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?

[POI]

You really like to repeat questions don't you?

No. I'd rather have the question answered, and not have to keep asking. Are you going to answer it? If not, why not? If so, what is the answer?

[Shem Yoshi]

You really like to repeat questions don't you?

No. I'd rather have the question answered, and not have to keep asking. Are you going to answer it? If not, why not? If so, what is the answer?

apples to oranges... there's your answer... iv actually already said it, you ignore it and keep asking the question.

[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.

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.

Hearsay might well be correct and true, it is very often hearsay in history, not to say propaganda. But that is not the case in a courtroom, so you cannot make the courtroom analogy and ignore that hearsay is not admissible. If you want to use the written history analogy, you will be on firmer ground.

And Luke is not trustworthy in his gospel. While one could jettison Matthew and even Mark where they differ from Luke, his fiddling is just too evident. Take the rejection at Nazareth. The synoptic original was Jesus going to Nazareth and they did not buy his message - it says. But Luke shifts it to the start of the ministry, has Jesus declare himself and the locals try to murder him. In all reason, this is fiddling and adding to what was originally there.It is fabrication, not first hand note -taking.

Then take the calling of the disciples. There is the miracle of the netful of fish, which is a clear addition to the original story (also found in John, but After the resurrection).

Take also the angelic message for the disciples to go to Galilee to meet Jesus. Luke knows from Paul's letter that the disciples stayed in Jerusalem, so he alters the message to fit with that. No, there is plenty of evidence that Luke fiddled and invented his material, not got it from any reliable source.

[POI]

You really like to repeat questions don't you?

No. I'd rather have the question answered, and not have to keep asking. Are you going to answer it? If not, why not? If so, what is the answer?

apples to oranges... there's your answer... iv actually already said it, you ignore it and keep asking the question.

In post 38, you stated "no one needs to know the story of Sathya Sai Baba to evaluate Christianity.".

If you would at least understand my question, you would answer it. Since you are going out of your way not to, allow me to push this along....

Through our exchange, your 'evaluation' process involves reading that multiple people reported the same thing Paul did, in the Bible. Great. Multiple people reported the exact same miracles for Sathya Sai Baba. If your rubric, in reaching a sound conclusion, is that multiple reports of the same miracles, lead to it happening, then I guess it would be even MORE logical to conclude Sathya Sai Baba's claims, right?.?.?.?.?

[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.

Hearsay might well be correct and true, it is very often hearsay in history, not to say propaganda. But that is not the case in a courtroom, so you cannot make the courtroom analogy and ignore that hearsay is not admissible. If you want to use the written history analogy, you will be on firmer ground.

The court analogy was pointing out a fallacy in logic, which is true in and out of the court room. Also Acts is not hearsay, by definition.

And Luke is not trustworthy in his gospel. While one could jettison Matthew and even Mark where they differ from Luke, his fiddling is just too evident. Take the rejection at Nazareth. The synoptic original was Jesus going to Nazareth and they did not buy his message - it says. But Luke shifts it to the start of the ministry, has Jesus declare himself and the locals try to murder him. In all reason, this is fiddling and adding to what was originally there.It is fabrication, not first hand note -taking.

Then take the calling of the disciples. There is the miracle of the netful of fish, which is a clear addition to the original story (also found in John, but After the resurrection).

Take also the angelic message for the disciples to go to Galilee to meet Jesus. Luke knows from Paul's letter that the disciples stayed in Jerusalem, so he alters the message to fit with that. No, there is plenty of evidence that Luke fiddled and invented his material, not got it from any reliable source.

the differences in the Gospels does not automatically conclude that Luke (or the others) lied or intentionally mislead from the truth. There is a few theories of why minor differences occur, including all gospels being partial stories of an entire picture, or even a divine mystical revealing... But lets assume there is actual misinformation in them, like what you are suggesting, that doesnt mean Luke lied or was intentionally misleading ('fiddling'). It doesnt mean Luke is less likely to be true then the others. And it doesnt mean factual things are not present in all of them (as if the entire story is wrong and it should be "thrown out" as you are suggesting), in fact every story you mention is collaborated in the other Gospels, even if the details differ.

How do you come to the conclusion that ALL of Luke AND Acts is false?

Also, what is a good theory of the origins of Christianity? I have yet to see a single theory that can account for the foundation and origins of Christianity. Just skepticism... but if we get into true skepticism, you cant believe anything at all. Go to Cartesian Skepticism the only thing that can be believed is that you think and therefor you exists. Is there any good skeptical theories of how Christianity exists? Or the universe at that matter? Or Life, and Natural Order? Skepticism tells us nothing, expect you cant believe anything... Yet in doing that, you have no answers for any of these things, and it shows here. And im not saying skepticism is wrong, but it certainly doesnt establish some objective truth about the world around us, or Christianity... Just admit it guys, you have no answers...

[Shem Yoshi]

You really like to repeat questions don't you?

No. I'd rather have the question answered, and not have to keep asking. Are you going to answer it? If not, why not? If so, what is the answer?

apples to oranges... there's your answer... iv actually already said it, you ignore it and keep asking the question.

In post 38, you stated "no one needs to know the story of Sathya Sai Baba to evaluate Christianity.".

If you would at least understand my question, you would answer it. Since you are going out of your way not to, allow me to push this along....

Through our exchange, your 'evaluation' process involves reading that multiple people reported the same thing Paul did, in the Bible. Great. Multiple people reported the exact same miracles for Sathya Sai Baba. If your rubric, in reaching a sound conclusion, is that multiple reports of the same miracles, lead to it happening, then I guess it would be even MORE logical to conclude Sathya Sai Baba's claims, right?.?.?.?.?

You keep failing to understand what I am saying. The reason why we are talking about multiple witnesses is because people are suggesting Paul hallucinated.

So i dont know who Sathya Sai Baba is, i think google might not be the best source to go to, and ultimately both claims are totally different. But if someone was saying that Sathya Sai Baba had a hallucination of some kind of miraculous event, yet other people where also saying the same thing, like that they witnessed the event. That would certainly be evidence that Sathya Sai Baba didnt hallucinate and there needs to be some kind of better explanation of the event.

[POI]

Dear Shem Yoshi, and maybe others;

Threads like this, polarize something.... Unfalsifiable claims are placed in front of us. The ones who do not believe, sometimes feel compelled to prove a negative. Meaning, proving, or at least trying to justify, why it likely did not happen.

Some believe, some don't. In this case, this pertains to the claim --- "Paul experienced a supernatural event, and so did other(s)." Okay, so the ones that do not believe get scoffed at by many. Why? Christianity, as a whole, is a claim, which is believed by over 2 billion people, in some capacity. If it was some fringe belief, and merely hidden within the trenches, I doubt it would be a topic here in this arena.

So when I raise the parallel between Jesus and Sathya Sai Baba, I'm polarizing a point. Both you and I probably do not take the claims of Sathya Sai Baba very seriously. Even though he apparently performed these miracles within our lifetimes, and has many 'witnesses'. So if you say you do not believe Sathya Sai Baba did this or that, and I give the exact same rationale you gave about the story surrounding Jesus, then what?

[Shem Yoshi]

Also you guys should totally have faith... just give it up.... you got no answers... God is good, and Jesus loves you...

[POI]

You keep failing to understand what I am saying. The reason why we are talking about multiple witnesses is because people are suggesting Paul hallucinated.

Yes, I know. I already acknowledged this many times. Please follow below.

So i dont know who Sathya Sai Baba is,

In this scenario, (Jesus = Sathya Sai Baba). Meaning, they are both the ones said to do miracles.

i think google might not be the best source to go to, and ultimately both claims are totally different.

Again, both Jesus and Sathya Sai Baba have been witnessed, (by many), doing 'miracles'.

But if someone was saying that Sathya Sai Baba had a hallucination of some kind of miraculous event, yet other people where also saying the same thing, like that they witnessed the event.

Please also see post 57.

[Shem Yoshi]

Dear Shem Yoshi, and maybe others;

Threads like this, polarize something.... Unfalsifiable claims are placed in front of us. The ones who do not believe, sometimes feel compelled to prove a negative. Meaning, proving, or at least trying to justify, why it likely did not happen.

Some believe, some don't. In this case, this pertains to the claim --- "Paul experienced a supernatural event, and so did other(s)." Okay, so the ones that do not believe get scoffed at by many. Why? Christianity, as a whole, is a claim, which is believed by over 2 billion people, in some capacity. If it was some fringe belief, and merely hidden within the trenches, I doubt it would be a topic here in this arena.

So when I raise the parallel between Jesus and Sathya Sai Baba, I'm polarizing a point. Both you and I probably do not take the claims of Sathya Sai Baba very seriously. Even though he apparently performed these miracles within our lifetimes, and has many 'witnesses'. So if you say you do not believe Sathya Sai Baba did this or that, and I give the exact same rationale you gave about the story surrounding Jesus, then what?

I actually think it is fully possible miracles, or supernatural events can happen outside of Christianity... And the Bible would actually support this. It says there are true prophets and false prophets, that Satan goes around and deceives people, etc...

So what?

Jesus said this "For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect."

If i would believe anyone, i think it would be a personal experience... In fact I have met prophets... They just do things and say things that they might not even know is prophecy, but you can see it unfold and was prophetic in your life.

"For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

Sometimes people are just carried by the spirit to say something or do something and it is of God's doing.