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]

...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?

Bible says it was Jesus who spoke to him. If it would have been Satan, why would Satan go against himself and be on the side of Jesus?

As he traveled, it happened that he got close to Damascus, and suddenly a light from the sky shone around him. He fell on the earth, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” He said, “Who are you, Lord?” The Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.
Acts 9:3-5

But, this doesn't mean Jesus came back. It only tells Paul saw a bright light and heard the voice of Jesus.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #7]
-
General theory time. I say 'General theory' rather than my 'special theory' that Jesus was more a Pharisee zealot than a gentile -loving proto Christian (like Paul ) or yet the 'Pet Theory' that Jesus was Barrabbas, the 'overturning of tables' was an attempted riot to start a revolt and, after capture, Jesus and his followers (insurrectionists who had done murder and had their Galilean blood mixed with their sacrifices when Pilates 1,000 on - duty auxiliaries had cut them down) were stapled up for sedition (just as the 'charge' says), rebellion and insurrection. You read it here, first.

The 'General theory' is that the gospels are not eyewitness. I believe there is a 'real Jesus' basis, but not one the Christians liked, so they rewrote the story to turn Jesus into someone spouting Pauline views. Paul did not get them from Jesus; Gospel Jesus had the Pauline views put into his mouth.

And Luke is very bad at this. Apart from the fabricated nativity, there is the fiddled rejection at Nazareth, faddled angel's message at the tomb and the added element of Jesus' appearance to Simon, which is only there because Paul had said so in I Cor. This is the clue to the whole thing about Acts. It is not eyewitness nor reliable. It is surely by Luke, on evidence a biographical novel loosely based on Paul's letters. 'Acts of the Apostles' is intended to show how the mission passed to Paul with the 'apostles' rubber -stamping that mission with their approval at what is demonstrably a fictitious, Pauline -based and spurious full senate hearing of the Jewish church (those supporting Paul on one side of the house and those 'of the circumcision' on the other) with Peter acting as advocate for Paul, which is hardly the impression Paul gives.

Well, you -wall can see what's coming; Paul never had a vision on the road to Damascus. Paul himself says nothing of it and what he got from Jesus rather than men is more likely during the visit of a man (no doubt himself) to the third heaven where Jesus told him what he wanted to hear; that his worked out, flawed and self - serving thesis set out in Romans was dead right.

And just as Luke fiddled an appearance to Simon to bring his resurrection - story in line with Paul, and faddles the angelic message because Paul's letters make it clear that the 12 did not go to Galilee and then take Christianity to all nations, but they stayed in Jerusalem and Paul created his own mission to the gentiles out of his own head, he fabricated an appearance to Paul on the way to Damascus, because it made sense that Paul was on the way there to bring down fire and slaughter on the Christians and when he escaped from there he was a converted Christian. So that's where it must have happened, and Luke creates a nice little vision to Paul while afflicting him (and never mind his free will) until he converted.

It is - I am really totally convinced - a concoction by Luke to explain away problems occasioned by Paul's letters becoming available and rather contradicting the common belief amongst Christians - that it was really the apostles who passed on the 'good news' of the gospel, when clearly it was Paul.

[TRANSPONDER]

...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?

Bible says it was Jesus who spoke to him. If it would have been Satan, why would Satan go against himself and be on the side of Jesus?

As he traveled, it happened that he got close to Damascus, and suddenly a light from the sky shone around him. He fell on the earth, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” He said, “Who are you, Lord?” The Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.
Acts 9:3-5

But, this doesn't mean Jesus came back. It only tells Paul saw a bright light and heard the voice of Jesus.

Let me ask you three questions:

(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.

[Diogenes]

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. Take Donald Trump as an example. There's probable cause to charge him with all kinds of crooked deals, offenses and felonies, including insurrection against the United States. Yet he's been yelling the loudest about "Crooked Hillary" and accusing many politicians of lying and other crimes, despite Trump setting records for the most lies told as a President.

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." This is Machiavelli 101.

As a general rule, when someone is accusing you of doing something that they’re doing, they are engaging in the psychological defense mechanism of projection. This is the attribution of things to others that are actually attributable to oneself, and is a way of avoiding taking ownership for one’s actions.
https://psychopathsinlife.com/projectio ... yre-doing/

[2ndpillar2]

...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?

Bible says it was Jesus who spoke to him. If it would have been Satan, why would Satan go against himself and be on the side of Jesus?

As he traveled, it happened that he got close to Damascus, and suddenly a light from the sky shone around him. He fell on the earth, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” He said, “Who are you, Lord?” The Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.
Acts 9:3-5

But, this doesn't mean Jesus came back. It only tells Paul saw a bright light and heard the voice of Jesus.

How would Paul recognize the "voice of Jesus"? It wasn't the "son of man" that Paul saw, for Yeshua said to not "believe them" if they say, "he is in the wilderness" or "He is in the inner room" (Matthew 24:26). Peter and Paul, the two shepherds/staffs of Zechariah 11, are the foundation of the Gentile church (daughter of Babylon), established and glorified by the beast with "two horns like a lamb", Constantine, the "another" king of Daniel 2:24-25), when he built basilicas for both.

[William]

[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 - there is the notion that we experience what we do re 'reality' through the medium of our body-set - primarily brain-nervous system and it is reported that system only receives a very small amount of information from the total spectrum of actual things occurring in the universe ['reality'] so - with that in mind - one cannot be too sure that the brain is doing much more than receiving real information which normally escapes ones notice.

I remain open-minded to that possibility.

As to the OPQ, while that is possibly, it is also possible that religions brought Satan into focus as a means of attempting to explain pain and suffering so that the notion of YHVH might be tweaked to somehow better reflect a "nice" type of God as a means of countering the so-called 'problem of evil' argument...but really only served to bring more confusion into the mix.

[Diogenes]

[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.

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #17]

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,

I understand. Not everyone is agreeable to remaining open minded about certain subjects...

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.

Especially the stories about biblical Jesus...

[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?

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)

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to tutle64 in post #1]

Jesus returning is not the same as Jesus appearing to someone. Jesus can appear to whoever he likes however often he likes and it wouldn't contradict the second coming. Clearly, appearing to someone in a vision is not the second coming.

Even if Jesus appeared to me physically, that is not the second coming.


What is most convincing is that the disciples, who were lead by the Holy Spirit knew Paul was visited by Jesus. Also, if I recall correctly, the angel told them as such.