What happened to Paul on the road to Damascus?

[Wootah]

Acts 9 English Standard Version (ESV)
The Conversion of Saul
9 But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven shone around him. 4 And falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?� 5 And he said, “Who are you, Lord?� And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 6 But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.� 7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. 8 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. 9 And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

What happened to Paul on the road to Damascus?

[Zzyzx]

.

Why give any special treatment to the Paul/Saul tale?

Actually, the apostle Paul mentioned it himself if you refer to 1 Corinthians 15:7-8.

Notice that Paul/Saul did NOT tell the story of the supposed 'vision'. If only his words are consider there is NO description of what supposedly happened. The tale was supplied by the writer of Acts (whoever that may have been).

It may also be significant that Paul/Saul also said:
2Corinthians 12:16 But be that as it may, I did not burden you myself; nevertheless, crafty fellow that I am, I took you in by deceit.

And:

Romans 3:7 But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner?


Perhaps he also was a 'crafty fellow' if he told a tall tale to the writer of Acts about his 'conversion'

[Tired of the Nonsense]

All empirical evidence indicates that the dead are no longer capable of communicating with the living. Paul seemed to believe that he had a face to face meeting with Jesus, who had been executed by the Romans some few years earlier. All empirical evidence, what I have referred to as common experience, common knowledge, and common sense, indicates that it is physically impossible for an individual to have a face to face meeting with a dead person. Such a claim is the very definition of an hallucination. An hallucination which, in Paul's case, can rather easily be explained by the information provided by Acts, which indicates that Paul experienced some sort of physical collapse, and that Paul was experiencing severe dehydration at the time.

My disagreement is on the nature of the evidence. I know what the current evidence says but that evidence has limitations. It only applies to 'natural' processes. It only applies to what's been observed SO FAR. Sure, we can use inductive logic to generalize to all cases but inductive inferences aren't about proof, but rather about probability (all of which are subject to change based on NEW observations and evidence).

Paul's claims were not scientifically tested.

Neither you or I were there so there is no empirical evidence to be had here beyond what Luke wrote.

In terms of logic, your argument is nothing more than an argument from ignorance.

The author of Acts was not present either. The source for the story in Acts is Paul himself. And Paul was the afflicted person.

Basically, none of us were there except Paul. So none of us have empirically testable evidence in Paul's case.

My disagreement is on the nature of the evidence. I know what the current evidence says but that evidence has limitations. It only applies to 'natural' processes. It only applies to what's been observed SO FAR. Sure, we can use inductive logic to generalize to all cases but inductive inferences aren't about proof, but rather about probability (all of which are subject to change based on NEW observations and evidence).

The evidence does not account for make believe. This is true. We cannot rule out the possibility that Paul actually met with a dead man in exactly the same way as we cannot rule out Santa and his team of flying reindeer. We can only go by what is plausible, and what is not.

[Danmark]

.

It could also be the case that another physiological condition could have been responsible for Paul's symptoms.

Can a psychological condition (rather than physiological) be eliminated as a causative factor in his 'experience' -- if there was one as Acts claims?

Excellent point! Here again we find the artificial division between physiological and psychological. Ultimately everything has a physiological basis. The brain is not an inanimate lump. The workings between its 100 billion cells with trillions of connections result in thoughts, moods, and autonomic responses we are not conscious of.
Heat, dehydration, toxins, trauma, rage, guilt all combine with other factors to cause changes in the brain, some permanent, some evanescent.

[Danmark]

Obviously you are free to take whatever position appeals to you. You must recognize however that if you take a position that is contradictory to all common observation, common experience, and therefore all common sense, you will have lost an argument based on logic. Taking a position that is contradictory to all common observation, common experience, and therefore all common sense, is little different than stating "It's true because I say so." Which is not offering an argument at all.

Go on believing whatever appeals to you to believe. But you've lost this argument.

We have your explanation and Luke's. You offer a natural explanation and Luke offers a supernatural one. I can see why you believe your conclusion is correct but I disagree that is based on evidence and logic.

In terms of evidence, nothing in the text says that Paul was hallucinating. To the contrary, it describes the event as being a real encounter of Jesus. . You only 'infer' that Paul was hallucinating. Neither you or I were there so there is no empirical evidence to be had here beyond what Luke wrote.

We don't even know the writer's identity, yet you want to refer to his work as the equivalent of 'empirical evidence?!' In Paul's many letters does he even once refer to his supposed companion as "Luke, a physician?"

So we have a choice between a common sense explanation that has accounted for many claims of 'religious ecstasy' and visions from the earliest shamans to Joe Smith, to the 21st Century fake miracle workers and their various claims of magical thinking; i.e., the 'supernatural.'

[Difflugia]

We don't even know the writer's identity, yet you want to refer to his work as the equivalent of 'empirical evidence?!' In Paul's many letters does he even once refer to his supposed companion as "Luke, a physician?"

Colossians 4:14 refers to "Luke, the beloved physician." Scholars are split over whether Colossians is genuine.

The other references to Luke as companion to Paul (but not as "physician") are Philemon 1:24 (considered genuine by nearly all scholars) and 2 Timothy 4:11 (considered a forgery by nearly all scholars).

The earliest identification of Luke as the author of the Gospel is by Irenaeus, who specifically quotes the verse from Colossians in reference to his identification. He never says why he thinks Luke wrote Luke, but does mention that Marcion and Valentinus used Luke's Gospel. It's possible that he's trusting a tradition from one of them or somewhere else, but it's also possible that he came to the conclusion for his own, unstated reasons.

[polonius]

Did Paul himself ever mention his Damascus road experience in any of his many epistles?

If not, what does this tell you?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Did Paul himself ever mention his Damascus road experience in any of his many epistles?

If not, what does this tell you?

Galations 1:
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Not in any real detail.

[Zzyzx]

.

Did Paul himself ever mention his Damascus road experience in any of his many epistles?

Paul/Saul said VERY little about the 'conversion experience' (or delusion or whatever it was). The story was told years or decades later by the writer of Acts (whoever that may have been).

Here is what Paul/Saul actually wrote:

1 Cor. 15:3–8 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Galatians 1:11-16 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. ...But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.

2 Corinthians 12:2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. 3 And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— 4 was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.

If not, what does this tell you?

It suggests to me that the writer of Acts was VERY creative.

And that Paul/Saul writings are similar to many Apologist 'arguments' -- evasive and lacking in information.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 180 by Zzyzx]

[Replying to post 181 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Both of your views are extreme. One claims that only natural explanations are possible while Zzyzx tries to claim that Paul mentioned nothing himself or that if he did, it probably was a lie.

The reason why I stress that your views are extreme is because you ignore alternative conclusions for the unnecessarily restrictive ones. It is obvious how the ideologies of materialism and scientism influence your conclusions.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 180 by Zzyzx]

[Replying to post 181 by Tired of the Nonsense]
What you two have offered are nothing but extreme views. One claimss that only natural explanations are possible and Zzyzx claims that I learned long ago that when there are multiple explanations for something, especially extreme explanations, that I should go with the moderate explanation (even it's only as a starting point). There are several reasons why I tend to choose the moderate explanation but the main reason is they are likely to contain evidence from multiple sides of an issue.

Now back to your explanations. Sure, there is no evidence of anything supernatural but that doesn't have to mean that only natural explanations are possible. Sure that might be the case but it could also be the case that we have no way of evidencing the supernatural or we haven't verified a case yet.

Zzyzx claims that the apostle Paul did not mention the experience of meeting Jesus while travelling to Damascus. I've shown otherwise. But then he goes on to say that Paul was used deceit and the Damascus experience would've been one of them. Does telling one lie mean that you'll lie about everything else?

Again, it's very telling that you guys would jump to the most extreme of positions.