Paul's Conversion

[brightlights]

How do you explain the conversion of the apostle Paul?

It is a well attributed, nearly undeniable fact attested by believers and skeptics alike. Paul was a devout Jew of the Pharisee sect. He viewed Christianity as a threat to the Mosaic religion and devoted himself to destroying it. And then suddenly he became a devout Christian for no apparent gain and at great personal risk. He became a preacher of the faith he tried to destroy and consequentially became the most influential figure in western culture. We know about his dramatic conversion from his authentic letters and from outside sources. He claims that the risen Christ appeared to him. There are really only three possible explanations and I only find option 3 convincing:

1. The Fraud Theory -- For some reason Paul lied about his experience. But for what convincing reason would he completely change the trajectory of his life and go, eventually, to martyrdom if he was lying about it?

2. The Vision Theory -- Paul honestly thought he saw the risen Christ but was mistaken. He only had a subjective vision. But this kind of phenomenon is hardly becoming of an educated man with obvious intellectual rigor who otherwise shows no signs of mental instability. It also does not explain the other parties involved in the incident (those who accompanied Paul and Ananias).

3. The Resurrection of Christ -- That Jesus really rose from death and really appeared to Paul and thus ensured his conversion and the victory of Christianity over the western world.

How do you explain it?

 

[Paradoxum]

2. The Vision Theory -- Paul honestly thought he saw the risen Christ but was mistaken. He only had a subjective vision. But this kind of phenomenon is hardly becoming of an educated man with obvious intellectual rigor who otherwise shows no signs of mental instability. It also does not explain the other parties involved in the incident (those who accompanied Paul and Ananias).

This, or perhaps things happened differently to how the Bible says it happened.

Why do you think stable educated people can't have visions? Considering he thought it was ok to persecute Christians prior to the experience, I do question how intellectually rigorous he was. If any reason is a good reason to believe, it would seem having a vision would be high up there anyway.

Just because a book says other people saw something, doesn't mean that actually happened.

 

[Elioenai26]

This, or perhaps things happened differently to how the Bible says it happened.

Possibilities come cheap.

We have no good reason to think that the events recorded regarding the Apostle Paul are anything but the truth.

Why do you think stable educated people can't have visions?

The Apostle Paul displayed no prior sign or indicators of one predisposed to hallucinatory visions or hallucinations.

Considering he thought it was ok to persecute Christians prior to the experience, I do question how intellectually rigorous he was.

Why would his persecution of Christians be an indicator that he was not intellectually rigorous?

If any reason is a good reason to believe, it would seem having a vision would be high up there anyway.

He had a vision. This occurrance affected not only him, but those accompanying him. This was not subjective, rather, it was an event that caused the traveling band of men to stop in their tracks on the road to Damascus.

Just because a book says other people saw something, doesn't mean that actually happened.

What good reason do we have to believe that the physician and historian Luke was wrong regarding this paradigm shift in Paul's life?

Once again, possibilities come cheap.

In light of all of the above, hypothesis three is more more plausible.

 

[clark thompson]

Paul may have saw a vision due to no one else seeing Jesus. Paul's testiomony though a vision was true and changed his life. Paul's life changing was the most important part.

 

[essentialsaltes]

How do you explain the conversion of the apostle Paul?

Given the differences between Pauline Christianity and Jesus' teachings, I always imagined that Paul was trying to take advantage of and take over this new religious movement.

 

[Eudaimonist]

How do you explain the conversion of the apostle Paul?

The options you give sound too much like Lord, Liar, Lunatic, in that they don't sufficiently take into account the possibility that others had lied about Paul's vision, inventing it.

But assuming that is not the case, I can't say if the visons really happened or not, but I think that one should take seriously the following point:

But did Paul really have these visions, or is he just making these claims up as part of an apocalyptic tradition to claim apostolistic authority? Either Paul really had visions and out of body experiences or he exaggerated or he presented these claims as theological devices. [...]

The issue of how Paul uses "visions" is important however. We absolutely know that during this time and place people used claims of visions as a means to tell stories, as a means to lend weight to what they were saying, as a means to claim authority, etc., but do we believe that when Zephaniah and others tell us of their visions that they really had literal visions, or do we understand this as a theological and literary device?

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_followup.htm

It's important to understand the style of writing in those days to properly appreciate what is being said. If it was common in those days for a writer to claim visions in order to adopt authority, it shouldn't be so surprising if Paul had done the same thing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[lupusFati]

It's important to understand the style of writing in those days to properly appreciate what is being said. If it was common in those days for a writer to claim visions in order to adopt authority, it shouldn't be so surprising if Paul had done the same thing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Huh. I never knew that.

 

[Johnnz]

Huh. I never knew that.

Paul was not the only witness to the resurrected Christ. Paul articulated Christ to a non Jewish audience, an din doing so while remaining true to Christ's message was one of the great intellectual achievments of antiquity.

John
NZ

 

[Paradoxum]

Possibilities come cheap.

What does that mean?

We have no good reason to think that the events recorded regarding the Apostle Paul are anything but the truth.

We have no reason to think they are true either.

If a book said that an angel, or Jesus, came to Muhammad and a few others, and said that Jesus wasn't God incarnate, would you believe the book?

It is quite reasonable to think that the vision, or the fact the others saw it, was made up.

The Apostle Paul displayed no prior sign or indicators of one predisposed to hallucinatory visions or hallucinations.

How do you know? We are talking about something that happened 2000 years ago.

The mind plays tricks. He could have fallen off his horse, hit his head, and then seen something.

Why would his persecution of Christians be an indicator that he was not intellectually rigorous?

He had a vision. This occurrance affected not only him, but those accompanying him. This was not subjective, rather, it was an event that caused the traveling band of men to stop in their tracks on the road to Damascus.

Well, that is was the book says.

What good reason do we have to believe that the physician and historian Luke was wrong regarding this paradigm shift in Paul's life?

Why should we think he was right? He's the one making the amazing claim. It isn't hard to imagine that someone could write something non-historical (whether on purpose or not).

In light of all of the above, hypothesis three is more more plausible.

You wouldn't apply the same reasoning if it were another religion making similar claims.

Given the differences between Pauline Christianity and Jesus' teachings, I always imagined that Paul was trying to take advantage of and take over this new religious movement.

In what important ways would you say they are different?

 

[jayem]

2. The Vision Theory -- Paul honestly thought he saw the risen Christ but was mistaken. He only had a subjective vision. But this kind of phenomenon is hardly becoming of an educated man with obvious intellectual rigor who otherwise shows no signs of mental instability. It also does not explain the other parties involved in the incident (those who accompanied Paul and Ananias).

Education doesn't preclude one from having visions. Let's assume the account is substantially true. (Which is questionable, right off the bat.) I'd consider a neurologic event. Suddenly going blind suggests some vascular compromise in the visual system. Either a small stroke, or a TIA with delayed recovery for 3 days. It's not common, but visual and auditory hallucinations have been reported, especially with cortical involvement. If the traveling companions were blinded, that could be a mass psychogenic phenomenon. (Current term for mass hysteria. A group exposed to an unexpectedly fearful, shocking, or emotionally stressful event all develop similar physical symptoms.) These were credulous times. People truly believed in supernatural events and would be susceptible to suggestion.

Theophanies are fairly common. And some have had transformative effects. Do you believe an angel name Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith?
If that really happened, then you need to rethink what type of Christian doctrine you follow. How about all the visions of the Virgin Mary that have been reported? (She supposedly made multiple appearances at Loudes. And appeared to several people at Fatima.) And believers in other faiths have claimed to have seen their gods, also. For my money, these all derive either from malfunctioning brains, or from the psychological peculiarities of fantasy-prone persons.

 

[brightlights]

Education doesn't preclude one from having visions. Let's assume the account is substantially true. (Which is questionable, right off the bat.) I'd consider a neurologic event. Suddenly going blind suggests some vascular compromise in the visual system. Either a small stroke, or a TIA with delayed recovery for 3 days. It's not common, but visual and auditory hallucinations have been reported, especially with cortical involvement. If the traveling companions were blinded, that could be a mass psychogenic phenomenon. (Current term for mass hysteria. A group exposed to an unexpectedly fearful, shocking, or emotionally stressful event all develop similar physical symptoms.) These were credulous times. People truly believed in supernatural events and would be susceptible to suggestion.

This is true. But Paul's vision was not the sort of vision that he would have expected or wanted to have. It wasn't a vision that was confirming a previous prejudice but a vision that flew in the face of everything he stood for. Once he "came to his senses" couldn't he have reasoned that his "vision" was just a temporary lapse of sanity? Yet he doesn't. This unexpected, unwanted vision changed the entire course of his life.

Theophanies are fairly common. And some have had transformative effects. Do you believe an angel name Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith?
If that really happened, then you need to rethink what type of Christian doctrine you follow. How about all the visions of the Virgin Mary that have been reported? (She supposedly made multiple appearances at Loudes. And appeared to several people at Fatima.) And believers in other faiths have claimed to have seen their gods, also. For my money, these all derive either from malfunctioning brains, or from the psychological peculiarities of fantasy-prone persons.

Yes theophanies are common, but Paul's theophany is unique because it changed the course of western history.

 

[brightlights]

Just because a book says other people saw something, doesn't mean that actually happened.

But we don't just have a book from Luke describing Paul's experience. We have authentic letters from Paul himself that describe the same vision.

 

[brightlights]

Given the differences between Pauline Christianity and Jesus' teachings, I always imagined that Paul was trying to take advantage of and take over this new religious movement.

Why would he go from zealously defending the Mosaic faith and persecuting Christians to preaching the faith he tried to destroy? This seems more implausible than my explanation.

 

[brightlights]

The options you give sound too much like Lord, Liar, Lunatic, in that they don't sufficiently take into account the possibility that others had lied about Paul's vision, inventing it.

But assuming that is not the case, I can't say if the visons really happened or not, but I think that one should take seriously the following point:

But did Paul really have these visions, or is he just making these claims up as part of an apocalyptic tradition to claim apostolistic authority? Either Paul really had visions and out of body experiences or he exaggerated or he presented these claims as theological devices. [...]

The issue of how Paul uses "visions" is important however. We absolutely know that during this time and place people used claims of visions as a means to tell stories, as a means to lend weight to what they were saying, as a means to claim authority, etc., but do we believe that when Zephaniah and others tell us of their visions that they really had literal visions, or do we understand this as a theological and literary device?

Jesus Myth Part II - Follow-up, Commentary, and Expansion

It's important to understand the style of writing in those days to properly appreciate what is being said. If it was common in those days for a writer to claim visions in order to adopt authority, it shouldn't be so surprising if Paul had done the same thing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

This ignores that we have Paul's own words attesting to his vision and conversion. It also ignores his conversion. Why would he convert from zealous, pharisaical, Christian-persecuting Judaism to become the greatest preacher of the Christian faith?

 

[Loudmouth]

This ignores that we have Paul's own words attesting to his vision and conversion.

We also have Joseph Smith's own words as to him finding golden tablets and being guided by the angel Moroni. Why would Joseph Smith lie about this given the persecution that he and his followers faced?

If you are unconvinced by Joseph Smith's testimony, perhaps you can understand why we are as skeptical of Paul's testimony.

 

[jayem]

Yes theophanies are common, but Paul's theophany is unique because it changed the course of western history.

Getting off topic, but it was Constantine's conversion that really gave Christianity its dominance in western culture. It was in a fragile balance with various pagan faiths until Constantine legitimized it as the official state religion of the Roman empire. And I'm sure you know the legend that before the big battle, Constantine had a vision, or dream of what he thought was a Christian symbol. And it that would lead him to victoriously unite both halves of the empire. Constantine's (supposed) vision did a lot more to directly change the course of history than Paul's.

 

[Johnnz]

We also have Joseph Smith's own words as to him finding golden tablets and being guided by the angel Moroni. Why would Joseph Smith lie about this given the persecution that he and his followers faced?

If you are unconvinced by Joseph Smith's testimony, perhaps you can understand why we are as skeptical of Paul's testimony.

There is more to it than that.

Joseph Smith visions were individual (as was Mohammed's), Jesus was seen my hundreds of people. he talked, cooked fish, allowed people to touch him. Also Christ's life was continuation and fulfillment of a long history set out in the OT. Pual was very faithful to that nutrition as he wrote about Jesus. There is a complex interlocking of factors that substantiate all the NT accounts of Jesus and His resurrection.

John
NZ

 

[Loudmouth]

There is more to it than that.

Joseph Smith visions were individual (as was Mohammed's), Jesus was seen my hundreds of people.

Joseph Smith was seen by hundreds of people, as was Mohammed.

So why do you doubt their testimony?

 

[Eudaimonist]

This ignores that we have Paul's own words attesting to his vision and conversion. It also ignores his conversion. Why would he convert from zealous, pharisaical, Christian-persecuting Judaism to become the greatest preacher of the Christian faith?

Your argument is just "Lord, Liar, Lunatic" warmed over, and it suffers from the same oversimplifications.

We don't know if Paul had the vision, or if it was a literary device. It could easily have been the literary device.

In any case, there was nothing to prevent him from preaching whatever he wanted.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Elioenai26]

Brightlights, one thing that you must understand is that the audience you are speaking to is not even going to concede that the accounts that we have of the Apostle Paul and his conversion are even trustworthy.

They will simply deny that we can know anything about Paul.

So you are going to have a hard time even talking to such people about the Apostle Paul. Your responses from such people are going to be similar to Mark's response. Or the one we have from Paradoxum.

It will be impossible for you to dialogue with them about the Apostle Paul in any substantial way.