They are not Christians!

[Sparko]

o

If the man himself makes no mention of such a momentous event [i.e. the Damascene conversion] one is left to question the veracity of Acts with regard to its depiction of that momentous event.

He does mention it in 1 Corinthians 15.

³ For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance^[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, ⁴ that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, ⁵ and that he appeared to Cephas,^[b] and then to the Twelve. ⁶ 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. ⁷ Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, ⁸ and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Also in Galatians 1:¹¹ I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. ¹² I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

¹³ 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. ¹⁴ I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. ¹⁵ But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased ¹⁶ 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. ¹⁷ I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

[rogue06]

o

If the man himself makes no mention of such a momentous event [i.e. the Damascene conversion] one is left to question the veracity of Acts with regard to its depiction of that momentous event.

He does mention it -- even in one of his epistles that you deign to accept as authentic -- but doesn't seek to make a big deal of it since that wasn't conducive to the point he is making.

Of course someone who ever actually bothered to read the text she has spent decades criticizing, instead of relying solely on often out-of-context snippets mentioned by scoffers, would already know that.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

He does mention it

Where does Paul mention a bright light and hearing a voice?

even in one of his epistles that you deign to accept as authentic

It is not my deigning to accept these texts, it is generally held that several of the epistles found in the NT and which pious tradition attribute to Paul are what are known as deutero-Pauline.

[tabibito]

Where does Paul mention a bright light and hearing a voice?

It is not my deigning to accept these texts, it is generally held that several of the epistles found in the NT and which pious tradition attribute to Paul are what are known as deutero-Pauline.

It is generally held that Paul actually penned the epistle to the Romans, and the text style and grammar comparisons are based largely on the styles found in Romans. The letters dismissed as not written by Paul also state that they have multiple authors. 2Thessalonians - Paul, Silas, and Timothy. Colossians - Paul and Timothy. The letters to Timothy are personal one-to-one letters, so differences in style, word choice, and grammar are only to be expected. Very few people write a personal letter in the same style as they do an epistle general.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

He does mention it in 1 Corinthians 15.

He mentions no light and voice. And that account is somewhat at odds with the narrative we are given in Acts 9.

In that chapter a voice is heard by Paul/Saul. That voice announces itself to be Jesus. However, Paul/Saul and those travelling with him [who also heard the voice] "saw no one”. Yet a few verses on we have Ananias telling Paul/Saul "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on your way here". There is no mention in the earlier verses of any appearance. And in that exchange the voice of Jesus speaking to Paul/Saul only identified himself and told him to "enter the city and you will be told what you are to do". In other words await further instructions.

We then have a little interlude with Ananias and his vision of the Lord who tells Ananias what Paul/Saul's task will be - "Go, for he is an instrument whom I have chosen to bring my name before gentiles and kings and before the people of Israel;". We therefore assume that Ananias will come to Paul/Saul, introduce himself, refer to his vision, heal him, and share the commission. Yet Ananias makes no mention of Saul's vision but refers [as noted] to an appearance of Jesus. Nor does Ananias say anything about Paul/Saul's future commission concerning him being an "instrument whom I have chosen to bring my name before gentiles and kings and before the people of Israel". All he does is baptise Paul/Saul [not an instruction issued by his vision]. At this point Ananias disappears from the narrative without introducing Paul/Saul to any other believers.

The reader learns only of Paul/Saul's time spent with "the disciples". And in verse 20 we are told that Paul/Saul takes up his [undelivered] commission.

So from where in that text are we told how Paul/Saul learned of his commission which he writes in chapter one of Galatians as being "sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead"?

Did Ananias fill in the details? If so that would contradict what Paul writes in Galatians chapter one.

Did Paul/Saul have another vision which gave him the information he cites in Galatians chapter one? We have no idea as the text In Acts 9 makes no mention of it.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It is generally held that Paul actually penned the epistle to the Romans, and the text style and grammar comparisons are based largely on the styles found in Romans. The letters dismissed as not written by Paul also state that they have multiple authors. 2Thessalonians - Paul, Silas, and Timothy. Colossians - Paul and Timothy. The letters to Timothy are personal one-to-one letters, so differences in style, word choice, and grammar are only to be expected. Very few people write a personal letter in the same style as they do an epistle general.

The seven authentic epistles are considered to be:

Romans
I Corinthians
II Corinthians
Galatians
Philippians
I Thessalonians
Philemon

Colossians is disputed but much opinion leans to it being deutero-Pauline

Ephesians
II Thessalonians
Pastoral epistles [1 & 2 Timothy and Titus] are considered to be deutoro-Pauline.

[tabibito]

The seven authentic epistles are considered to be:

Romans
I Corinthians
II Corinthians
Galatians
Philippians
I Thessalonians
Philemon

Colossians is disputed but much opinion leans to it being deutero-Pauline

Ephesians
II Thessalonians
Pastoral epistles [1 & 2 Timothy and Titus] are considered to be deutoro-Pauline.

My take:

Colossians and 2Thessalonians have co-authors. Scepticism about their purported inauthenticity is warranted.
The pastoral epistles - probably pseudonymous.
Ephesians, line ball.

[rogue06]

Where does Paul mention a bright light and hearing a voice?

As is your wont, you snipped out the portion where something is addressed so you can duplicitously act as if this is some ignored issue

He does mention it -- even in one of his epistles that you deign to accept as authentic -- but doesn't seek to make a big deal of it since that wasn't conducive to the point he is making.

It is not my deigning to accept these texts, it is generally held that several of the epistles found in the NT and which pious tradition attribute to Paul are what are known as deutero-Pauline.

Scholarship, which leaned slightly toward your view several decades ago, has started to swing the other way so that today it would be accurately to say it is evenly divided, with no majority either way with the exception of the pastorals where the consensus still leans against them.

And of course you always ignore this part

Of course someone who ever actually bothered to read the text she has spent decades criticizing, instead of relying solely on often out-of-context snippets mentioned by scoffers, would already know that.

preferring instead to wallow in deliberate ignorance while indignantly demanding others read this or that text you recommend.

[Sparko]

He mentions no light and voice. And that account is somewhat at odds with the narrative we are given in Acts 9.

In that chapter a voice is heard by Paul/Saul. That voice announces itself to be Jesus. However, Paul/Saul and those travelling with him [who also heard the voice] "saw no one”. Yet a few verses on we have Ananias telling Paul/Saul "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on your way here". There is no mention in the earlier verses of any appearance. And in that exchange the voice of Jesus speaking to Paul/Saul only identified himself and told him to "enter the city and you will be told what you are to do". In other words await further instructions.

We then have a little interlude with Ananias and his vision of the Lord who tells Ananias what Paul/Saul's task will be - "Go, for he is an instrument whom I have chosen to bring my name before gentiles and kings and before the people of Israel;". We therefore assume that Ananias will come to Paul/Saul, introduce himself, refer to his vision, heal him, and share the commission. Yet Ananias makes no mention of Saul's vision but refers [as noted] to an appearance of Jesus. Nor does Ananias say anything about Paul/Saul's future commission concerning him being an "instrument whom I have chosen to bring my name before gentiles and kings and before the people of Israel". All he does is baptise Paul/Saul [not an instruction issued by his vision]. At this point Ananias disappears from the narrative without introducing Paul/Saul to any other believers.

The reader learns only of Paul/Saul's time spent with "the disciples". And in verse 20 we are told that Paul/Saul takes up his [undelivered] commission.

So from where in that text are we told how Paul/Saul learned of his commission which he writes in chapter one of Galatians as being "sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead"?

Did Ananias fill in the details? If so that would contradict what Paul writes in Galatians chapter one.

Did Paul/Saul have another vision which gave him the information he cites in Galatians chapter one? We have no idea as the text In Acts 9 makes no mention of it.

Now you are nitpicking and special pleading. You complained that Paul never mentioned his Damascus incident, but he did, at least twice. Why would he feel the need to recount it in detail in a letter with another purpose? I am sure he told people the account many times in person. He was writing letters to churches he had already visited and who knew him and his history. There was no need to go into every detail of his experience, merely to remind them of it. Paul also refers to his bad eyesight in his letters, which could be the result of his blindness from the vision.

[rogue06]

He mentions no light and voice. And that account is somewhat at odds with the narrative we are given in Acts 9.

Why would he?

This is a letter to people that he has spoken with in person to and at length. Considering how Paul regards his 180 degree turn in his conversion from prosecutor to preacher as evidence for Jesus and His message, it would be folly in the extreme to surmise that he never brought up, in detail, his experience during his trip to Damascus.

Plainly put, there is no conceivable way he didn't discuss this at length, so it was unnecessary to continue to tarry on about it, particularly since he is clearly seeking to minimize his role at this point, where puffing up his experience in light of merely listing off the others, would not fit in very well.

Scripture Verse: I Corinthians 15:7-9

Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

© Copyright Original Source

Furthermore, as I mentioned this was a summary^]1] -- or are you going to contend that he is contradicting the gospel accounts by including some more details while excluding a great deal. That would be par for the course.




1. although one that also includes a very early, pre-Pauline creedal statement as you have already been informed.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Now you are nitpicking and special pleading. You complained that Paul never mentioned his Damascus incident, but he did, at least twice. Why would he feel the need to recount it in detail in a letter with another purpose? I am sure he told people the account many times in person. He was writing letters to churches he had already visited and who knew him and his history. There was no need to go into every detail of his experience, merely to remind them of it. Paul also refers to his bad eyesight in his letters, which could be the result of his blindness from the vision.

Why do you always consider any serious attention to, or criticism of, texts or indeed anything else to be "nitpicking"? Paul does not mention any lights or voices.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Scholarship, which leaned slightly toward your view several decades ago, has started to swing the other way so that today it would be accurately to say it is evenly divided, with no majority either way with the exception of the pastorals where the consensus still leans against them.

Really? Which serious scholars dispute the authorship of Corinthians or Romans?

And where is the evidence to support your contention that "Scholarship" :

has started to swing the other way so that today it would be accurately to say it is evenly divided

Or shall I dismiss this as yet another of your sweeping and unsupported generalisations?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Why would he?

This is a letter to people that he has spoken with in person to and at length.

So why in I Corinthians does Paul not mention his own apparent experience?

Plainly put, there is no conceivable way he didn't discuss this at length,

How do you know? You and others are very eager to offer your glib explanations concerning apparent situations for which there is no textual evidence.

so it was unnecessary to continue to tarry on about it, particularly since he is clearly seeking to minimize his role at this point, where puffing up his experience in light of merely listing off the others, would not fit in very well.

Yet Paul was hardly backward in coming forward when it concerned "puffing" himself up.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

My take:

Colossians and 2Thessalonians have co-authors.

What evidence are you citing?

[Sparko]

Why do you always consider any serious attention to, or criticism of, texts or indeed anything else to be "nitpicking"? Paul does not mention any lights or voices.

Because when you know you are wrong, you suddenly start nitpicking unimportant points in an effort to deflect from having to admit you were wrong. It's one of your signature moves and it's hilarious. Another deflection tactic of yours is to start demanding "sources" and then complaining that the provided sources are not good enough.

The point was that Paul does refer to seeing Christ and changing from persecuting to joining the disciples after that visit. It is unimportant that he doesn't mention every single detail of that encounter and you know it.