Around a year ago, I reviewed this topic, and gave my thoughts on Facebook. In my original post, I responded to a document titled The Paul Paper, which aimed to offer arguments against the apostle Paul.
After reviewing my post, many of my responses were either too brief (for the sake of brevity as a Facebook post), or lacked in explanation, and some even seemed dismissive. I want to use this opportunity to flesh out these responses more carefully and thoughtfully. Because of the length of The Paul Paper, this will be a multi-part response.
Also to note and unfortunately, since the release of "The Paul Paper", one of the authors has since rejected Messiah. Please keep them and any who are influenced by this line of reasoning in your prayers.
Below you will find that I have copied sections of the arguments in their original form, without edit, and then I will offer counter-arguments to show how these arguments hold no water when held up to the context of scripture and verifiable history.
I will also skip the first 10 points in this list as they were refutations against Pro-Paul arguments. I may address these at a later date as well, but for now I wanted to address their main arguments against our brother Paul.
I will preface their arguments with TPP (The Paul Paper), and my responses with CC.
I pray that this is a blessing to you the reader, and that this will be used to correct bad thinking, bad history, and bad conclusions about our brother Paul.
Let's begin.
P.S. So that you are not confused, The Paul Paper references Jesus as "Yahusha". I will respond with his name as Jesus.
For reference, The Paul Paper in its original form can be found here:
#11 Paul’s conversion story.
TPP: Everyone claims Paul met the ascended Yahusha on the road, yet the text does not bear this out. First of all, this was long after Yahusha had ascended into heaven. If He would’ve come back to earth just to see Paul, this would’ve been the second coming by definition. Also, if it was Yahusha in the flesh, there would’ve been multiple witnesses to seeing him, as He isn’t in this invisible spirit type state, He has a new glorified body that Thomas touched, Yahusha ate with his disciples, and hundreds saw him ascend. This leaves the possibility of a vision of Yahusha, which the text doesn’t actually bear out. (Acts 7:1-9) Paul saw, “a bright light” that nobody else by the way saw, and heard a voice that claimed to be Yahusha, and was struck blind. Notably, Joseph Smith, the false prophet for Mormonism had a very similar “conversion” when he received “divine revelation”, as well as Muhammed, the false prophet for the Muslim faith, when he had his “divine revelation”. In 2nd Corinthians 11:14, Paul himself claims Satan masquerades as an angel of light so what does this say about his conversion? (Cross reference 1 John 2:11)
The other issue with the conversion of Paul is that throughout Acts, his testimony is given on three different occasions and each time bears some inconsistency. In the first account (Acts 9:3-8) it says the men who traveled with Paul heard a voice, but saw nothing, afterward stood speechless, and that Paul would be told in the next city what he was supposed to do. In the second account (Acts 22:6-11) the men who traveled with Paul saw a light, but heard nothing, and the statement “it is hard for you to kick against the goads (pricks), is removed. In the third account (Acts 26:13-18) the men with Paul all fell to the ground instead of standing around, it’s noted at this point the voice spoke to him in Hebrew which was absent from the first two accounts, and most interestingly, instead of being told that he would be told what to do in the next city, it seems he is given the full details of who he would become and what he would endure from Christ at that moment.
We cannot ascertain first of all who these nameless men who journeyed with Paul were, as not a single one is mentioned by name, we do not know if they heard a voice but saw nothing, or if they saw a light, but didn’t hear anything, or whether they were standing, or had fallen on the ground with Paul, as all of these details fluctuate from account to account. We also see in the first two accounts Paul was told that in the city he would be told what was next for him, but in the final account it seems he claims he was told right then, and the words are even recorded in red as words of Christ directly. Many of us have had spiritual experiences once or twice in our lives, and these moments are etched into our minds. The details of the stories do not change, and they stay in our memory better than most other memories. Paul’s inability to keep his story straight is extremely suspect in my mind.
CC: Reading through this argument, the point is that because Jesus showed himself to Paul, that this account of Paul's should be considered "The Second Coming." But is that what Paul is claiming? Is that how we should view the passage in Acts 9 and following, in light of Matthew 24? First, let's read the passage in Matthew 24 to see what Jesus was warning of, and then examine Paul's account in light of Jesus' very clear warnings against those who claim to have witnessed the return of the post-ascended Christ.
23 Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand. 26 So, if they say to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
Could this be used as evidence against Paul's "experience"? I have heard it said that, because Jesus had ascended to heaven, that this could not have been Jesus appearing to Paul, so it must be evidence against Paul. I have heard it said that, because Paul was traveling to Damascus, that this counts as happening in the wilderness, so it must be evidence against Paul. But do either of those elements of Paul's encounter really have anything to do with Jesus' warning? You have an appearance, and you have a wilderness, so then it must be the case that this is what Jesus was warning about, right? The warning in Matthew 24 says not to believe a (fake) Jesus that appears in the wilderness, right? Well, not so fast. Before we come to a conclusion, let's take the warning apart, and digest it slowly.
Let's list the warnings in the passage of Matthew 24:23-27.
If anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There he is!' do not believe it.
False christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.
So if they say to you, 'Look he is in the wilderness.' do not go out.
If they say, 'Look, he is in the inner rooms.' do not believe it.
Now let's take a look at the reasoning against Paul. It goes something like this:
Jesus already ascended to heaven, so the very next appearance of Jesus to anyone must be considered a Return Event
Jesus forewarned that anyone claiming to have seen Him (in the wilderness or inner room or wherever) must be dismissed for this would be a 'false christ'
If Jesus appeared to Paul, then it must be considered a Return Event
The appearance to Paul was in "the wilderness"
Conclusion, Paul claimed to have seen the Return of Christ, so we should dismiss Paul because this "christ" would be a false christ
Given the warnings in Matthew 24, does this line of reasoning hold up? No. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it conflates the warning given by Jesus with the events of Paul's encounter. There are several assumptions made, and many misunderstandings of the events of both. Let's unpack them together.
First, let's make a distinction, because I think a distinction can be made. Does any appearance of Jesus therefore automatically necessitate a Return Event? I don't think so. I think this kind of appearance can easily be classified as a Private Experience, so long as it avoids checking any of the boxes of the actual warning. I think to rule out Private Experiences is to insert something into the text that is not there. And I think by the end of this we'll see why.
So back to the warning. What does it say again? Go back and look at them above if you need.
Does Paul's encounter check any of these? In a very limited way, with a very forced perception of the passage, yes. But ultimately? No. Let me explain.
Paul's encounter did "happen in the wilderness". The warning again says, "So if they say to you, 'Look he is in the wilderness...'" However, did Paul proclaim the ascended Christ was out in the wilderness? Remember, Jesus is very clearly talking about a Return Event. If Paul is saying that Christ has returned and he is out in the wilderness, then absolutely, Paul fits the bill. But, is Paul's encounter suggesting a Return Event? Can we say that this checks that box? No. No we cannot.
What about any of the other conditions of the warning. Can we tick any of the boxes? Let's ask the questions.
Was Paul...
saying that the Ascended Christ had returned? No.
saying that the Ascended Christ was performing miracles to witness? No.
saying that the Asended Christ was out in the wilderness for all to see him? No.
saying that the Ascended Christ was in the inner rooms for all to see him? No.
What are the facts of Paul's event? What does he say about it? Review the events in Acts 9, 22, and 26 carefully. These are the base facts of the events.
I was on my way to Damascus
A great light shone around me
I heard a voice
Does this at all sound like Jesus' warning? I don't think it does. Jesus' warning is to stop you from going out into the wilderness, or inner room, or (insert anywhere someone is claiming a Returning Christ) to then fall prey to a false christ. Jesus warning is against a false Return Event, and then goes on to give you the proper order of events for the real Return Event. Paul called no one to witness the returned Christ, and so his encounter checks none of the necessary boxes for a false Return Event.
Let's put it another way. I think a clearer way to look at Paul's encounter is this: we have many mentions of “The Lord” coming to people in the Old Testament, from Abraham to Jacob to Samson’s parents, and this simply is no different. Also, Jesus not being seen or recognized by the other men is not a problem. We know if he doesn’t want to be recognized, it’s not an issue for him. We see things like this with the appearance events just after his Resurrection.
Another key point to the investigation is found later on in the same chapter, in Acts 9:27.
But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus.
The apostles knew right there that Paul had an encounter with the Lord. Ask yourself, if the apostles did not question this as a Return Event, then why should we? I think the answer is quite simple: we shouldn't. There is no good reason to suspect Paul based on these events. The evidence is clearly in favor of Paul's legitimacy.
I hope it is clear by this point why this reasoning conflates the two events by trying to find a correlation between the two because of the "appearance" and the "wilderness", while assuming the "appearance" to Paul was some Return Event when it really isn't. What we see happen to Paul is not at all what Jesus was warning against. It was simply a private encounter with the Lord. There was no call to witness a returned Christ, therefore this is not at all in the same category as a false Return Event warned of by Christ.
Moving on to the accusation of this being akin to Joseph Smith and Muhammad, these arguments have been addressed by others, and so I won't spend much time on it, but I did like how David Wilber puts it here:
Regarding Justin's comparison of Paul's conversion story to Joseph Smith and Muhammad, this is the definition of a false analogy fallacy. Paul converted to the Messianic sect of Judaism founded on the Messiah and His teachings. Joseph Smith and Muhammad created completely different religions. Unless you approach Paul already assuming that he is a false apostle who started a different religion, there is simply no comparison.
Now that we have dismantled the first legs of the argument, let's address the alleged inconsistencies. A closer look at the details show how the stories do not conflict. I will readily admit that, yes, there are additional details in some recountings that are not in others. In this way, yes, there is some inconsistency within the telling of the narrative. However, what is being stressed by TPP is a bit stronger, which is why I will show that there are no contradictions within the narrative.
So, think of a time you told a story and remembered details as you told it the second or third time. Did you necessarily contradict an earlier statement? Maybe, and if so you may have corrected yourself, “Oh, it wasn’t a blue ball. It was red, that’s right.” But were you lying about the events? Probably not. It’s typical to remember more details as you recall them, or perhaps you thought of a better way of explaining the events. I am not saying that this is what happened, because there is no evidence of self-correction at all, but what I am saying is that we cannot assume foul play here without first examining the details closely, to show how there are no conflicting details within the accounts. Also remember that he was blinded by the occurrence! Possibly that counts for something. Let’s review the details of each passage to see why there are no contradictions.
First, let me quote the first half of TPP's argument dealing with the supposed inconsistencies:
In the first account (Acts 9:3-8) it says the men who traveled with Paul heard a voice, but saw nothing, afterward stood speechless, and that Paul would be told in the next city what he was supposed to do. In the second account (Acts 22:6-11) the men who traveled with Paul saw a light, but heard nothing, and the statement “it is hard for you to kick against the goads (pricks), is removed. In the third account (Acts 26:13-18) the men with Paul all fell to the ground instead of standing around, it’s noted at this point the voice spoke to him in Hebrew which was absent from the first two accounts, and most interestingly, instead of being told that he would be told what to do in the next city, it seems he is given the full details of who he would become and what he would endure from Christ at that moment.
Let’s start with the first inconsistency as it reads in Acts 9:7.
The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.
You may notice it already, but if not, let’s walk through the first supposed inconsistency (this is used more as though there is some contradiction) to see how the issue presented is not as it appears to be.
The TPP claims that the men "with Paul heard a voice, but saw nothing." But as you can see in Acts 9:7, it says they heard the voice, but saw no one. It does not say they saw nothing. Seeing no person and seeing no thing are two very different statements. Hearing a disembodied voice does encompass the statement that they saw no one but does not necessarily encompass the statement that they saw nothing. This is my first issue with the first passage as presented. It is a subtle change of wording that can have big implications. You can see here https://biblehub.com/acts/9-7.htm that all translations say the men saw no one or no man. So, I’m not sure if this is an intentional change, or if he is reading from a version that I am not aware of in which says they saw nothing, but unless he can provide the translation where it says that, then it is hard to believe that this was not an intentional change. And even if he could provide that translation, no major translation says they saw nothing, so whatever version he got this from is very likely incorrect in its translation. But being more charitable, perhaps it was simply an oversight. I will grant that it is easy to overlook something so simple (just ask my wife).
Now for the next passage in Acts 22:9, it reads:
Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me.
Again, let’s walk through the passage to see how there is no inconsistency. Back in Acts 9:7 it says they heard a voice but saw no one. Acts 22:9 says they saw the light but did not understand the voice. Now to be fair, this one MAY be a contradiction depending on the version of Bible you read. This is why it is good advice to read from several versions over one particular translation, and to further look into why things are translated the way that they are. If you look here https://biblehub.com/acts/22-9.htm it is a pretty even split between translations that say they didn’t hear the voice and those that say they didn’t understand the voice. However, is it possible that the translations that say they did not hear in 22:9, while correct as a literal word for word translation, have slightly mistranslated the Greek?
As Matt Slick of CARM.org quotes:
"Literally, that clause in 22:9 may be translated, “They did not hear the sound.” The NIV correctly translates the verse, because the verb “to hear” with the genitive case may mean “to hear a sound” and with the accusative case “to hear with understanding.” The genitive case is employed in 9:7, and the accusative is used in 22:9. So the travelers with Saul heard the sound (9:7) but did not understand what Christ said (22:9)."1
Thus in Acts 9:7, “hearing the voice,” the noun “voice” is in the partitive genitive case [i.e., hearing (something) of], whereas in 22:9, “they heard not the voice,” the construction is with the accusative. This removes the idea of any contradiction. The former indicates a hearing of the sound, the latter indicates the meaning or message of the voice (this they did not hear). “The former denotes the sensational perception, the latter (the accusative case) the thing perceived."2
So, while both English renditions are literally correct, only one comes out on top as the technically correct, and so there is no actual contradiction.
Now for the last passage:
Acts 26:13 At midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, that shone around me and those who journeyed with me. 14 And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language…”
This one is by far the most reaching of the three accounts. First off, it is possible that the other men later informed him after hearing him recount the story that they, too, fell upon their face. If Paul had said earlier that ONLY he had fallen while they stood, then I think there would be some inconsistency, but we do not see that. Rather, the other tellings do not rule out that it is still possible for them to have fallen on their faces. Paul falling on his face still can encompass all men falling on their face without saying it. And second, including a mention of Jesus speaking to Paul in the Hebrew language is not an inconsistency. The other accounts would not need this detail for any number of reasons. In Acts 22, for instance, Paul was already speaking to the people in the Hebrew language (v2), so this detail was probably unnecessary, and depending on the purpose of the book of Acts in the first place, the detail about it in Acts 9 may have just been an unnecessary detail to Luke or one that he simply wasn’t privy to earlier on in his journey with Paul. I don’t really know. Regardless, there is no an contradiction to say the least.
Now, the business of the additional statement of Jesus about “kicking against the goads” may have some application for the occasion where it was an unnecessary detail earlier on. It really doesn’t matter why he didn’t see a need to express it earlier on. And again, it could have been a detail that was unknown or even irrelevant to Luke earlier on. But back to the quote, as I understand it, it was a common expression regarding an ox kicking back when being goaded on to continue working. As Christianity.com says:
Saul’s conversion could appear to us as having been a sudden encounter with Christ. But based on the Lord's expression regarding his kicking back, I believe He’d been working on him for years, prodding and goading him.
With that in mind, imagine who he is speaking with. Herod Agrippa II. His father was Herod Agrippa I (see Acts 12:20-23). This detail may have had some usefulness. Perhaps Paul was using the detail to expose the heart of Agrippa (see 22:28-32). It’s at least possible. In fact, “[m]any sermons over the years have been preached about the man who “almost” became a Christian but ultimately did not. The words of Agrippa II have become a cautionary tale of “almost” becoming a Christian, but waiting too long. A gospel song titled “Almost Persuaded” was written by prolific songwriter Philip Bliss in 1871 and has been sung in churches for several generations.”
And lastly, regarding the mission presented to him by Jesus, it is entirely within the realm of reason to see that Paul was possibly or even likely condensing the encounter with Jesus for sake of time. Remember, he was standing in front of some very powerful men who then cut him off while “he was saying these things in his defense” and called him crazy (v24).
All of these points thus far have fallen short of providing sound reason to reject Paul, but I want to briefly address the closing statement of the argument:
We cannot ascertain first of all who these nameless men who journeyed with Paul were, as not a single one is mentioned by name, we do not know if they heard a voice but saw nothing, or if they saw a light, but didn’t hear anything, or whether they were standing, or had fallen on the ground with Paul, as all of these details fluctuate from account to account. We also see in the first two accounts Paul was told that in the city he would be told what was next for him, but in the final account it seems he claims he was told right then, and the words are even recorded in red as words of Christ directly. Many of us have had spiritual experiences once or twice in our lives, and these moments are etched into our minds. The details of the stories do not change, and they stay in our memory better than most other memories. Paul’s inability to keep his story straight is extremely suspect in my mind.
In addressing the concerns in the first parts of the argument, I hope you can already see the issues with this last paragraph. It really isn’t necessary to know the names of the men. Paul’s conversion from a hate-filled Jew seeking to rid the world of these followers of Jesus, to a radically altered man who now wanted to spread the Good News of the one whom he had previously persecuted, is the point of the passage in Acts 9. It is possible the men died shortly after and had no more bearing on the story, or that they departed Paul after he lost his vision and were never seen nor heard from again. There are any number of reasons why their names were not included, but a skeptical approach is unwarranted to say least. The rest of the argument merely repeats the errors regarding Acts 9, and the addressed inconsistencies of Acts 22 and 26.
And so, “Paul’s inability to keep his story straight” has just been straightened with a correct perspective and a contextual reading of the passages. Any argument suggesting otherwise... is extremely suspect in my mind.
As this was a long response to just the first point (really eleventh) in The Paul Paper's thirty-two arguments (minus the first ten), I will stop here for now to give you a breather. You can find the next responses in my follow-up articles, to come. The next one will cover a few simpler matters with some quicker responses.
Sincerely,
Caleb Chamberlain, a follower of our Lord, The Ultimate Dragon Slayer, Jesus the Christ