How did Paul know it was Jesus?

Gus Bovona said:
That's a good question. I guess I was suggesting more investigation in general, for any such similar experience, but in Paul's specific case, there might well not be any investigation he could have done that would have led to a firm conclusion, which means he'd be left with, "I don't know what just happened."


Well, plenty of things can be life-changing but perfectly normal and understood (winning the lottery, for instance). But Paul's experience was other-worldly, given the supposed appearance of someone who had died.

If I see, for instance, Abraham Lincoln (whose appearance I'm very familiar with, from photos), I'm gripping the handrail really tight, looking all around me for what else might be going on that is completely unprecedented, and questioning my sanity, frankly. That would turn my world upside down, whether it was really Abraham Lincoln or not.

Actually, wouldn't one's first thought be, "You're not really Abe, you're an actor or an imposter or are just dressing up, etc." I wonder if Paul thought anything similar. He gives no indication that he did, and that's not to his credit.
Click to expand...
Ok, thanks for the discussion. I don't have anything more to add to it.
 
Caroljeen said:
Then do you stick your head in the sand or deny you saw Jesus? Otherwise you have to explain it away.
Click to expand...
Third option: "I don't know wtf that was."

Not coming up with an explanation is not "sticking one's head in the sand".
Caroljeen said:
I had added this to the post "Unless you believe the whole story to be a fabrication."
Click to expand...
Again, you imply that I am required have some belief about the story.

One of my school friends claimed that he saw the ghost of a nurse one night while in bed, and that she tucked him in before disappearing.

Do I believe that this actually happened? No.
Do I believe that Kris was lying? No.

What's my explanation? I don't have one, nor am I required to have one.
Caroljeen said:
There are biblical historians who accept that Paul existed but read the book of Acts as historical fiction because they don't believe in the supernatural. So here's another option you can consider.
Click to expand...
I do not believe that Paul saw Jesus.
That's as far as I go, and as far as I need to go.
 
Last edited:
Gus Bovona said:
I'm not sure I've ever seen this issue raised here, nor anywhere else.

I read someone saying that Bart Ehrman brought up this point: how did Paul know it was Jesus that he saw on the road to Damascus? Presumably Paul had never met Jesus before his vision of Jesus. Did he just automatically believe what the vision was telling him?
Click to expand...

Ananias knew what Jesus looked like and so when he goes to Saul/Paul and says....hey Saul you know that Road to Damascus thingy...

Saul wonders how on earth Ananias could know of that event.

Ananais tells him how he knows.

Because my friend Jesus...

Saul goes...whoa...you know Jesus?

Ananais goes...yep, and He was the one who...
 
Lion IRC said:
Ananias knew what Jesus looked like and so when he goes to Saul/Paul and says....hey Saul you know that Road to Damascus thingy...

Saul wonders how on earth Ananias could know of that event.

Ananais tells him how he knows.

Because my friend Jesus...

Saul goes...whoa...you know Jesus?

Ananais goes...yep, and He was the one who...
Click to expand...
But didn't Paul conclude that it was Jesus before he talked to Ananias?
 
Sure, but some folks aren't satisfied with Paul trusting his own sensory experience as the basis for that conclusion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
Gus Bovona said:
Maybe that happened. But maybe it didn't. I don't think we have any way of knowing whether it did or not. We don't get to assume it did. But that could be one way that Paul recognized Jesus.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it is a rational assumption. The other possibility is that the Holy Spirit revealed to Paul that it was Jesus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
Lucian said:
Because the KJV is translating the same word in the same way on both occasions. The NASB changes its translation to avoid a contradiction. Perhaps that’s reasonable, but it’s not obvious why.
Click to expand...
No, in Acts 22 the words are literally translated "did not hear with understanding". The NAS just changed it to "did not understand the voice". There is no evidence of your claim.
 
Eightcrackers said:
Do "we" trust the sensory experiences of people that claim to have been abducted by aliens?
Click to expand...
Why then would you be interested in why Paul did or didnt believe in something you dont believe in?

We are convinced and you are not happy with people believing in Jesus it seems
 
BMS said:
Why then would you be interested in why Paul did or didnt believe in something you dont believe in?
Click to expand...
I don't believe either - I am consistent.
I want to know why Christians believe one, but not the other, because that is not consistent.
 
El Cid said:
No, in Acts 22 the words are literally translated "did not hear with understanding". The NAS just changed it to "did not understand the voice". There is no evidence of your claim.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid there is. The word translated ‘hear’ in the one verse and ‘understand’ in the other are, as I say, identical. This much, at least, is indisputable.
 
The passage is clear from the rest of scripture. The word 'akouō is used as "to hear" and occasionally "to understand" but the context must mean 'to hear' because it is followed by phōnē voice, and then it is Jesus who says it is He. We also see that Paul claims he was not taught by men but by Jesus and the scriptures show they all affirm that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top