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?

[Miles]

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?

As the story goes it was Jesus. And considering that god is responsible for all scripture

2 Timothy 3:16-17
"All Scripture is given by God. And all Scripture is useful for teaching and for showing people what is wrong in their lives."

and that it's all true

Proverbs 30:5-6
"Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar."

how can you doubt that it was Jesus?

.

[tutle64]

[Replying to Miles in post #2]

So your assumption is that because 1 Tim 3:16 is in the bible, the entire bible must be correct. I present a few major issues with this. First, the bible was not written at the time Paul wrote this. So which scriptures is he talking about? The Book of Enoch is quoted by Jude in verses 14-15, by Peter in 1 Pet 2:4, and even by Jesus in Mat 22:29-30. The Book of Enoch has never been included in the bible, nor has the Book of Jubilees, yet both were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible include different numbers of books. So is every single scripture to include all extrabiblical scripture inspired by God, or which bible am I supposed to accept? Additionally, the Greek text here https://biblehub.com/text/2_timothy/3-16.htm says that every scripture is 'god-breathed', not that it was given by God. That is a big difference, as man can corrupt the word of God. in fact, its happened before. Isa 1:10-17 esp. verse 12, among the plethora of other prophecies against animal sacrifice, make it clear that every scripture in the Mosaic Law about animal sacrifice did not come from God. It must have come from man. So the bible is fallible, let's get that out of the way. Second, Pro 30:5-6 is easily explained otherwise. What is "every word of God"? It cannot be scripture as just shown. I agree that every word of God proves true, I disagree that the bible is totally that word. How can I doubt that it was Jesus? I already gave you one reason. 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 have more but that's all that is needed right now.

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to Miles in post #2]

So your assumption is that because 1 Tim 3:16 is in the bible, the entire bible must be correct. I present a few major issues with this. First, the bible was not written at the time Paul wrote this. So which scriptures is he talking about? The Book of Enoch is quoted by Jude in verses 14-15, by Peter in 1 Pet 2:4, and even by Jesus in Mat 22:29-30. The Book of Enoch has never been included in the bible, nor has the Book of Jubilees, yet both were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible include different numbers of books. So is every single scripture to include all extrabiblical scripture inspired by God, or which bible am I supposed to accept? Additionally, the Greek text here https://biblehub.com/text/2_timothy/3-16.htm says that every scripture is 'god-breathed', not that it was given by God. That is a big difference, as man can corrupt the word of God. in fact, its happened before. Isa 1:10-17 esp. verse 12, among the plethora of other prophecies against animal sacrifice, make it clear that every scripture in the Mosaic Law about animal sacrifice did not come from God. It must have come from man. So the bible is fallible, let's get that out of the way. Second, Pro 30:5-6 is easily explained otherwise. What is "every word of God"? It cannot be scripture as just shown. I agree that every word of God proves true, I disagree that the bible is totally that word. How can I doubt that it was Jesus? I already gave you one reason. 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 have more but that's all that is needed right now.

If that is the case you would also have to conclude that John (or the one who wrote revaluations) was also deceived because he likewise talked of seeing and speaking with Jesus.

[tutle64]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #4]

Revelation* and no, Revelation was a vision, a sort of dream seen by John in an out-of-body experience. The Damascus Road encounter was physical. It required Jesus actually coming back to earth, after ascending to heaven.

[neverknewyou]

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?

Satan.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to neverknewyou in post #6]
No one. Paul met no one. 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.

Thus the entire basis for 90% of Christianity comes from the report of a man only recently recovered from an extreme and life threatening mental and physical state. It is as reliable as Joseph Smith's claims or the near death experiences or the ravings of a lunatic. I'm not necessarily questioning 'Paul's' sincerity, just his credibility.

[tutle64]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #7]

I like this, I think this is a plausible possibility. I say this as someone who rejects Paul's work but accepts the uncorrupted parts of the rest of scripture, keyword uncorrupted. However, playing Devil's advocate, Paul was with others during this encounter too. In fact, one of these was likely Barnabas, of Acts 4:36-37, who brought Paul to the apostles in Acts 9:27, right after this first conversion story. Now if Barnabas was not with Paul, he would have no more reason than the apostles to consider the man's story, especially given the persecutions Paul was just engaged in. I think it is reasonable to conclude that Barnabas actually was one of the other men with Paul that experienced the whole thing. Sure, all the men could have been equally delusional. But I think that with more people, the probability of the reality of this encounter increases, just not their interpretation of it.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #7]

I like this, I think this is a plausible possibility. I say this as someone who rejects Paul's work but accepts the uncorrupted parts of the rest of scripture, keyword uncorrupted. However, playing Devil's advocate, Paul was with others during this encounter too. In fact, one of these was likely Barnabas, of Acts 4:36-37, who brought Paul to the apostles in Acts 9:27, right after this first conversion story. Now if Barnabas was not with Paul, he would have no more reason than the apostles to consider the man's story, especially given the persecutions Paul was just engaged in. I think it is reasonable to conclude that Barnabas actually was one of the other men with Paul that experienced the whole thing. Sure, all the men could have been equally delusional. But I think that with more people, the probability of the reality of this encounter increases, just not their interpretation of it.

It is of note that none of the men supposedly traveling with Saul are named. Anonymous sources are less credible. In any event even this biased source saw nothing, but only heard "a voice."

The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.  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. And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

Acts 9:7-9

[Shem Yoshi]

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?

How is Paul word corrupted?