The Damascus Road Event

B

battig1370

Registered Senior Member
The Damascus Road Event:

The foundation of the christian churches, started from one of, or all of, three versions of the Damascus Road Event Luke, the author of the book of ACTS has been called "the father of Christian Church History." And Saul/St.Paul is the chief apostle of christianity. ACTS addresses those who are in need of information about the foundation of the christian church.

Christians may say, it dosen't matter which version of Saul's Conversion happened, the end result is the same.( Conversion? ) For those that believe ACTS as the Word of God, which version is the Word of God, does it matter. If these three versions were to be brought before THE JUDGE, what would HE say? --- You can be the jury. Read the three versions carefully. .

Version 1, Acts 26:13-19 ---> Saul/St.Paul testified to King Agrippa that he was not disobedient to his heavenly VISION,and Saul's Jesus an angel of light directly told Saul his purpose, on the Road to Damascus. Saul's Jesus said, "rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;"-( Acts 26:16 ) But there is no mention of Saul being blinded for three days by this 'angel of light that claimed to be JESUS. Also Ananias is not mentioned because there was no need of him.

Version 2, Acts 22, 6-14 ---> Saul's Jesus, an angel of light blinded Saul and told him, all things would be told in Damascus. The men with Saul saw the light, but they did not hear the voice that spoke to Saul. A devout Jew named Ananias who had a good report of all the Jews which dwelt in Damascus, was choosen to tell Saul his purpose. Ananias said, " The God of our fathers has chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth, For thou shalt be be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.-( Acts 22:14-15 ) ---." There is mention of Saul being blinded and Ananias putting his hands on Saul restored Saul's sight in the same hour. Then, Ananias told Saul, "arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the 'Lord'."-( Acts 22:16 )

Version 3, Acts 9:3-18 ---> 'Saul's Jesus' 'an angel of light' blinded Saul and told him, all things would be told in Damascus. The men with Saul stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. --- There is mentioned that Saul was blinded for three days. 'Saul's Jesus' also spoke to Anasias in a Vision, of Saul's new status and mission. Putting his hand on Saul, Ananias told Saul, "--- thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. Immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.-( Acts 9:17-18 )

Which version is true, 1, or 2, or 3? Maybe you should believe all the versions, but I'd say, that's not possible. What would THE JUDGE say?

Peace be with you, Paul
 
There are always differing, and ofttimes conflicting, versions of any event. When witnesses give identical accounts in criminal cases, police and prosecutors suspect collusion. The variety of accounts in this instance makes them more rather than less credible.
 
Ophiolite: "There are always differing, and ofttimes conflicting, versions of any event.--- The variety of accounts in this instance makes them more rather than less credible." Saved christians say that The Damascus Road Event is The Word of God, which is only one wittness God? If you disagree, who are the other wittnesses? I'd like to know.

Peace be with you, Paul
 
Ophiolite: You have quoted three versions of events. That implies a minimum of three witnesses.
*************
M*W: There were no 'witnesses' to this event. The other men riding with Paul were never identified, but even if they were, all we have to go on are Paul's words whomever wrote them. Paul may have had the vision, but it was merely a fig newton of his epileptic seizure.
 
MW, My NT knowledge is very rusty. Acts was written by Paul? How certain of this are we? Three versions of the same event still imply three witnesses. If there are three views of the same event as remembered by one person, Paul, I would not find it unusual that a life changing event should be seen in a variety of ways.
 
Ophiolite: MW, My NT knowledge is very rusty. Acts was written by Paul? How certain of this are we? Three versions of the same event still imply three witnesses. If there are three views of the same event as remembered by one person, Paul, I would not find it unusual that a life changing event should be seen in a variety of ways.
*************
M*W: Acts was written by Luke FOR Paul who dictated what Luke should write down. Three witnesses? Not necessarily. Paul was the creator of myth. Paul's epistles were written some decades before the Gospels were written. It was Paul's Epistles who the gospel writers followed -- but we don't know for sure who actually did write the gospels, except for the Gospel of John and biblical scholars now attribute John and Revelations to have been written by the Beloved Disciple -- Mary Magdalene!
 
Thanks for the clarification MW. I'm not quiet sure what battiq is driving at, but for me conflicting data is the norm. A nicely packaged story smacks of editing.
 
A Story which is different every time the teller tells it is just a story.

What may be true is that Paul was going to Damascus to organize a slaughter of Christians, but, on the way there, without a proper hat and sunglasses, he was overcome by the heat, and may have had a blinding migraine headache. While thus helpless on the road his small band was overrun by Christians. They recognized Paul as an agent of the Pharisees and the one who personally murdered Stephen. He became their prisoner. To secure his freedom he pretended to convert. He was never sincere as can be seen in the way he forever contradicted the Teachings of Jesus. He was always to emphasize that the Pharisees, that is, his old crowd and himself in particular, had done the World a big favor in murdering Jesus. He was to reverse the Intention of the Messianic Prophecies -- Christ had not come to be King of King, but only to be like a glorified sacrificial lamb. So nothing Jesus said was ever of the least interest to Paul -- paul never quotes Christ even once. The only importance Christ has to Paul is being murdered so that Sinners may thereby have some right to overrun Heaven.

I wonder how Christians suppose that works. We have God punishing Humanity for the sins of Adam and Eve, but then, if Humanity murders His Only Son, then everything is then supposed to be Okay. It quite contradicts the Parables of Jesus, where Jesus tells us that God is angered by violence done to the Son. But we have Paul teaching everybody that God is delighted that the Pharisees murdered His Son. It does not make sense.

Also, we have the Three Oriental Kings who came to pay homage to Christ on the weight of their own Traditional Prophecies. They recognized the Christ Child as the Future King of Kings. They had no Pauline Vision of Christ coming only to die. Then we had the Prophecy of Simeon -- that Christ would be the occassion of the rise of many and the fall of many, and that He would be contradicted. Simeon doesn't tell us that Christ's Message will last eternal, but just the opposite -- that Christ's Teachings would be suppressed. In other words, Simeon forsaw Paul. Simeon then turned to Mary the Mother and told Her that the effect would be like stabbing Her with a sword through Her heart.

Yet people still treat Paul, that antichrist, as though he were some kind of hero.
 
From information that I have, Luke is the author of the book of Acts. What puzzles me is, WHY Luke wrote three version? Luke was an intelligent well educated man for that time in history. My belief is, the reason that Luke wrote the three versions is to put up a red flag.
I can understand three versions from three authors, but three versions from one author, that's asking to much for me to swallow.

Peace be with you, Paul
 
Ophiolite: "I'm not quiet sure what battiq is driving at, but for me conflicting data is the norm."

Battig1370: Two version are similar and the other version is very much different. Have you noticed that?

Peace be with you, Paul
 
battig1370 said:
From information that I have, Luke is the author of the book of Acts. What puzzles me is, WHY Luke wrote three version? Luke was an intelligent well educated man for that time in history. My belief is, the reason that Luke wrote the three versions is to put up a red flag.
I can understand three versions from three authors, but three versions from one author, that's asking to much for me to swallow.

Peace be with you, Paul
Click to expand...

Here is my 'take' on why Luke wrote three versions: after the Fall of Jerusalem, when most of the Real Apostles were killed and the True Congregations dispersed, the Congregations of Paul became aggressive in consolidating their control over the Christian Movement. Luke was enlisted to write the History of Christianity, laying stress on Paul's legitimacy within the Movement. Luke was resentful, and so he did not bother hiding unpleasant truths. Apparently the Gang that ordered him around was largely illiterate and did not know that Paul was being cast in an unflattering light.

You can see that Luke was very unenthusiastic in his presentation of Paul. As the only Gospel Writer to be flattering of the Virgin Mary, and the only Gospel Writer to present the Prophecy of Simeon, which predicted that Christ's Mission would be contradicted, opposed and subverted by False Teachings, we can understand Luke's unwillingness to present Paul as a hero, since Paul would be the archetype for every Mary-Hating Christian who would come later, and would in fact be the Voice that would fulfill Simeon's Prophecy by contradicting, opposing and subverting the Teachings of Christ.

You may think it implausible that Luke may have been intimidated by threats of violence. But we have it from Luke himself that violence was used in the Early Church. Luke tells us that people were murdered for holding out on donations. That was with Peter. Regarding Paul, Luke only tells us that Paul was arrested time and again by Roman Authorities. What for? It is puzzling that Luke never tells us what Paul was charged with. But Rome did have Legal Jurisdiction, and we can suppose they were acting in the role of the Police, who have might only have desired to maintain law and order. We have the Sanhedrin arresting Paul for instigating riots in Asia Minor -- setting his Gentile Faction against the 'Jewish' Christians. When Paul also instigated anti-Jewish riots in Rome, Nero finally had enough of Paul and had him executed for being a trouble making gangster. And Luke was left in the midst of this gang of thugs who told him to write a book which they were too stupid to know how to read. And so he did. We are lucky that it contains some measure of truth along with the necessary 'party line'.
 
Leo Volont: "...Paul became aggressive in consolidating their control over the Christian Movement."
*************
M*W: Here are my opinions in reply to your post (for what its worth). I believe that Rabbi Jesus did not promote his philosophy of enlightenment as some new-fangled dying demigod savior and salvation crap called "christianity." Jesus brought the Torah to the Jews of the day. He ministered to the Jews. That was his job. It was Paul who coined the name "christians." Remember, Paul never knew Jesus nor lived in his time nor circumstance. Paul was born around 10AD, so he would have been a relatively young man of about 20 years old at the time of the crucifixion. When Paul set out to terrorize and murder those he called "christians," they were members of a relatively small community of Jesus' closest and most intimate associates such as Stephen, who Paul martyred by stoning, James the Lesser, Jesus' brother, who was leader of the Jerusalem Church, whom Paul robbed and then pushed off a balcony, and the Beloved Disciple called John, who escaped after the crucifixion and wrote Revelations and the Gospel of John in exile.

Jesus had not in any way intended to found a "church." Paul became jealous of the Rabbi Jesus, post-humously, of whom he had never known! Paul's persecution of christians took place post-crucifixion from about 35-40AD. His vision of Jesus on the Road took place around 37AD following a grand mal epileptic seizure with hallucinations which caused him to fall off his horse, hit his head on a rock (and later Paul quoted Jesus saying to Peter that "upon this rock, I will build my church," but those were not Jesus' words -- they were Paul's! Peter (petros) was a hard-headed and hot-tempered man. Was it any wonder his compadres called him "Rock?"

From about 45-67AD, Paul wrote the Epistles. Note: the Epistles were written BEFORE the gospels, and the gospel writers were INFLUENCED by Paul's Epistles. The first gospel was written by Mark in 70AD (several years after Paul was beheaded in Rome). Matthew and Luke referenced Paul's Epistles when writing their gospels. BTW, we really don't know who the gospel writers were. It's only assumed that the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark and Luke. The Gospel of John and Revelations have been determined to be written in the visionary style of Mary Magdalene. The other NT books were written about:

I Thessalonians - 52AD
II Thessalonians - 52AD
I Corinthians - 57AD
II Corinthians - 57AD
Galatians - 55-57AD
Romans - 57-58AD
Ephesians - 62AD
Philippians - 62AD
Colossians - 62AD
Philemon - 63AD
Hebrews - 64-65AD
Titus - 64-65AD
I Timothy - 64-65AD
II Timothy - 66-67AD

Paul commissioned Luke to write the History of Christianity, which would stress Paul's messianic position within the movement and Luke began to learn that Paul was guilty of perverting what Jesus taught as false teachings! Needless to say, Luke and Paul had a falling out over Paul's egotistical literary request, and they parted ways.

As we know today, Luke reminds us that Paul was arrested many times by the Roman authorities for disrupting law and order in the Empire. The Sanhedrin also arrested Paul for instigating riots between the Gentiles and the Jews (whom Paul called "christians"). Paul also stirred up anti-Jewish demonstrations in Rome which was NOT the prudent thing to do. The emperor incumbent, Nero, had finally had enough of Paul's gangster activities and had him executed.

The Roman Catholic Church has elevated this criminal to sainthood! It makes one wonder whose side the RCC is on! Obviously, the RCC is not about Jesus and his salvation of mankind. It's all about Paul's description of his hallucinations on the Road.
 
Ophiolite: "I'm not quiet sure what battiq is driving at, but for me conflicting data is the norm."

"what battiq is driving at?"

Battig1370: Luke wrote two very different versions on the Damascus road event, One version, Saul/St.Paul testified to King Agrippa that his Jesus informed him directly of his purpose on the Road to Damascus. The other version is that Jesus told Saul on the road to Damascus that all things would be told in Damascus, and it was Ananias that told Saul his purpose. Christians say, all three versions are factual, and true, and The Word of God. Also, Ophiolite says he has no problem with this and he said, "variety of accounts in this instance makes them more rather than less credible. "What Yorda says in another thread that "all religions are rational, otherwise people wouldn't believe." What is going on here?

"what battiq is driving at?" I want Ophiolite to explain to the viewers how these two very different accounts of the Damascus road event make it more credible, more true? Remember what Yorda said, "all religions are rational, otherwise people wouldn't believe.

Peace with be you, Paul
 
M*W: "It was Paul who coined the name "christians."

Battig1370: Act 11:26 > "And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people; And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" This is the first time Christians are mentioned in the whole New Testament.

The Christian Movement started with Saul/St.Paul, and the genesis of the Christian Movement happened on the road to Damascus.

Jesus had nothing to do with Saul/St.Paul's Christian Movement.

When someone calls me a Christian, I am insulted.

Peace be with you, Paul
 
M*W: "It was Paul who coined the name "christians."
*************
Battig1370: Act 11:26> "And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people; And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" This is the first time Christians are mentioned in the whole New Testament.
*************
M*W: You quoted Paul from Acts. Of course, what Paul said was probably a lie. However, you are correct, the first time PAUL'S followers were called "Christian" was at Antioch about 10-15 years post-crucifixion. The term "Christian" was the title of everyone else who would be called followers of Paul. Followers of Jesus were NOT called "Christians," they were called "Jews." Calling one a "Christian" in those days was most likely a derogatory slur. Jesus was not a Christian leader -- Paul was.
*************
battig1730: When someone calls me a Christian, I am insulted.

Peace be with you, Paul
*************
M*W: I am equally as insulted as you are, battig, when someone assumes I'm a Christian -- just like those early followers of Paul in Antioch!
 
Medicine Woman said:
.... The emperor incumbent, Nero, had finally had enough of Paul's gangster activities and had him executed.

The Roman Catholic Church has elevated this criminal to sainthood! It makes one wonder whose side the RCC is on! Obviously, the RCC is not about Jesus and his salvation of mankind. It's all about Paul's description of his hallucinations on the Road....
Click to expand...

But to be fair to the Roman Catholic Church, the reason there was a Protestant Reformation Movement was because those Protestants felt that the Catholic Church had suppressed the Writings and Doctrines of Paul. And they were right!

But there has always been a struggle in the Church between the Followers of Mary and Christ and those who were Paulists. Yes, many Bishops have been Paulists -- focussing on Forgiveness, that is, Religion as an Excuse to Sin. But practically ALL of the Religious Orders have been Marian and Jesus oriented -- concentrating on Morality, Charity, and Spirituality.

You can see how the two factions have reconciled -- the Paulists control the Exoteric Church, while the Marians are given the Esoteric as long as they agree to keep themselves isolated in convents and monasteries. The Marians were once more open and public, but with the Reformation, the Council of Trent, and then Vatican II the Church ever more surrendered to Protestant and Paulist Doctrinal considerations. But then Mary has gone on the offensive with ever more Apparitions. Now the last remaining enthusiasts in the Catholic Church are the Marians.

Of course, I won't be happy until The Church decanonizes paul and tosses out his Epistles and then weeds out every pauline influence from the Catholic Protocols. Let the Protestants have Paul, while the Catholic Church should be happy with Jesus and the Immaculate Conception.
 
Dear Battig,

Have you not wondered why Luke practically ignored the 12 Real Apostles while writing only about a murderous pretender, Paul?

I suspect the only reason Peter was written of was because he was the only Real Apostle to show any patronage for Paul. It would be the Pauline Congregations which would claim for Peter ascendency over the Church... because he was the only Apostle who would recognize paul as something other than a complete fraud.

Then we have Paul in Galatians tell us outright that Peter accepted Paul only because of the money he was contributing. Luke makes the same argument in the book of Acts -- that Paul was able to receive audiance by the Church of Jerusalem because of his hefty financial contributions.

So... is it really THE WORD OF GOD, or just Money Talking?
 
battig1370 said:
Christians say, all three versions are factual, and true, and The Word of God. Also, Ophiolite says he has no problem with this and he said, "variety of accounts in this instance makes them more rather than less credible. "What Yorda says in another thread that "all religions are rational, otherwise people wouldn't believe." What is going on here?

"what battiq is driving at?" I want Ophiolite to explain to the viewers how these two very different accounts of the Damascus road event make it more credible, more true? Remember what Yorda said, "all religions are rational, otherwise people wouldn't believe.
Click to expand...
Have I inadvertently ignited some strong feelings? I don't know. I sense I am being simultaneously berated and challenged. I shall respond on that basis.

I provided the first reply to battig's original post. Why? When I occasionally stumble across a post that has been sitting for a few hours with no responses I will try to move things along with a contribution, if I can find anything I feel competent to comment on. Such was the case here.

As previously noted my NT knowledge is not what it was, and it never was that good. What did strike me was that diverse descriptions of any event are normal. Witnessess view events from different physical locations, with different levels of perception, different educational and experiential backgrounds, and different 'agendas'. It is not surprising then, that accounts will differ.
In a general sense, as I noted, such diversity points to the authenticity of an event, thouugh not to all of its details. I believe you would find this well documented in the psychological literature.
One or more of you pointed out that Acts was 'ghost written' for Paul, by Luke. I don't quite see how that would have prevented Luke consulting any witnessess that were available. But lets say all three versions sprang from Paul, via the pen of Luke. Again, differences should be expected: by way of clarification; through a wish to move emphasis;through muddied, or improved, recollection.
You consider them very different. I consider them different. And the differences might be explained as detailed above.
And yes, I remember what Yorda said. I just don't agree with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top