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?

[neverknewyou]

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?

If Christianity were true, faith would not be necessary.

[Shem Yoshi]

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?

We are talking about Paul suffering delirium, which is one of the most prominent theories about how Christianity/Resurrection came into existence from atheistic critics. So yes the rationale that others witnessed the same things, including 2 other people on the road to Damascus, not to mention Ananias's account with Paul after the event. Or Stephan's account before the event, or Peters witnessing of the Jesus after the event saying "Peter, get up, kill and Eat"... Would raise serious doubt about Paul's delirium.

I mean what is the conclusion? That Paul suffered delirium? And so did Peter, and Stephan, and Mary, and the rest of the other reported. And for reasons unknown to us, Paul and the others with Paul's must of lied about sharing the experiences on Damascus? None of which would give reason to doubt the evidences of fulfilling the OT prophecies or law, or the acts of Jesus himself.

See what happens we someone pokes holes in this theory is that people start suggesting the entire thing is a lie, and "Luke is tossed into the street" (post #39).

obviously there is no good explanation through the skeptical side that could explain Christianity. You start with things like Paul hallucinated and made up the religion, but then divert to suggesting the entire story is a lie. However that does nothing to explain how Christianity actually came into existence at all... It would have to be some kind of mass conspiracy that no one has any answers to.

The fact that people even point to Paul having a hallucination is evidence that goes against the entire thing being made up, yet that is where you guys always have to divert to when people evaluate what you are saying.

[William]

[Replying to neverknewyou in post #41]

If Christianity were true, faith would not be necessary.

If Christianity is to believed to being true, faith is necessary.

Defining "Christianity" is perhaps best said as "that which requires faith re its truth-claims" although the definition still requires being completed...

[William]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #42]

The fact that people even point to Paul having a hallucination is evidence that goes against the entire thing being made up, yet that is where you guys always have to divert to when people evaluate what you are saying.

You should understand that such argument can be sourced in the belief that the brain hallucinates everything, including consciousness.

That is a room without exits as far as positions go..."atheistic" as you suggest... and it should not be expected to be any other way or needlessly/pointlessly complained about.

Be among the blue dots and leave the red dots to their sanctuaries...

[Shem Yoshi]

[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.

So I guess from the quote above you conclude "hearsay", is never the truth? Or am i misunderstanding that? Because that would be false. Not to mention Act written by Luke is not hearsay. Luke has first hand accounts in the book, they are known as the "we" sections of Acts where the author writes in first person as being there witnessing the events.

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'.

I dont know what you are saying, you should give example of scripture and evidence and draw clear conclusions from reasoning, because you are not making sense to me.

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #42]

The fact that people even point to Paul having a hallucination is evidence that goes against the entire thing being made up, yet that is where you guys always have to divert to when people evaluate what you are saying.

You should understand that such argument can be sourced in the belief that the brain hallucinates everything, including consciousness.

That is a room without exits as far as positions go..."atheistic" as you suggest... and it should not be expected to be any other way or needlessly/pointlessly complained about.

Be among the blue dots and leave the red dots to their sanctuaries...

Say what you will, either Acts is a lie or a reality (like Paul hallucinating), both cant be true. It like a cognitive dissonance to suggest such things.

[POI]

We are talking about Paul suffering delirium, which is one of the most prominent theories about how Christianity/Resurrection came into existence from atheistic critics. So yes the rationale that others witnessed the same things, including 2 other people on the road to Damascus, not to mention Ananias's account with Paul after the event. Or Stephan's account before the event, or Peters witnessing of the Jesus after the event saying "Peter, get up, kill and Eat"... Would raise serious doubt about Paul's delirium.

Sounds to me, that even if the position that "Paul was delirious" was true, you would still believe just the same. Why? You could still just as easily argue that others saw the exact same thing as Paul. Thus, it would be too coincidental that all these folks saw the exact same thing, right?

I mean what is the conclusion? That Paul suffered delirium? And so did Peter, and Stephan, and Mary, and the rest of the other reported. And for reasons unknown to us, Paul and the others with Paul's must of lied about sharing the experiences on Damascus? None of which would give reason to doubt the evidences of fulfilling the OT prophecies or law, or the acts of Jesus himself.

Yes, this is exactly why I bring up this other dude. It does not matter how well you know this other dude, or not. The fact remains that we have countless testimonials to many first hand eyewitness miracles of Sathya Sai Baba. And since you claim that Peter, Stephan, and Mary could not be suffering the same delirium, then the testimonies of Sathya Sai Baba should be even much more believable, right?

obviously there is no good explanation through the skeptical side that could explain Christianity. You start with things like Paul hallucinated and made up the religion, but then divert to suggesting the entire story is a lie.

IMHO, the reason such a claim could never be substantiated, or rejected, is because it is unfalsifiable.

However that does nothing to explain how Christianity actually came into existence at all... It would have to be some kind of mass conspiracy that no one has any answers to.

The same can be said for Sathya Sai Baba.

The fact that people even point to Paul having a hallucination is evidence that goes against the entire thing being made up, yet that is where you guys always have to divert to when people evaluate what you are saying.

I'm not diverting anything. I do not know if Paul hallucinated, or not. And quite frankly, there is no way to prove that he did, or didn't But my initial question still stands. 4th time and counting....

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

[Shem Yoshi]

We are talking about Paul suffering delirium, which is one of the most prominent theories about how Christianity/Resurrection came into existence from atheistic critics. So yes the rationale that others witnessed the same things, including 2 other people on the road to Damascus, not to mention Ananias's account with Paul after the event. Or Stephan's account before the event, or Peters witnessing of the Jesus after the event saying "Peter, get up, kill and Eat"... Would raise serious doubt about Paul's delirium.

Sounds to me, that even if the position that "Paul was delirious" was true, you would still believe just the same. Why? You could still just as easily argue that others saw the exact same thing as Paul. Thus, it would be too coincidental that all these folks saw the exact same thing, right?

I mean what is the conclusion? That Paul suffered delirium? And so did Peter, and Stephan, and Mary, and the rest of the other reported. And for reasons unknown to us, Paul and the others with Paul's must of lied about sharing the experiences on Damascus? None of which would give reason to doubt the evidences of fulfilling the OT prophecies or law, or the acts of Jesus himself.

Yes, this is exactly why I bring up this other dude. It does not matter how well you know this other dude, or not. The fact remains that we have countless testimonials to many first hand eyewitness miracles of Sathya Sai Baba. And since you claim that Peter, Stephan, and Mary could not be suffering the same delirium, then the testimonies of Sathya Sai Baba should be even much more believable, right?

obviously there is no good explanation through the skeptical side that could explain Christianity. You start with things like Paul hallucinated and made up the religion, but then divert to suggesting the entire story is a lie.

IMHO, the reason such a claim could never be substantiated, or rejected, is because it is unfalsifiable.

However that does nothing to explain how Christianity actually came into existence at all... It would have to be some kind of mass conspiracy that no one has any answers to.

The same can be said for Sathya Sai Baba.

The fact that people even point to Paul having a hallucination is evidence that goes against the entire thing being made up, yet that is where you guys always have to divert to when people evaluate what you are saying.

I'm not diverting anything. I do not know if Paul hallucinated, or not. And quite frankly, there is no way to prove that he did, or didn't But my initial question still stands. 4th time and counting....

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

Dude i dont know who Sathya Sai Baba is.

[POI]

We are talking about Paul suffering delirium, which is one of the most prominent theories about how Christianity/Resurrection came into existence from atheistic critics. So yes the rationale that others witnessed the same things, including 2 other people on the road to Damascus, not to mention Ananias's account with Paul after the event. Or Stephan's account before the event, or Peters witnessing of the Jesus after the event saying "Peter, get up, kill and Eat"... Would raise serious doubt about Paul's delirium.

Sounds to me, that even if the position that "Paul was delirious" was true, you would still believe just the same. Why? You could still just as easily argue that others saw the exact same thing as Paul. Thus, it would be too coincidental that all these folks saw the exact same thing, right?

I mean what is the conclusion? That Paul suffered delirium? And so did Peter, and Stephan, and Mary, and the rest of the other reported. And for reasons unknown to us, Paul and the others with Paul's must of lied about sharing the experiences on Damascus? None of which would give reason to doubt the evidences of fulfilling the OT prophecies or law, or the acts of Jesus himself.

Yes, this is exactly why I bring up this other dude. It does not matter how well you know this other dude, or not. The fact remains that we have countless testimonials to many first hand eyewitness miracles of Sathya Sai Baba. And since you claim that Peter, Stephan, and Mary could not be suffering the same delirium, then the testimonies of Sathya Sai Baba should be even much more believable, right?

obviously there is no good explanation through the skeptical side that could explain Christianity. You start with things like Paul hallucinated and made up the religion, but then divert to suggesting the entire story is a lie.

IMHO, the reason such a claim could never be substantiated, or rejected, is because it is unfalsifiable.

However that does nothing to explain how Christianity actually came into existence at all... It would have to be some kind of mass conspiracy that no one has any answers to.

The same can be said for Sathya Sai Baba.

The fact that people even point to Paul having a hallucination is evidence that goes against the entire thing being made up, yet that is where you guys always have to divert to when people evaluate what you are saying.

I'm not diverting anything. I do not know if Paul hallucinated, or not. And quite frankly, there is no way to prove that he did, or didn't But my initial question still stands. 4th time and counting....

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

Dude i dont know who Sathya Sai Baba is.

Have you ever used "google" before? Are you just stalling or trying to avoid the question?

He's a dude who apparently performed many miracles/etc. Many witnessed these miracles. Do you believe these testimonials?

5th request:

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

[Shem Yoshi]

We are talking about Paul suffering delirium, which is one of the most prominent theories about how Christianity/Resurrection came into existence from atheistic critics. So yes the rationale that others witnessed the same things, including 2 other people on the road to Damascus, not to mention Ananias's account with Paul after the event. Or Stephan's account before the event, or Peters witnessing of the Jesus after the event saying "Peter, get up, kill and Eat"... Would raise serious doubt about Paul's delirium.

Sounds to me, that even if the position that "Paul was delirious" was true, you would still believe just the same. Why? You could still just as easily argue that others saw the exact same thing as Paul. Thus, it would be too coincidental that all these folks saw the exact same thing, right?

I mean what is the conclusion? That Paul suffered delirium? And so did Peter, and Stephan, and Mary, and the rest of the other reported. And for reasons unknown to us, Paul and the others with Paul's must of lied about sharing the experiences on Damascus? None of which would give reason to doubt the evidences of fulfilling the OT prophecies or law, or the acts of Jesus himself.

Yes, this is exactly why I bring up this other dude. It does not matter how well you know this other dude, or not. The fact remains that we have countless testimonials to many first hand eyewitness miracles of Sathya Sai Baba. And since you claim that Peter, Stephan, and Mary could not be suffering the same delirium, then the testimonies of Sathya Sai Baba should be even much more believable, right?

obviously there is no good explanation through the skeptical side that could explain Christianity. You start with things like Paul hallucinated and made up the religion, but then divert to suggesting the entire story is a lie.

IMHO, the reason such a claim could never be substantiated, or rejected, is because it is unfalsifiable.

However that does nothing to explain how Christianity actually came into existence at all... It would have to be some kind of mass conspiracy that no one has any answers to.

The same can be said for Sathya Sai Baba.

The fact that people even point to Paul having a hallucination is evidence that goes against the entire thing being made up, yet that is where you guys always have to divert to when people evaluate what you are saying.

I'm not diverting anything. I do not know if Paul hallucinated, or not. And quite frankly, there is no way to prove that he did, or didn't But my initial question still stands. 4th time and counting....

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

Dude i dont know who Sathya Sai Baba is.

Have you ever used "google" before? Are you just stalling or trying to avoid the question?

He's a dude who apparently performed many miracles/etc. Many witnessed these miracles. Do you believe these testimonials?

5th request:

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

You really like to repeat questions don't you?