Solo

I take the story of Paul's conversion in Acts 9 as legendary. Paul twice writes about his initial rapturous experience of Christ: in 2 Cor 12:2-4 and Gal 1:15-16. In both instances he speaks of it as a wholly euphoric happening. This would be in sharp contrast to the account of Acts in which he is knocked down, blinded and unable to care for himself for a few days.

Best,
Jiri

sotto voce

He did not use the word 'rapture'. It's absurd to suppose that he disqualified his own letter by using the word 'euphoric'. Even if this experience can be described as euphoria, it cannot be said to be the whole of the experience. There is no reason to suppose that 2 Cor 12:2-4 relates to the Damascus road incident, anyway. On the contrary, on this occasion, Paul was not presented with information that served to convert, but with information that was for a particular convert that could not even be put into a letter to fellow believers. These cannot possibly refer to the same occasion, and this argument is totally false.

Gal 1:15-16 contains nothing that might even be mistaken for euphoria or rapture.

It may therefore be concluded that the people whom Paul intended to persecute on the road to Damascus were believers in a crucified Messiah.

Diogenes the Cynic

The Damascus story does not come from Paul, so there's no point in speculating about it.

Diogenes the Cynic

By the way "crucified Messiah," and "resurrected Messiah" are two different things.

Solo

You need to read more carefully.


Paul does not know of the Damascus road incident. In 2 Cor 12 he defends his own apostolic credentials. How probable is it he would not reference in this context the events of his conversion as narrated by Acts if they had happened? I don't think very. Paul's struggle to establish himself as an apostle, belies the idea that his authority originated with the Jerusalem assembly as Acts suggests (9:27-28) in blatant contradiction to what Paul himself says.

Obviously, you are convinced what was written in Acts is a historically accurate account and that the conviction justifies the illogical argument you are proposing for it.

You may be incapable of seeing this but my guess is that most people on reading that God was "pleased" to reveal his son in (!) Paul, would take it to mean it was Paul who was "pleased" beyond measure. Surely not consistent with a tale of of Paul being rudely knocked down, blinded, read the riot act, and taken prisoner.


It's not a conclusion arrived at by sober reasoning.

Best,
Jiri

Adam

No reply yet to my Post #43 with its evidence that the lost ending of Mark is basically what we find in gMatthew?

Diogenes the Cynic

I was listening to Robert Price's Human Bible podcast, and he said the transfiguration might have been the original resurrection/appearance story, and that it got moved into the middle of the story. I find that kind of compelling.