Let us assume that a resurrected Jesus did not really appear to Paul on the road to Damascus. What are we left with regarding Paul's conversion story and is it strong enough to be plausible?

The Jews seem to think that Paul had epilepsy. The question is not relevant to the historical Jesus debate so Ehrman and Carrier don't discuss it. It seems that the only source information comes from Paul's references to his own miraculous conversion. I wonder what version of Paul's conversion it is that we have? If Paul was anything like Joseph Smith then his conversion story would have undergone several "refinements" before becoming the final version.

Time for an analogy. Imagine if a book said that Richard Dawkins saw Joseph Smith on the road to Utah and subsequently he converted to mormonism, became an apostle and converted millions to the loving fold of TSCC. I know that I would be very suspicious of the whole story.

Converting a chief persecutor is a wet dream shared by many cult leaders, but how realistic is it?

I don't know where I stand on the issue. I can see several possible resolutions. Maybe Paul had an epileptic fit and hallucinated a vision of Jesus? Maybe Paul never really persecuted Christians and invented his conversion story as a cover for sinister motives? Maybe Paul did persecute christians but he exaggerated the extent of his persecution? Maybe Paul felt overwhelming guilt for a brutal (possibly lethal) persecution at his hands? Maybe Paul led a similar but competing sect? Maybe there was no real world Paul and his epistles were invented decades later? Maybe Paul really saw a resurrected Jesus and I need to go back to church tomorrow?

What conclusions have you reached and how did you come to that conclusion?

Maybe Saul/Paul saw his chances of advancement in his job (which was becoming a severe drag) were very limited, only horizontal, but saw big opportunities with the competitor. He also thought their product had real potential and could be improved by injecting some ideas from another company. So he switched teams.

Up until recently I would have agreed with you, but I can't think of a single "chief persecutor" who switched sides for any reason, let alone opportunistic greed. The outcome of Paul's switch seems to have been a good move, since we are talking about him almost 2,000 years later. If Paul was smart enough, he could have said that he had switched sides (in order to get more converts), without ever having been on the other side.

<<I can't think of a single "chief persecutor" who switched sides for any reason>>

Perhaps Saul/Paul inflated his resume, his importance, his dedication to the job, and his piety in order to enhance (or fabricate) his story. (Gotta have a catchy story to grab your audience.) He wouldn't be the first or last to do that.

Besides, if there had ever been any Jewish officials to step forward and say, "This Saul who now calls himself Paul is grossly inflating his resume,' do you think the Holy Roman Church, which was totally invested in Paul, would have allowed any record of that accusation to survive?

<<Maybe there was no real world Paul and his epistles were invented decades later?>>

Biblical scholars say Paul didn't write many of the epistles attributed to him (just like the Gospels were written by people other than Matthew, Mark, Luke or John). They didn't have the same standards of authorship we do today. Anyone could write anything and attribute it to anyone, and if enough people liked what was said in the text, they accepted it. And there was no fact checking. We don't know what, if anything, is true about Paul, except that he existed. Anything or everything that was written about him could be myth.

I think that if Paul was epileptic then it's quite possible that he had physical experiences such as seizures that he later interpreted in terms of a mystical religious experience. My understanding is that epileptics sometimes have auras that they see and experience prior to seizures. Paul was always deeply interested in religious matters. If he was engaged in criticizing early Christians and had such a physical experience, then he may have interpreted it as a divine act.

The reality is that many religious visionaries may be "delusional" but it doesn't mean that they are outright conmen like Joseph Smith.

Whilst it is possible that a person could have hallucinations or hear voices and start a religion based on what they have seen or heard, I find it hard to believe that a person as successful as Paul relied on those hallucinations. I think he knew that he was a fraud.

I also don't see how a hallucination could cause someone to convert to a different religion. The source of a hallucination would be a person's own sub-conscious, which is extremely unlikely to disagree with one's existing religious view. There must have been another reason for the conversion.

A most excellent book is "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity," by Hyam Maccoby, a Talmudic scholar. Forget the historical Jesus. A better understanding of Christianity is gained through a look at the historical Paul. Yes, it's all theory--any study of ancient religious history, but this book is easy to follow and also makes you realize that JS had to have purposely tried to become the Paul of the 19th century.

One question: does the book give insight into why Paul might have converted to Christianity?

Maccoby is one of those scholars who wasn't taken seriously by a lot of the "mainstream" scholars but he was definitely on to something. I agree with him in that Paul wasn't necessarily the great Torah Jew that he claimed to be. I think James Daniel Tabor must have been influenced a lot by Maccoby.

Another book in this vein is Tabor's "Paul and Jesus" which was released fairly recently. As I recall I think Tabor does discuss somewhat the visionary thing that was going around among the Jews, throne visions, etc., but I don't remember any discussion about why he would have converted. It has been awhile since I read his book.

Maybe I'm getting to the point that I only enjoy reading light fluff.

One thing I have serious issues with is when somebody cites his own work - frequently - in the bibliography. And Macoby does that, a lot.

I found his writing style to be so tedious that I gave up, about a third of the way through. I didn't WANT to - I was interested in his conclusions. But I'm not in school anymore, and nobody can make me read anything I don't want to. I just couldn't take any more of his ramblings.

If the bible is correct, Paul did not convert to Christianity, he was its author. The New Testament Book of Acts states that Jesus' close followers remained in Jerusalem and continued to adhere to the Jewish faith and customs.

Paul developed the idea of "blood atonement" and changed Jesus of Nazareth into Christ - "the anointed one". He eliminated some Jewish customs including the need for circumcision and incorporated some pagan beliefs to make his new religion more acceptable to non-Jews or "gentiles" as they were called. Paul then spread his "new" religion among the non-Jews to the consternation of Peter with whom he had a major falling out regarding the requirement to be circumcised. Paul never again had any contact with Jesus Jerusalem group.

Paul, a self-appointed "Apostle", became the defacto spokesperson for Christianity setting forth the requirements of the new faith in personal teachings and a number of letters or "epistles" which still contain most of the core Christian beliefs.

Paul was certainly responsible for creating Christianity as we know it. So did he convert to Christianity or did he create it? His relationship with the Jewish christians raises a lot of questions. Paul seems to have gone off doing his own thing.

After an obsession of "why" over the Warren Jeffs and the FLDS I became obsessed with Mormons and have concluded that Mormon origin stories are probably as wonderful way to understand the development of many civilizations with their God/Kings and incipient royalty.

Islam fits the mold with various "kings/caliphs" all claiming "royalty" on the basis of genetic ties or early conversions ...

European kings authority derived from papal sanctions... so the kings don't go back to "gods", a bit different in that respect...

Previously spent a lot of time on understanding early Christianity and bible reading, never could take to Paul,

long answer... I think that Paul was a Joseph Smith with an invented religion targeted to greek and roman culture


long time (2-3 years) lurker here - thanks for journey and a Happy New Year, here's hoping the Morg cracks more in the next year...

1. Conversions of people to the opposite point of view is really not so unusual. It is not only fairly common, but when someone makes a 180 degree shift, they become especially vocal, trying to undo the harm they have caused by their previous position. That being the case, the conversion of Saul fits perfectly.
2. The story of Saul/Paul is told several times in the NT with some nuances. In the Book of Acts it is told from the third person while Paul writes in the first person. Very unlike the "First Vision" of JS where no-one else was present, the citings of the conversion experience of Paul refers to others being present - though they did not hear and see what Saul did - but the experience was also of those who were involved in the conversion.
3. The theory of epilepsy is of ancient origin. The problem for it is that it would explain the vision - and writings warn of giving too much credence to visions - but does not explain the returning of sight, etc.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2014 10:23AM by rhgc.

1. Whilst conversions are common, it is rare for someone high up in a religion to convert to another religion, especially not to one that was specifically persecuted by the individual. According to Paul he was pretty high up in Judaism for his age. If a supernatural Jesus didn't stop him from continuing to climb the Jewish ladder then what did?

2. Others being present at Paul's conversion is a bit like the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. It adds credibility to the story, but his friends may well have been in on the scam.

3. Paul may well have had epilepsy. If not then he had some other form of disability that he vaguely refers to. Like you said, it doesn't account for ALL of the conversion story. I don't think that a random epilepsy episode provides a motive for a conversion.

1. Paul was not high up in Judaism, not being of the tribe of Levi, but was well-educated.
2. The witnesses were entirely different from those of the BoM. First, they gave no account but, indeed, denied some of it because they were present but did not hear! Had they mentioned names and had them sign statements and show perfect agreement, they would be like the fraudulent BoM witnesses.
3. Rather than concluding that the illness Paul had created his visions, you should note that they would hinder them because one would conclude that God was not treating him well. No, the illness showed his continued testimony despite being beset with illness.

1. Galations 1:14 says "I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers". That makes him sound like a pretty successful Jew. According to Jewish scholars he was exaggerating. Being from Tarsus and NOT Jerusalem, I would assume that as a Hellenized Jew, he would have been below average in terms of his understanding of Judaism, unless there is reliable evidence to the contrary. His conversion to Christianity would have been far from miraculous.
2. The point is that the witnesses to Paul's conversion were not independent. They were at least his traveling companions, but they were probably his best friends. If no miracle occurred on the road to Damascus then Paul and his friends came up with the miraculous story together.
3. I don't think Paul's epilepsy created his visions. Jewish scholars came to that conclusion, see http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13232-saul-of-tarsus

The Jewish scholars also concluded that Paul's epilepsy would have repelled Jews but impressed Gentiles.

Maybe Paul developed epilepsy as a young adult? Maybe that caused him disaffection from a tradition that he had zealously supported?

Paul did not "convert" to christianity as there there was no such thing. He was and remained Jewish; his thrust was in having gentiles joining the Jewish sect that believed in christ (and hurry up because the end is coming!), but otherwise it was a Jewish enterprise all the way.

Is Paul's conversion an anachronism? Jewish Christians were still Jewish up until about 120 CE if I remember correctly. So Paul would have converted from one sect of Judaism to another, which shouldn't need supernatural intervention. He would have been a Jew persecuting other Jews. It also seems a bit strange that Paul went to Damascus when the leaders of Jewish christians were in Jerusalem. I don't know why the Christian leaders were in Jerusalem when they were supposed to be from Galilee. Why didn't they return to Galilee after the death of Jesus? Why was Paul persecuting Christians if their founder had recently been killed and the sect would assumably die out? All of this would make more sense in a later setting.

No. Christianity was not merely a sect of Judaism. In the NT it is made clear that gentiles who converted did not need to keep the Jewish law (after a vision and dispute). While there remained some congregations which came out of Judaism and kept the laws as Jews, it was very soon when the majority of Christians were gentile converts and even the organization of the church differed from Judaism.

rhgc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No. Christianity was not merely a sect of Judaism.

When Paul converted it was. "Christianity" was a term that hadn't been invented yet. "The Jesus movement" was a better term for it. The Jesus movement and Jews parted ways over gradually over a long period of time, see http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_of_early_Christianity_and_Judaism

Jewish Christians still worshipped in synagogues until at least the destruction of the temple in 70 CE.

> In the NT it is made clear that gentiles who
> converted did not need to keep the Jewish law
> (after a vision and dispute).

Ie "the council of Jerusalem" in 50 CE, long after Paul's conversion.


> While there remained
> some congregations which came out of Judaism and
> kept the laws as Jews, it was very soon when the
> majority of Christians were gentile converts and
> even the organization of the church differed from
> Judaism.

Once again, long after Paul's conversion.

The conditions required for the persecution of the Jesus movement, and the miraculous conversion of a chief persecutor simply didn't exist at the time of Paul's conversion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2014 08:00PM by The Invisible Green Potato.

Alma like Paul was struck down and received first hand visions and knowledge that God exists.
But after that, Alma condemned anyone who didn't try to live by Faith. Remember the anti-Christs Nehor and Korihor. Both were struck down for preaching that there was no evidence or proof of Jesus. And if their Christian faith was so true why not give a sign. The whole BoM is full of miracle and supernatural conversions of the prophets and judges, yet if a normal person asked for the same or similar sign(s) they were condemned or told to live by Faith, not knowledge.
http://mormonstories.org/david-michael-my-book-of-mormon/

Oh that Elohim!!! He's always playing the part of Loki a lot of times isn't he? And then again Elohim could be Eloher; sounds like my mother's logic, ("You'll do what I say, not what I do").



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2014 02:54AM by dydimus.

The high value that Paul's conversion story has, as evidenced by Joseph Smith copying it, makes me think that Paul's story was fictional too.

Oh I totally agree with the point that Paul "used" and reorganized Christianity to his ideals and beliefs. The church that Paul established (like B.Y. did to Joseph Smith's church) was pick and choose certain quotes, actions and writings to build up his church and ecclesiastical hierarchy according to his beliefs and practices. He then left instructions to destroy any other beliefs, practices or scriptures that didn't follow his directions.

Paul specifically refused to be held as head of the church, but as a servant/slave. He even worked so that no-one could accuse him of living off of the donations of the saints. JS made himself to be the prophet, to be the head of the church, and even to be a king. He lived a worldly life and had numerous wives, demanded them, and tested his worshipers by by asking for their wives and daughters to gratify his lusts.

Point taken about Paul not calling himself head of the church.

My understanding is that Paul collected money for the poor of Jerusalem, so while it is probably true that he worked while he was preaching (at least in the city that he wrote the epistle to), Paul never denied collecting donations. Who knows how much of the collections actually made it back to Jerusalem?

Imagine if all we knew about Joseph Smith came from his own pen. We would have no idea that he was a polygamist or that he defrauded people. With Paul we only have his own writings or the writings of his supporters. We cannot know for sure that he wasn't just as much of a con-man as Joseph Smith.

It is absolutely mandatory for Christ to have actually appeared to Paul for the story of Paul to have the necessary significance, just as it was mandatory for Jesus to have actually appeared to PERVERT MORmON founder Joseph Smith for the Joe Smith story to have the needed significance, Just as it was absolutely necessary for Jesus to have been resurrected to give Christianity the needed significance. The chance that any of these things really happen? - ZERO !!!!!!!!! If God really was so impressed with Paul's ability to be bad that God had to have paul on his side being of good to be Good with the same level of intensity that Paul used in being bad, then god should just recruit Satan to be good too. IF God appeared to a foul POS like Joe, or Paul, then God could appear to the rest of us, unless god is such a prick that He just wont do it, in which case we are all screwed anyway. IF Jesus could pull off the resurrection thing but He avoids the rest of us,for 2000 years, so he does not have to apply his magical abilities to help out the rest of us, then he is such a jerk that we are all screwed anyway.

The difference of the story of Paul and that of Joseph Smith is as different as night and day. And even then, one can prove that the JS story is an outright fraud but one cannot prove that it could not possibly have happened, only that the story is such that it boggles the mind.

Please note that conversion stories are not unique. BTW, many people have converted away from Moism to help others escape. Paul was a brave man who converted away from his upbringing and prescribed beliefs to join a group which was persecuted, to suffer such persecution and imprisonment, and to have the ability to stand up to the authorities.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2014 07:00AM by rhgc.

rhgc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The difference of the story of Paul and that of
> Joseph Smith is as different as night and day.

But is it really?

Joseph Smith was a brave man who converted away from his upbringing and prescribed beliefs to join a group which was persecuted, to suffer such persecution and imprisonment, and to have the ability to stand up to the authorities.

Hmmm... not so different after all?

Paul did not change the "rules" He taught that Jesus did not do away with the law but fulfilled the law. Being such, anyone that believed in Jesus was under grace and not works. He is very clear that Christ came first for the Jew (God's choosen people) and then the gentile. By accepting Jesus the gentile became a spiritual Jew, abopted by God, with all the same priveldges of born Jews. He taught that we can not earn our way to heaven, the work of Jesus on the cross was enough. I get amazed at religons that teach you have to do works to be good enough to get into some V.I.P section of heaven. How insulting to God the Son....oh yeah Jesus, I know you were the Lamb without spot and wrinkle and died shedding your blood to not just cover my sins like the yearly Jewish sacrifies, but washed them away as if I never sinned and cast them into the sea of forgetfulness,,,,but I somehow think that just wasn't enough...I'm going to have to work my way into heaven and if I don't do just enough here, I will be in some type of pergatory until I get it right...what? Oh I know You said it is finished, but I just don't think so.....I am very thankful that I do not live my life always striving to do something that I don't need to do to get to heaven. I live in complete peace knowing that all I need is a personal relationship with Jesus and I live in His love daily. That is what Paul was teaching, nothing for his personal gain, but for freedom for all who believed.

I wonder whether Paul's "grace without works" philosophy was influenced by the fact that to him, there was no time for works. Jesus was coming "as a thief in the night", ie any day now, not "as a thief who is quite well off and doesn't need to do any more thieving for at least a few thousand years".

Mormonism is particularly ridiculous because it requires earthly works, not only for the living, but also for each and every person who has ever died. To be fair though, it was Paul who mentioned bapgtism for the dead, and the NT never said that Jesus was baptised for everyone.

Paul is an interesting man and he is vilified by the Moslem world. They revere Jesus as a prophet and teach that he taught the religion of Allah. Now they say Paul changed Christianity into a polytheistic religion and changed Jesus from a mere mortal to a God.

As for me, I believe that Paul indeed had a spiritual experience on the road to Damascus. I believe he did what he had to do because it is what God wanted him to do. After his conversion he was all in 100% and there was no going back.