view death was not necessary for to forgive.

The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, “Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?” But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, answered them, “Why are you reasoning so in your hearts? Which is easier to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you;’ or to say, ‘Arise and walk?’ But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (he said to the paralyzed man), “I tell you, arise, and take up your cot, and go to your house.” Immediately he rose up before them, and took up that which he was laying on, and departed to his house, glorifying God.
Luke 5:21-25

Whoever’s sins you forgive, they are forgiven them. Whoever’s sins you retain, they have been retained.”
John 20:23

And Biblical reason why Jesus was allowed to die is:

For to this end Christ died, rose, and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.
Romans 14:9

I fail to see the relevance to my post or the questions posed (1). It looks like total evasion of the questions posed and instead a not unfamiliar preachfest hardly related to the point. Sorry. You can believe and post whatever you wish, but I feel obliged to say that such a post adds up to precisely Zilch.

(12) cue: 'Oh well...if you don't understand, there's no point in trying to talk to you'. (scampers off thinking they won) Seen it before, but I'm sure you would never think of trying that one.

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #24]

Jesus would be horrified to discover Paul and others made a personality cult about him and turned it into a new religion.

Given what has already been quoted as attributed to biblical Jesus, it is more likely he would say "I told you so" than be horrified.

Clearly - whoever is the father of Christianity - it has done more to bring confusion and fighting into the world, than peace and harmony - which probably explains why the world got so messy, given that the total number of folk calling themselves Christians contribute by number, a large proportion to said messiness.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #24]

Jesus would be horrified to discover Paul and others made a personality cult about him and turned it into a new religion.

Given what has already been quoted as attributed to biblical Jesus, it is more likely he would say "I told you so" than be horrified.

Clearly - whoever is the father of Christianity - it has done more to bring confusion and fighting into the world, than peace and harmony - which probably explains why the world got so messy, given that the total number of folk calling themselves Christians contribute by number, a large proportion to said messiness.

Well, that's true enough. Whatever the truth or not about Christianity, the many takes on it has cause any amount of confusion not go say thirty years' wears and an inquisition or two. Excuses aside i just have to assume that no God has rolled up to make it quite clear which is the True Church (or that it doesn't matter) means that probably there is No (personal) god.

[neverknewyou]

"A lot of people want to make Jesus a mythical figure, i.e. not historical, so they claim Paul made it all up, but this is only a bias push to make Christianity myth."

This so called Jesus didn't write anything down, and neither did those that Paul claims came before him, so the earliest Christian writings we have are Paul's. Christianity may not have started with Paul but he was the first to have any say in the matter, and he knew nothing of a so called Jesus from Nazareth because that Jesus was a later Christian development.

[Shem Yoshi]

Many people suggest that Paul is the sole source of Christianity. This is utterly denounced by everything we know. A lot of people want to make Jesus a mythical figure, i.e. not historical, so they claim Paul made it all up, but this is only a bias push to make Christianity myth. I dont think anyone can really defend a position like that.


(i want to note it wouldnt even make sense logically to say Paul is the sole leader of Christianity and then claim he is a false disciple)

It is (remotely) possible you may be factually correct about one or more of your claims, but your 'arguments' are classics as poor examples. No, I'm wrong. They're not good enough to even be poor. They should be used as instructive models for how not to argue.

"Many people suggest that Paul is the sole source of Christianity. This is utterly denounced by everything we know."
How is it denounced? You make a claim that you have "everything" to prove your claim, but don't mention even one.

Well I'm glad you asked. When I say "everything" it is because if we look at the totality of the evidence of Christianity it would not make any sense to say Paul invented Christianity. Paul was the "least of the disciples" as he himself described himself. Christianity was flourishing before Paul with thousands of followers who believed in Jesus Christ. The Gospels themselves are full of historical people and references who witnessed Jesus, like the very real Pontius Pilate who governed over Jesus trail. Or dozens of disciples themselves who Paul mentioned knowing, including Peter, James, and John, all who spread Christianity right besides Paul and who personally knew Jesus. There is no reason someone should believe that Paul was the sole source of Christianity if we evaluate the evidence outside AND inside Pauline epistles and Acts.

When you say:

"It's quite natural that Saul/Paul would want to retain sole or dominant leadership of the new religion he was creating by warning Christians of others as "false prophets.""

Not only is this quote refuted by all the evidence, including Paul himself, you also failed to give any reason why we would suspect Paul to be a "false apostles" (2 Corinthians 11), like your entire first post was speculating.

"A lot of people want to make Jesus a mythical figure, i.e. not historical, so they claim Paul made it all up, but this is only a bias push to make Christianity myth."
This is not just factually incorrect, but your conclusion does not follow your premise. Most people agree Jesus was a historical figure, but that still does not mean Paul did not invent (or be victim to) his Damascus Road delusion. Paul may have been sincere, but food and water deprived and suffered from sunstroke or epilepsy or other medical condition. And few call Christianity a myth. It's a religion based on myths and false beliefs.

Suggesting Paul suffered from hallucinations on the road to Damascus doesnt explain the thousands of people who already believed in Jesus Resurrection. It doesnt explain the disciples beliefs of Jesus fulfilling the OT prophecies and law. And it wouldnt explain WHY the story itself lists people who were next to Paul who witnessed the same thing Paul did.

Finally, you are just plain logically wrong to say "it wouldnt [sic] even make sense logically to say Paul is the sole leader of Christianity and then claim he is a false disciple."
This claim makes no sense and the reason has already been pointed out. First, NO ONE claimed Paul is the "sole leader" of Christianity. He is the principal architect of the religion. Jesus is WHO the religion is about. Jesus never taught "Christianity." He was a faithful Jew who taught about the Kingdom of God. Jesus would be horrified to discover Paul and others made a personality cult about him and turned it into a new religion.

You say that Christ would be horrified to discover this, but He prophesied it and told his disciples to go spread the message.

(all of these are quotes from Jesus from multiple sources)

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations" (Matt 24:14)

"“Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation." (Mark 16)

"“This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things." (Luke 24)

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." (Matt 28)


Do you have any reason to believe Jesus would be horrified of Christianity like you said? I dont understand how someone would even come to that conclusion.

[POI]

it wouldnt explain WHY the story itself lists people who were next to Paul who witnessed the same thing Paul did.

Is this why you believe in the resurrection and Paul's story line? If so, you must also believe in Sathya Sai Baba's story line, right?