tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post4545995344976919989..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The Damascus Road experienceRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19003830131043024602019-05-04T05:37:34.280-04:002019-05-04T05:37:34.280-04:00"and he [Paul] has seen in a vision a man nam..."and he [Paul] has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight" (Acts 9:12).<br /><br />1. On the one hand, Paul was blind after his Damascus road experience. On the other hand, Paul was able to see (in a vision) after his Damascus road experience.<br /><br />2. Suppose Paul's Damascus road experience was a hallucination, an altered state of mind, or similar. What kind of a hallucination would cause blindness? At the same time, what kind of blindness would allow one to see and see so clearly?Epistle of Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07779184015407034200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-80635838130403874952019-05-03T09:04:36.215-04:002019-05-03T09:04:36.215-04:00I really don't see the problem between 9:7 and...I really don't see the problem between 9:7 and 22:9. The men with Saul "saw no one" it doesn't say light, and they heard the voice in 9:7 but did not understand in 22:9. These terms are equivocal and if I remember correctly the equivocation goes over into the greek word akuo as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-3717091689669002652019-05-03T08:03:10.819-04:002019-05-03T08:03:10.819-04:00William Lane Craig discusses several relevant issu...William Lane Craig discusses several relevant issues in his paper "<a href="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/bodily.html" rel="nofollow">The bodily resurrection of Jesus</a>".Epistle of Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07779184015407034200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53315086764947447212019-05-03T07:59:56.018-04:002019-05-03T07:59:56.018-04:00Good points! Good points! Epistle of Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07779184015407034200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-50415949540420948552019-05-03T07:54:42.893-04:002019-05-03T07:54:42.893-04:00I think the Koine Greek says Ἑβραΐδι (Hebraidi)...I think the Koine Greek says Ἑβραΐδι (Hebraidi). My understanding is it could refer to either Hebrew or Aramaic. The ESV translates it as Hebrew, while the NIV translates it as Aramaic. Other translations translate it as Hebrew but place Aramaic in the footnotes as a possible alternative translation. It's probably debatable. In any case, whichever it is, I don't see how it changes Steve's point.Epistle of Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07779184015407034200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-25052555181586600662019-05-03T06:32:24.134-04:002019-05-03T06:32:24.134-04:00We should also take into account the multifaceted ...We should also take into account the multifaceted later corroboration of Paul's experience: Ananias' paranormal knowledge of what had occurred, the healing of Paul's blindness, Paul's acquisition of the ability to perform miracles, etc. And the evidence we have for Paul's apostleship, like the miracles he performed and the confirmation of his apostleship from other apostles, gives us reason to trust Paul's interpretation of what he experienced, which he describes as a resurrection appearance. Paul, like early Christianity in general, defines resurrection as involving the raising of the physical body that died.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48596518801230050452019-05-03T06:20:14.984-04:002019-05-03T06:20:14.984-04:00I mean Acts 26:14I mean Acts 26:14Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01320569420417469805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-71912806665630158102019-05-03T06:17:18.980-04:002019-05-03T06:17:18.980-04:00Jesus spoke to Paul in Hebrew not Aramaic. Hebrews...Jesus spoke to Paul in Hebrew not Aramaic. Hebrews 26:14.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01320569420417469805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37923392029939947062019-05-03T06:11:21.683-04:002019-05-03T06:11:21.683-04:00Regarding the physicality of the appearance, I'...Regarding the physicality of the appearance, I'll add some points to Steve's. Acts tells us that Paul saw Jesus, not just a light (9:27, 22:14). Paul says the same in his letters (1 Corinthians 9:1). Resurrection in Paul's letters and early Christianity in general <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/03/jesus-burial-and-empty-tomb-outside.html" rel="nofollow">involves the raising of the physical body that died</a>, so a physical appearance of Jesus would make more sense than a non-physical one in that context. Similarly, the context of the remainder of Luke and Acts and earlier resurrection appearances in general is a context in which all of the earlier appearances were physical ones. So, it makes more sense for the appearance to Paul to be physical than it does for the appearance to be non-physical. The objective, physical nature of how Paul and his companions heard Jesus' voice, with different people having heard him to different degrees, makes more sense if the voice came from Jesus' body than if Jesus wasn't physically present. And passages like Acts 22:15 group the hearing and seeing involved together, suggesting that both the hearing and the seeing of Jesus were of a physical nature. 22:14 refers to the voice coming from the "mouth" of Jesus. That terminology normally refers to a portion of the human body. Jesus is a human who was speaking in the context of a resurrection appearance, which involves a raised physical body, so the reference to a mouth in 22:14 is most naturally taken as a reference to Jesus' being bodily present during the appearance to Paul. There's no reason to think that something like an anthropomorphism is involved in 22:14. The passage is most naturally taken to refer to Jesus' bodily presence. Furthermore, Paul groups the appearance to him with the appearances to others (1 Corinthians 15:5-8), and early Christian tradition, reflected in a large number and variety of sources, portrays the appearances to the other resurrection witnesses as bodily appearances. Like Paul's writings, the book of Acts portrays Paul as a resurrection witness in the same category as the others (13:31-32, 22:15), and those other witnesses are said to have seen bodily appearances of Jesus.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-15476766728749344832019-05-03T06:10:56.119-04:002019-05-03T06:10:56.119-04:00Topography has the potential to simultaneously exp...Topography has the potential to simultaneously explain some of the factors involved. Let's say Paul is walking in front of his companions. They're going over a hill. Paul can see over the hill, but his companions can't. He can see Jesus before the light begins shining. They can't. Since Paul is closer to Jesus, the light affects him more (blinding him, but not them), and he hears more of what's said. Or there may have been a scenario involving a bend in the road rather than a hill. Or it could have been a scenario like what Steve described, with Paul walking behind the others. Trees or other objects could have been involved in determining what was seen and when. And so on.<br /><br />In addition to topography, there are issues like where people were looking at the time and how far apart they were walking. Notice that it's so easy to think of multiple potential scenarios that would explain what we read in Acts.<br /><br />But it does require more thinking than would be necessary if somebody were making up an account that they wanted to be more easily understood and accepted. The complexity of these accounts suggests their authenticity. In fact, there are a lot of reasons for thinking the accounts are historical. For example:<br /><br />- There's no competing account.<br /><br />- <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/01/craig-keener-on-luke-and-acts.html" rel="nofollow">Luke's reliability.</a><br /><br />- Why fabricate an account in which Paul's companions don't convert?<br /><br />- Why fabricate an account in which Paul's companions don't see the risen Christ and don't hear all that was said?<br /><br />- Why not make the physicality of the appearance more obvious, as with earlier resurrection appearances, like the earlier ones in Luke and Acts?<br /><br />- Why make the events so complicated (as discussed above)?Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.com