Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Paul had his "encounter" with Jesus at a time when he was sick and delirious, and recuperating from being near death. The fact that Jesus had been executed some years prior to Paul's experience on his way to Damascus should effectively answer the question of whether Paul actually met the years dead Jesus "in the flesh."
Actually, the delirium was a consequence, not a cause of his encounter on the Damascus road.
Agreed that Paul's Jesus had to be non material/not in the flesh for the reason you cite, and because as Paul said, he was the last to see the risen Jesus as an authentic Resurrection vision - and he made the notion of Apostleship dependent on this criterion.
Actually, the delirium was a consequence, not a cause of his encounter on the Damascus road.
Agreed that Paul's Jesus had to be non material/not in the flesh for the reason you cite, and because as Paul said, he was the last to see the risen Jesus as an authentic Resurrection vision - and he made the notion of Apostleship dependent on this criterion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveb1
Actually, the delirium was a consequence, not a cause of his encounter on the Damascus road.
Acts.9:
[9] And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink
Actually three days without drinking explains the entire event. Three days without drinking, especially in a hot arid desert environment, is a life threatening condition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveb1
Agreed that Paul's Jesus had to be non material/not in the flesh for the reason you cite, and because as Paul said, he was the last to see the risen Jesus as an authentic Resurrection vision - and he made the notion of Apostleship dependent on this criterion.
The brain requires water to function. A person who is severely dehydrated will inescapably suffer hallucinations and "talk out of their head." The fact that Jesus was left in the care of a Christian man who could do little for him but attempt to get him to drink, keep him cool, and pray over him, completely explains, not only Paul's hallucinations, but his reason for becoming a committed Christian after his recovery.
Acts.9:
[9] And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink
Actually three days without drinking explains the entire event. Three days without drinking, especially in a hot arid desert environment, is a life threatening condition.
<snipped...
Either you are trolling or you cannot read.
Acts 9:1-8 says that Paul had the vision first. I'm having trouble accepting that you could cite Act 9:9 ff and not be aware that 1-8 fully explains that Paul's illness was consequent to his vision.
Acts 9:1-8 says that Paul had the vision first. I'm having trouble accepting that you could cite Act 9:9 ff and not be aware that 1-8 fully explains that Paul's illness was consequent to his vision.
This is Paul's chronology of events after he recovered. But you see Paulwastheafflictedman!
Likely they probably did, something as earth shattering as that, but the RCC with it's penchant for collecting and filing ancient writings instead of making them known to the world, probably filed it away in a dark catacomb under, "miscellaneous". Peace
This is Paul's chronology of events after he recovered. But you see Paulwastheafflictedman!
Paul was blinded by the light for a particular purpose, that being that he was blind to the things of the flesh for THREE DAYS, like one would be in a TOMB, and was FASTING; he was NOT stupid or delirious, lol....Peace
Likely they probably did, something as earth shattering as that, but the RCC with it's penchant for collecting and filing ancient writings instead of making them known to the world, probably filed it away in a dark catacomb under, "miscellaneous". Peace
LMAO! Yeah right. Common sense dictates that if they actually had ANYTHING that would prove the Jesus story, they would be shouting it from the rooftops and saying... 'Hey chaps! You don't have to rely on that daft old thing called faith any more!!!'
Oh, yeah....fruit bread and butter....NOW we're talking. I make pumpkin with English walnuts, banana with black walnuts, caramel apple with pecans, and strawberry and blueberry with almonds, in season. People are not as fond of the blueberry, because I process them, and so the batter is slightly grey looking from the blue juice color, but oh, well, once you get past that....it's heavenly, lol....
Ok to the verse addition, will get time to do that eventually....anyway, until then, let me just add that in Paul's Damascus road experience, it says he saw NO MAN (not even one with the marks), yet the LIGHT rebuked him for persecuting HIS BODY.
Also, remember that the two men didn't recognize who was speaking to them either, UNTIL their hearts BURNED WITH FIRE within them. Fire produces two things; heat and LIGHT. I propose the difference between the two was that Paul was not a believer yet, therefore did not have that light WITHIN, and the other two were, and so perceived that light within, and not without. Point being, the LIGHT, not a physical body, was what made the difference in perception, and what Paul is talking about re a resurrection while still in the body.
Note also it's not THEIR resurrection (the 2 men) then, per se, but rather HIS, IN THEM, and then they didn't perceive Him as flesh anymore. So how is this any different from what Paul admonished, "Hereafter we'll not know Him after the flesh, but after the Spirit?"
Thanks for considering these things with me, without hostility. Peace
Cor...that Pecan-blueberry confection sure makes my watery starch -gruel sound bad, even when it is warmed up.
First if it it wasn't clear, the three circumstantial resurrection accounts (after the discovery of the empty tomb) contradict so much that they cannot be taken as true. That means that you can't quote them (let alone Acts) to me as evidence of anything but gospel fabrication. That means the Cleophas event is a tall story made up to shift the scene from Jerusalem so that Jesus can "appear to Simon" as Luke read in Paul's letter, so he tried to fiddle the event into the resurrection story without having to describe this amazing event Jesus appearing to Simon - and nobody else mentions it either. It is just one of the larger nails in a whole fistful of them ino the coffin of Lucan credibility from the nativity to the hammock of wrigglies let down from heaven as a light snack that earn for the author the epithet 'Luke the Liar".
I have also pointed out that pulling together Paul's autobiographical remarks, whenever it was, Paul's seeing Jesus was rather a belated mental vision, such as that came to Peter, then the twelve, then 500 together, and finally Paul, where it told him exactly what he wanted to hear. That Gentiles could share being saved as much as the Jews, and they didn't have to observe the law - just Faith in Jesus as the risen messiah would do
He says he got that from no man. You bet he didn't. You can glean that Paul was called to order by James in Jerusalem and from then on he is increasingly deprecating about "These super apostles' and threatening with cursing anyone who teaches a 'Gospel different to any that he teaches".
So, this being the context of his vision, the Damascus experience by Luke, a demonstrable fabricator of tales, is not to be trusted. Paul is cagey about his conversion, so not setting out a Damascus -road affliction and conversion (so much for not interfering with free will, eh?) doesn't prove it didn't happen, bu for me Paul's Other indications and Luke's untrustworthiness means that I trust Acts about as much as I trust the Acts of Pilate.
While you can believe what you like, through a metaphorical transformation into a spiritual message, at any rate, to me, I only care about whether the story is true or not. Totally, substantially, in part, mostly not true or a total crock. And while I do think more than you might suppose me to that a good deal is true, I am convinced that the resurrection accounts plus Acts can be tossed entirely in the credibility bin.
The empty tomb is the very last thing that deserves any credibility. On that hinges the bodily resurrection - claim. That's why it's crucial, and I can't shake the idea that the believers know this, deep down inside, and that's why it is crucial. They know, deep down inside that the resurrection stories do not work.
So when it comes to extracting feelgood faith - buzzwords like "light' and "Fire" which to me are really like hypnosis signals to blank the mind when faced with evidence that the faith is based on fallacy, I can only suggest...."Peace".
LMAO! Yeah right. Common sense dictates that if they actually had ANYTHING that would prove the Jesus story, they would be shouting it from the rooftops and saying... 'Hey chaps! You don't have to rely on that daft old thing called faith any more!!!'
You have no idea then that the RCC doctrines and mainstream bible believing Christianity are not the same thing? Peace
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Peace
I make pumpkin with English walnuts, banana with black walnuts, caramel apple with pecans, and strawberry and blueberry with almonds, in season. People are not as fond of the blueberry, because I process them, and so the batter is slightly grey looking from the blue juice color, but oh, well, once you get past that....it's heavenly, lol....
Peace
