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?

[1213]

... but he was limited to those he interacted with. The point about the crucifixion is that it gives everyone an out from sin, and that's why the crucifixion matters and forgiving sins in person does not in fact, matter for the salvation of humankind,whereas the act of crucifixion does, doctrinally and rationally. No? Yes?

The problem with that is, it is not from the Bible.

[TRANSPONDER]

... but he was limited to those he interacted with. The point about the crucifixion is that it gives everyone an out from sin, and that's why the crucifixion matters and forgiving sins in person does not in fact, matter for the salvation of humankind,whereas the act of crucifixion does, doctrinally and rationally. No? Yes?

The problem with that is, it is not from the Bible.

Very well. Is that a 'No'? If so I reckon you have started your own version of Christianity in which Jesus was not the Paschal lamb sacrificed as a sin - offering to God to release man from sin, unless Christianity hasn't been teaching what I thought it has been teaching.

Very well, again, I wish your church much prosperity and funding for its' flock. In the meantime I propose to debate with those who do subscribe to the Christianity where it was the act of crucifixion/shedding of Jesus' blood that created to escape from sin -death for those who believed in Jesus.Unless you can convince me that this is not the doctrine of most other brands of Christianity.

I had a look and so often I'd find a passage that seemed to say on the cross, and I'd check and find it wasn't there,check back and find that was in interpretation after the Bible passage. However 1 peter seems to make the point, and you may say you know better than Peter how Jesus overcame sin.

1 Peter 18 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.

It does not say that it was Jesus' acts of forgiving sins that released all mankind from sin If they believed in Jesus. Also the additions to Bible passages appears to show a consensus that it was the shedding of blood on the cross (as a sacrifice for sin) that released man from sin, if they believed in Jesus. You appear to have invented your own Church.

I won't go into some thoughts about how I have come across apologists who make up doctrine on the hoof with scant regard for mainstream Christian doctrine, and who seem more concerned with debunking what the atheist says than with following the Bible themselves, but I think that you should give (as a practising Christian that I suppose you are) serious thought to what you have just done.

[1213]

... but he was limited to those he interacted with. The point about the crucifixion is that it gives everyone an out from sin, and that's why the crucifixion matters and forgiving sins in person does not in fact, matter for the salvation of humankind,whereas the act of crucifixion does, doctrinally and rationally. No? Yes?

The problem with that is, it is not from the Bible.

Very well. Is that a 'No'? If so I reckon you have started your own version of Christianity in which Jesus was not the Paschal lamb sacrificed as a sin - offering to God to release man from sin, unless Christianity hasn't been teaching what I thought it has been teaching....

I don't think it is a new version. I think it is what the Bible tells. But still, Jesus can be seen as a sacrifice, because he used his life for others. However, it does not mean that death was required for God or Jesus to forgive sins.

[TRANSPONDER]

Then why does 1 Peter say that it does? Why indeed is the rest of Christianity apart from your One True Church designate the shedding of Jesus'blood on the cross as the thing that overcame sin -death and gave mankind salvation if they Believed. Do you think that they didn't know what what was in their own Bible?

Romans 3:25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—

And there's plenty more where that came from. Are you going to be one of those who dismisses Paul and prefer their own Theology? I have sometimes observed that I treat the Bibletext with more respect than some Bible apologists do. I wonder now whether I don't treat Christian dogmas with more respect, too. Maybe if Jesusgod is real I'll be ok and the Last Really will be first.

"I imagine you're feeling a right bunch of nitwits." Saint Peter raises a pair of bushy white eyebrows that would make Santa writhe with envy and watched the atheists shuffle uncomfortably.

"Now all you True Believers wait your turn and stop arguing with each other please, I can't hear myself think. Now" said Peter, leaning back on his Bob Cratchett stool behind his Victorian clerk's lectern, "This is for all of you. I have some good news, and some bad news. Which will you have first?"

The shuffling was general, and eventually, one witty, intelligent and devastatingly handsome as he was in his youth atheist said " You'd better give us the bad news first."

"Very well; it's this; None of you had got the right doctrine. None of you deserve to be saved, Believers and goddless alike...Will you kindly stop wailing and gnashing your teeth Thank you."

Another non- believer altogether, who had been known as the Transponder in life but fortunately his New Incorruptible body looked a sight better, though the soul was not much improved said:

"So, what's the good news?"

"It's this", said Peter, leaning over his lectern and showing his teeth in a smile like an Insurance lawyer telling a claimant about the small print, "Because you -all tried to understand what the Scriptures said instead of twisting them to suit your own preferences, you lot of heathens get the atheist afterlife designed to suit yourself, or you may choose from the brochure provided."

"Well, that disnae sound sae bad." Said Pippin. "And what do the believers get? A heaven like they expect, like.... "

"We've all heard the one about the Catholics with a high wall around." interrupted Peter. "They get Hell of course And no comfy chair for the Catholics."

"And what if I don't choose the heaven at all?"

"Are you kidding?" Peter's eyebrows reached his hairline. "Well then, Oblivion for you, my lad."

"Well, that's my choice." And so said they all.

"May I ask why you all chose oblivion?"

"Yes...if I can ask you one question."

"Very well, why do you atheists always do this?"

"Because an eternity of even a bespoke afterlife sounds doubtful enough, but there's no way any of us could enjoy it, knowing that our fellow humans were burning."

"They wouldn't care about you."

"It's purely a selfish gene working in us."

"Very well, The believers also get the choice of hell or oblivion. But what was your question for me?"

"Were you really the first Pope?"

"Of course not; I was a jumping Jew of Jerusalem until the Jewish war took most of us out, and by then Christianity had taken hold."

"So how did you end up sitting at the nacre turnstile?"

"They made me an offer I couldn't refuse."

[1213]

Then why does 1 Peter say that it does? Why indeed is the rest of Christianity apart from your One True Church designate the shedding of Jesus'blood on the cross as the thing that overcame sin -death and gave mankind salvation if they Believed. Do you think that they didn't know what what was in their own Bible?

Romans 3:25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—

And there's plenty more where that came from. Are you going to be one of those who dismisses Paul and prefer their own Theology? I have sometimes observed that I treat the Bibletext with more respect than some Bible apologists do. I wonder now whether I don't treat Christian dogmas with more respect, too. Maybe if Jesusgod is real I'll be ok and the Last Really will be first....

Interesting thing about the blood is also, what do you think is meant with his blood, the wine on Eucharist, or his blood form his physical body? How do you determine which it is?

I think the problem here is really that people mix up what happened and what must have happened. Jesus was killed, because he forgave sins. And that is why it can be said that he was a sacrifice for our sins. And that is why it looks like we were "cleaned" by his blood. However, it is not the same as that God required it for to forgive sins.

[TRANSPONDER]

Then why does 1 Peter say that it does? Why indeed is the rest of Christianity apart from your One True Church designate the shedding of Jesus'blood on the cross as the thing that overcame sin -death and gave mankind salvation if they Believed. Do you think that they didn't know what what was in their own Bible?

Romans 3:25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—

And there's plenty more where that came from. Are you going to be one of those who dismisses Paul and prefer their own Theology? I have sometimes observed that I treat the Bibletext with more respect than some Bible apologists do. I wonder now whether I don't treat Christian dogmas with more respect, too. Maybe if Jesusgod is real I'll be ok and the Last Really will be first....

Interesting thing about the blood is also, what do you think is meant with his blood, the wine on Eucharist, or his blood form his physical body? How do you determine which it is?

I think the problem here is really that people mix up what happened and what must have happened. Jesus was killed, because he forgave sins. And that is why it can be said that he was a sacrifice for our sins. And that is why it looks like we were "cleaned" by his blood. However, it is not the same as that God required it for to forgive sins.

I don't know whether you are really curious or just trying to change the subject - a favorite ploy of the Bible apologists when they come under pressure.

Well, what I think or indeed what you think is irrelevant. It is what the Bible says and the Bible appears to say that whatever healing Jesus did before were individual ones enabled by the 'Faithfulness'of the person asking for a healing for themselves or others. It was the one big blood sacrifice that made a loophole in the original sin -death (brought about by Adam eating that symbolic fruit) and can be accessed by anyone with Faith.That is what I have understood from reading the NT.

Now as to my view on the matters you raised, and purely as a side -issue, The wine is symbolic ,like the bread. While actual blood had to be shed, it was the act of sacrifice that worked the magic. Jesus was not killed because he forgave sins, he was killed because the Sadducees framed him - according to the Gospels. But that had to happen in order for the sacrifice to happen,and Judas and the Sadducees were enabling the salvation of mankind and Peter, Pilate and Jesus too, appeared to be trying to stop it, or at least, that was the point I made to explain why Satan entering into Judas was doing God's work, and that was my questioning the airy assurance in the 'Damascus' thread that Satan was persecuting Jesus. Rather it was God driving Jesus to the cross, because it had to happen. But what comments would you expect from an atheist?

No, the message of the Bible is that Jesus had to die to make a way out of God's imposed sin - death. Unless you dismiss Paul and do your own interpretation. But I'd be wary, if I were in your shoes, of starting my own religion.