Where's The Evidence

[themonkeyman]

In the bible we read paul was converted on his walk to Damascus because he seen a vision of Jeebus. But who were the two deciples, where did they come from, what was their crimes, and why do we never hear from them after this incident.

[Ellinas]

You forget - the holy bullshit only reveals what we need to know, not what we want to know.

 

Therefore you must be committing the sin of curiosity - upon which is founded the scourge of unbelief.

 

Apparently...

[amateur]

Nature of the conversion experience[edit]

The Bible says that Paul's conversion experience was an encounter with the resurrected Christ. Alternative explanations have been proposed, including sun stroke and seizure. In 1987, D. Landsborough published an article in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry,^[10] in which he stated that Paul's conversion experience, with the bright light, loss of normal bodily posture, a message of strong religious content, and his subsequent blindness, suggested "an attack of [temporal lobe epilepsy], perhaps ending in a convulsion ... The blindness which followed may have been post-ictal."^[10]

This conclusion was challenged in the same journal by James R. Brorson and Kathleen Brewer,^[11] who stated that this hypothesis failed to explain why Paul's companions heard a voice (Acts 9:7), saw a light,^{[Acts 22:9]} or fell to the ground.^{[Acts 26:14]} Furthermore, no lack of awareness of blindness (a characteristic of cortical blindness) was reported in Acts, nor is there any indication of memory loss. Additionally, Paul's blindness remitted in sudden fashion, rather than the gradual resolution typical of post-ictal states, and no mention is made of epilepticconvulsions; indeed such convulsions may, in Paul's time, have been interpreted as a sign of demonic influence, unlikely in someone accepted as a religious leader.^[11]

A 2012 paper in the Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences suggested that Paul’s conversion experience might be understood as involving psychogenic events. This occurring in the overall context of Paul’s other auditory and visual experiences that the authors propose may have been caused by mood disorder associated psychotic spectrum symptoms.^[12]

A completely different theory has been put forward in 2015 by astronomer W. K. Hartmann^[13][14] who argues that the three accounts in the book of Acts describe exactly the sequence of events that occur when a fireball, like the Chelyabinsk meteor of 2013, passes through the sky. This includes people being knocked off their feet, the physical effects on Saul's eyesight, etc.

Differences between the accounts[edit]

An apparent contradiction in the details of the account of Paul's revelatory vision given in Acts has been the subject of much debate.^[15] Specifically, the experience of Paul's traveling companions as told in Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 has raised questions about the historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles, and generated debate about the best translations of the relevant passages. The two passages each describe the experience of Paul's traveling companions during the revelation, with Acts 9:7 (the author's description of the event) stating that Paul's traveling companions heard the voice that spoke to him; and Acts 22:9 (the author's quotation of Paul's own words) traditionally stating they did not.

Biblical translations of Acts 9:7 generally state that Paul's companions did, indeed, hear the voice (or sound) that spoke to him:

By contrast, Catholic translations and older Protestant translations preserve the apparent contradiction in Acts 22:9, while many modern Protestant translations such as the New International Version (NIV) do not:

The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.

—Acts 9:7, New International Version (NIV)

The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one.

—Acts 9:7, New American Bible (NAB)

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

—Acts 9:7, King James Version (KJV)

My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me.

—Acts 22:9, New American Bible (NAB)

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

—Acts 22:9, King James Version (KJV)

My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.

—Acts 22:9, New International Version (NIV)

"Hear" or "Understand"?[edit]

Critics of the NIV, New Living Translation, and similar versions contend that the translation used for Acts 22:9 is inaccurate.^[16] The verb used here — akouō (ἀκούω) — can be translated both "hear" and "understand"^[17] (both the KJV and NIV translate akouō as "understand" in 1 Cor. 14:2, for example). It often takes a noun in the genitive case for a person is being heard, with a noun in the accusative for the thing being heard.^[18][19] More classically, the use of the accusative indicates hearing with understanding.^[20] There is indeed a case difference here, with Acts 9:7 using the genitive tēs phōnēs (τῆς φωνῆς), and Acts 22:9 using the accusative tēn phōnēn (τὴν φωνὴν). However, there has been debate about which rule Luke was following here.^[15][20][21] On the second interpretation, Paul's companions may indeed have heard the voice (as is unambiguously stated in Acts 9:7), yet not understood it,^[20] although New Testament scholar Daniel B. Wallace finds this argument based on case inconclusive.^[22]

"Voice" or "Sound"?[edit]

A similar debate arises with the NIV's use of the word "sound" instead of "voice" in Acts 9:7. The noun used here — phōnē (φωνῆ) — can mean either.^[23] By translating 9:7 as "they heard the sound" instead of "they heard the voice," the NIV allows for Paul's companions to have heard an audible sound in Acts 9:7 without contradicting the statement in Acts 22:9 that they did not hear a comprehensible voice .^{[citation needed]}

The New American Standard Bible,^[24] New Century Version,^[25] and English Standard Version^[26] maintain the "hear"/"understand" distinction while using "voice" in both passages. On the other hand, the Holman Christian Standard Bible has "sound"/"voice" with "hear" in both passages,^[27] and The Message adopts a similar translation, but with "sound"/"conversation."^[28] The French La Bible du Semeur distinguishes between entendaient ("heard") and compris ("understood").^[29]

Although it is possible that there is a contradiction in these two passages unnoticed by their author, Richard Longenecker suggests that first-century readers probably understood the two passages to mean that everybody heard the sound of the voice, but "only Paul understood the articulated words."^[30] Similar comments have been made by other scholars.^[31]

 

^{The above is cut and pasted from Wikipedia, "Conversion of Paul the Apostle."}  

^{It raises even more questions.}

[sdelsolray]

Religions rarely do "evidence".

[RenaissanceWoman]

I had the same question regarding all the people who came out of their graves when Jesus died. Where are their accounts? Not even one? Seems like they would have interesting things to report. And news of an event like that would have travelled fast, but there are no accounts by others in the region of having heard about such a phenomenally freaky occurence. Zombies in Jerusalem, and no outside reference?

 

I asked about this in a small group Bible study setting once. Everyone agreed that would be sooooo interesting to hear what those back-from-the-dead people had experienced. But no one seemed to grasp how odd it was that nothing was reported.

 

The answer? It's just more made up nonsense.

[Geezer]

Based on the scholars I've read their general consensus seems to be that the book of Acts is fiction. When scholars fact check this book there are numerous errors and historical inaccuracies that the average reader would not be aware of.

 

Paul never mentions his Damascus Road encounter with Christ in any of his authenticated epistles. That is beyond odd if such an encounter happened. Additionally, Paul seems to have no knowledge of an earthy Jesus, his teaching, or any of the miracles he supposedly performed. Paul's writings indicate he only knows Jesus as a spiritual figure that resides in the heavens. Paul is obviously convinced this heavenly spiritual Jesus is eventually coming to earth to set up an earthly kingdom. Paul's writing also suggest he thought the crucifixion & resurrection  occurred in the heavenly realm. not here on earth.

[amateur]

I had the same question regarding all the people who came out of their graves when Jesus died. Where are their accounts? Not even one? Seems like they would have interesting things to report. And news of an event like that would have travelled fast, but there are no accounts by others in the region of having heard about such a phenomenally freaky occurence. Zombies in Jerusalem, and no outside reference?

 

I asked about this in a small group Bible study setting once. Everyone agreed that would be sooooo interesting to hear what those back-from-the-dead people had experienced. But no one seemed to grasp how odd it was that nothing was reported.

 

The answer? It's just more made up nonsense.

Awesome!  I was in a couple small groups like that, and I can just picture it!  Everybody ooh'ing and aah'ing over the wonderful miracle, then everyone agreeing how interesting it would be to know more about those people and their experiences, then everybody going back to the churchy smiling sheep-face with total acceptance that they would never know.

 

I can't say I miss sitting in a group of smiling, nodding adults since I've quite attending church!