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?

[Shem Yoshi]

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?

We are discussing the evidence and what it says, why anyone might believe what they believe is not really relevant.

About the quote above (which conveniently discards everything else i mentioned), it is a FACT that if we are going to take the Damascus Roads events of Paul's conversion as a hallucination, this would fail to explain why other people are listed there hearing the same things Paul did.

If Paul really hallucinated, why wouldnt the story say that Paul was the sole witness? Why does the story say that the others around Paul heard the same thing Paul did?

And like i said before, even if that could be explained somehow, this still doesnt explain why others believed in Jesus Resurrection before Paul did, and it doesnt explain WHY the disciples had beliefs that Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies and law.

Paul's experience on the Road to Damascus can be fully explained and understood through the perspective of Christianity. It fits the puzzle perfectly. However from the perspective saying he suffered from some mental delusion or illusion, it does nothing to explain anything else in Christianity at all, including the other people listed hearing the same things Paul heard in his supposed hallucination.

The idea that Paul is the "principal architect of the religion" is very flimsy, and needs further explanation if people want to take it seriously... It seems like this idea of Paul is really based in ignorance of the religion itself.

[POI]

We are discussing the evidence and what it says

"Evidence" leads to a conclusion, right? What does your cited 'evidence' suggest, as the conclusion? Is it that Jesus must have really rose, because we have reports of many others reporting the same thing as Paul?

About the quote above (which conveniently discards everything else i mentioned),

I read everything else you wrote, which still leads to my line of questioning above.

it is a FACT that if we are going to take the Damascus Roads events of Paul's conversion as a hallucination, this would fail to explain why other people are listed there hearing the same things Paul did.

I'll re-state my unanswered question (re-phrased)... Does this mean many really did witness miracles of Sathya Sai Baba?

If Paul really hallucinated, why wouldnt the story say that Paul was the sole witness? Why does the story say that the others around Paul heard the same thing Paul did?

Say they all heard and/or saw stuff. Okay, does this also validate the many, who saw stuff from Sathya Sai Baba?

And like i said before, even if that could be explained somehow, this still doesnt explain why others believed in Jesus Resurrection before Paul did, and it doesnt explain WHY the disciples had beliefs that Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies and law.

Okay, let's exclude Paul completely. Many believe in Sathya Sai Baba. Why is the Jesus story any more credible than the one of Sathya Sai Baba?

Paul's experience on the Road to Damascus can be fully explained and understood through the perspective of Christianity. It fits the puzzle perfectly. However from the perspective saying he suffered from some mental delusion or illusion, it does nothing to explain anything else in Christianity at all, including the other people listed hearing the same things Paul heard in his supposed hallucination.

Kool. Same Q's as above.

[TRANSPONDER]

It's pretty basic, isn't it? On the face of it, Acts makes it pretty clear that it was a vision of Jesus that converted him. One can come up with all kinds of undisprovables from the Devil fooling Paul as part of a plan to undermine Judaism to an elaborate hoax by the Christians to Turn Paul. But here I use for the Christian apologetic what I have used against them: 'what one can't totally disprove does not thereby become equally valid and credible an explanation'. On the face of it, the event happened, whether it was a real vision or a delusion.

I'm quite convinced that Acts is pretty much total fabrication - a biographical novel concocted by 'Luke' (whoever he really was). But most others seem willing to broadly credit it as a reliable record of events. Not me.

[Shem Yoshi]

We are discussing the evidence and what it says

"Evidence" leads to a conclusion, right? What does your cited 'evidence' suggest, as the conclusion? Is it that Jesus must have really rose, because we have reports of many others reporting the same thing as Paul?

I think the reasonable conclusion here is that 1) Paul is not the sole source or architect of Christianity. 2) the hallucination theory of the Road to Damascus is poorly developed and credulous.

About the quote above (which conveniently discards everything else i mentioned),

I read everything else you wrote, which still leads to my line of questioning above.

it is a FACT that if we are going to take the Damascus Roads events of Paul's conversion as a hallucination, this would fail to explain why other people are listed there hearing the same things Paul did.

I'll re-state my unanswered question (re-phrased)... Does this mean many really did witness miracles of Sathya Sai Baba?

If Paul really hallucinated, why wouldnt the story say that Paul was the sole witness? Why does the story say that the others around Paul heard the same thing Paul did?

Say they all heard and/or saw stuff. Okay, does this also validate the many, who saw stuff from Sathya Sai Baba?

And like i said before, even if that could be explained somehow, this still doesnt explain why others believed in Jesus Resurrection before Paul did, and it doesnt explain WHY the disciples had beliefs that Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies and law.

Okay, let's exclude Paul completely. Many believe in Sathya Sai Baba. Why is the Jesus story any more credible than the one of Sathya Sai Baba?

Paul's experience on the Road to Damascus can be fully explained and understood through the perspective of Christianity. It fits the puzzle perfectly. However from the perspective saying he suffered from some mental delusion or illusion, it does nothing to explain anything else in Christianity at all, including the other people listed hearing the same things Paul heard in his supposed hallucination.

Kool. Same Q's as above.

I would rather not wish to entertain such questions.... It is bad reasoning... Lawyers dont go to court and say "O.J Simpson was telling a lie when he pleaded innocent and developed his case" and use that as evidence that other people are lying... Whatever is said about Sathya Sai Baba is completely irrelevant to the evidences of Christianity. Comparing these two as if they are connected would draw conclusions on false equivalences. It is bad reasoning

[2ndpillar2]

...
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.

Well Acts is not consistent with what it says happened. One version said everyone was blinded and another said everyone was made deaf. What Paul described he saw was a "bright light", such as an angel of light, which according to Paul, is often Satan. What Yeshua is recorded as saying is that if someone says, "he is in the wilderness", "do not believe them" (Matthew 24:26). Apparently, there is no witness to the event other than Paul, and Yeshua is quoted as saying if one is a self-witness, what they say is not true (John 5:31). According to the traditions around Mohammad, he was also said to have witnessed an "angel of light", but according to other sources, he probably just visited a Christian monk of northern Arabia, named Gabriel. One must be careful of what one calls holy, lest they be snared and dragged into a pit. (Proverbs 20:25)

[POI]

1) Paul is not the sole source or architect of Christianity.

I already conceded this. Just like there are many witnesses to Sathya Sai Baba.

2) the hallucination theory of the Road to Damascus is poorly developed and credulous.

I have already conceded that we can leave the Paul story line out completely. We would BOTH agree that Christianity still has a 'leg to stand upon', right? Thus, it really does not matter if what Diogenes says is accurate, or not. He may be spot on, and he may not be. It does not matter. You are arguing that Christianity is still rational to believe. So I ask, for a third post now, what about Sathya Sai Baba?

I would rather not wish to entertain such questions.... It is bad reasoning... We dont go to court and say "the last guy was telling a lie when he pleaded innocent, so why would we believe anything else of anyone else?"... It would draw conclusions on false equivalences

No Shem, we are done with the "credibility" of Paul. His story line is irrelevant to the larger picture. Many others report the same thing. So I ask, for a third time now:

Why is the Jesus story any more credible than the one of Sathya Sai Baba?

[William]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #34]

I think the reasonable conclusion here is that 1) Paul is not the sole source or architect of Christianity. 2) the hallucination theory of the Road to Damascus is poorly developed and credulous.

I think it is important to test the spirits, and greatly important to use the test on the any who tell us that.

1: For now, I think of Christianity as being an invention of Rome, and that Paul was the figurehead of that project.
2: I think the temptation of Christ was a type of hallucination, but I am unconvinced that hallucinations are not real things which ordinarily go on unnoticed...and that Revelation is very much reported in the same manner as NDEs are reported, as well as how DMT users report their experiences.

[Shem Yoshi]

1) Paul is not the sole source or architect of Christianity.

I already conceded this. Just like there are many witnesses to Sathya Sai Baba.

2) the hallucination theory of the Road to Damascus is poorly developed and credulous.

I have already conceded that we can leave the Paul story line out completely. We would BOTH agree that Christianity still has a 'leg to stand upon', right? Thus, it really does not matter if what Diogenes says is accurate, or not. He may be spot on, and he may not be. It does not matter. You are arguing that Christianity is still rational to believe. So I ask, for a third post now, what about Sathya Sai Baba?

I would rather not wish to entertain such questions.... It is bad reasoning... We dont go to court and say "the last guy was telling a lie when he pleaded innocent, so why would we believe anything else of anyone else?"... It would draw conclusions on false equivalences

No Shem, we are done with the "credibility" of Paul. His story line is irrelevant to the larger picture. Many others report the same thing. So I ask, for a third time now:

Why is the Jesus story any more credible than the one of Sathya Sai Baba?

Well i dont know the story of Sathya Sai Baba, and no one needs to know the story of Sathya Sai Baba to evaluate Christianity.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #34]

Damn' that's good. I always like the 'courtroom analogy' apologetic.

Yes, each witness is given initial credit for telling the truth (or whet they believe is the truth). Of course, Acts fails right away as it's hearsay, but let's say it's submitted as an affidavit, sworn to be true. Well, 'clean hands' applies and even though one is submitted by Luke and the other is titled: 'What they did' and is anonymous, the case that the latter was anticipated by the writer of the first affidavit is credible, not to say proven. And if the former is shown to dubious, that makes the latter evidence dubious too (1). In addition to which, it is refuted by the personal evidence of witness Paul who said that he chatted to James and Simon in Jerusalem and cut a deal with them, while 'Acts' has a sort of Senatorial debate.

On the basis of courtroom credibility, Luke is tossed into the street, with his 'evidence' along with him. I would not buy a used car from Paul, true, but I would not trust Luke to tell me what day it was.

(1) cue 'histories are not always perfectly reliable'. Answorte - 'The Bible is not intended as a history book'.

[POI]

Well i dont know the story of Sathya Sai Baba, and no one needs to know the story of Sathya Sai Baba to evaluate Christianity.

Well, your rationale is that many others reported seeing the same miraculous stuff as Paul. Is this how you begin evaluating whether or not Christianity is true?