Paul's most explicit and detailed testimony to the resurrected Jesus is his conversion on the road to Damascus. Acts 26 was written by Luke and so isn't first hand from Paul, but I'm just granting for the sake of argument that this hearsay should be presumed to be just as convincing as first-hand testimony.
However, Paul's admission that this experience was a "vision" (v. 19) destroys his credibility.
First, the Greek word for "vision" there is optasia.
Second, the only other time Paul uses this word is when he confesses that he cannot tell whether he was in or out of his body when he had a vision of heaven:
So Paul's understanding of optasia seems to be that it is such a mystical state that he cannot even tell whether he was in or out of his body when it happens. So it doesn't matter if other authors use optasia differently, Paul thinks it accurately describes vision-situations so mystical he cannot tell whether it happened in or out of his body.
If you were on trial for murder, and the single witness against you was somebody who confessed on the stand that they were not sure whether they were in or out of their body when they saw you pull the trigger, would you desire the jury to find such confession to be a very solid impeachment of the witness's own credibility, yes or no?
Paul is the only witness to the resurrection of Jesus in the bible, whose testimony reaches us in first-hand form. And this first-hand evidence comes from somebody who confesses his visionary states are so mystical, he can't really say whether they happen in or out of his body.
You may say Paul says in 1st Corinthians 15 he saw Jesus, but he doesn't specify how,
and without more specifics, there's good reason to conclude he wants the reader to conclude this appearance is the same one he recalls in Acts 26.
If you would want the jury in your murder trial to find that the witness against you had destroyed his own credibility by confessing to serious belief in such foolishness as out of body experiences, then you have no basis to criticize skeptics who likewise snort and laugh at Paul's first-hand testimony to the resurrection of Jesus.
If that weren't enough, lets make the analogy more precise: Paul said that during his vision of the third heaven, he heard words that it is not permitted man to repeat. How about you on trial for murder, and the witness against you says that while they saw you pull the trigger at a time when they don't know whether they were in or out of the body, they also heard heavenly words which god doesn't want them to repeat to others?
Why do such visions do nothing but impeach the credibility of the witness against you in court, but when such visions are alleged in the bible, then suddenly, "with god all things are possible"?
Why aren't you saying "with god all things are possible" when the visionary is speaking against you?
I conclude that the most direct first hand testimony to the resurrection of Jesus you can get out of the NT, puts the witness on par with inebriated folk falling on their faces during field sobriety tests...then waking up in the drunk tank unable to recall on which day they broke their nose.
I'm open to any other resurrection testimony you'll dare to defend as reliable.
12 "While so engaged as I was journeying to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests,
13 at midday, O King, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining all around me and those who were journeying with me.
14 "And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'
15 "And I said, 'Who are You, Lord?' And the Lord said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.
16 'But get up and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you;
17 rescuing you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you,
18 to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.'
19 "So, King Agrippa, I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision, (Act 26:12-19 NAU)
13 at midday, O King, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining all around me and those who were journeying with me.
14 "And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'
15 "And I said, 'Who are You, Lord?' And the Lord said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.
16 'But get up and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you;
17 rescuing you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you,
18 to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.'
19 "So, King Agrippa, I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision, (Act 26:12-19 NAU)
First, the Greek word for "vision" there is optasia.
Second, the only other time Paul uses this word is when he confesses that he cannot tell whether he was in or out of his body when he had a vision of heaven:
1 Boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable; but I will go on to visions (optasia) and revelations of the Lord.
2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago-- whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows-- such a man was caught up to the third heaven.
3 And I know how such a man-- whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows--
4 was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak.
(2Co 12:1-4 NAU)
2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago-- whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows-- such a man was caught up to the third heaven.
3 And I know how such a man-- whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows--
4 was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak.
(2Co 12:1-4 NAU)
If you were on trial for murder, and the single witness against you was somebody who confessed on the stand that they were not sure whether they were in or out of their body when they saw you pull the trigger, would you desire the jury to find such confession to be a very solid impeachment of the witness's own credibility, yes or no?
Paul is the only witness to the resurrection of Jesus in the bible, whose testimony reaches us in first-hand form. And this first-hand evidence comes from somebody who confesses his visionary states are so mystical, he can't really say whether they happen in or out of his body.
You may say Paul says in 1st Corinthians 15 he saw Jesus, but he doesn't specify how,
8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. (1Co 15:8 NAU)
If you would want the jury in your murder trial to find that the witness against you had destroyed his own credibility by confessing to serious belief in such foolishness as out of body experiences, then you have no basis to criticize skeptics who likewise snort and laugh at Paul's first-hand testimony to the resurrection of Jesus.
If that weren't enough, lets make the analogy more precise: Paul said that during his vision of the third heaven, he heard words that it is not permitted man to repeat. How about you on trial for murder, and the witness against you says that while they saw you pull the trigger at a time when they don't know whether they were in or out of the body, they also heard heavenly words which god doesn't want them to repeat to others?
Why do such visions do nothing but impeach the credibility of the witness against you in court, but when such visions are alleged in the bible, then suddenly, "with god all things are possible"?
Why aren't you saying "with god all things are possible" when the visionary is speaking against you?
I conclude that the most direct first hand testimony to the resurrection of Jesus you can get out of the NT, puts the witness on par with inebriated folk falling on their faces during field sobriety tests...then waking up in the drunk tank unable to recall on which day they broke their nose.
I'm open to any other resurrection testimony you'll dare to defend as reliable.
Comment