On The Road to Damascus (A tale of Paul)

NARRATION 1
And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
ACTS 9:3-7

NARRATION 2
And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me.
And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
And I said, What shall I do, LORD? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.
ACTS 22:6-10

NARRATION 3
Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests,
At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.
And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
But 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;
Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:
But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
ACTS 26:12-20

DISCREPANCIES IN THE NARRATIONS
In the first we have a record of Paul’s men, hearing a voice and seeing no man (ie Jesus). In the second narration, we have Paul claiming that the men saw Jesus, but did not hear a voice. The possibility of Paul manipulating this “event” is clearly revealed in the second narration, we have Paul defending himself before the Hebrew counsel, and twisting the point that his companions saw a light, but did not hear the voice; apperantly adds more credibility to his phenomenal vision. As a voice could be anyones voice for what the Jews care. Yes there is a contradiction, but from what we have seen from the character of Paul (in the privious notes), it should not come as a surprise. In the third narration, he omits any mention of the specific incident.

The first and second narration are consistent when it comes to claiming only he fell to the ground when he saw the light. In the third narration, he claims he and his companions fell down. Why the change of retrospect, given the fact that Paul was defending himself in the third narration at the Court of King Agrippa, dramatising the vision by claiming all his men fell to the earth highlighted the desire to show the great impact this event had not just on his life, but those who were in his presence.

What clearly reveals the flaw-ness of his vision, is that in the third narration when addressing King Agrippa and his Gentile court. He makes the claim that in his vision, Jesus told him that he will be Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee. So in effect, Paul is claiming that Jesus sent him to the Gentiles, (possibly in order placate the crowd present). And in the second narration to the Jews, he brings absolutely no mention of this “I’am sending you to the Gentiles” alleged statement that Jesus told him. Why not?, the obvious answer lies in the respective audience being addressed.

In a Court of Law, such contradictory evidence would be held suspect and hence dismissed or cross-examined.

Back to the specific issue of whether the disciples heard the voice or not. The Apologisers for the New Testament, as well as the NIV bible, have tried to cover up the contradiction between Acts 9:7 and 22:9 by translating Acts 9:7, “akouontes men tes phones” (literally “they heard the voice”, but, skewing the words of Acts 22:9, “phonen ouk hakousan” (literally, “they did not hear the voice”) into, “they did not understand the voice”.

And, according to Luke’s own report of Paul, Paul was well familiar with better words for “understanding”. In Acts 28:26,

Paul says, “In hearing, you shall hear but not understand.” Could it be possible that Paul fell victim to his own theory

The Greek work he uses for “understand” is syniete. He also uses the word in Rom 3:11, 15:21, 2 Cor 10:12, and Eph 5:17. Luke also uses this word frequently, Luke 2:50, 8:10 (when Jesus is allegedly concealing his meaning from folks), Luke 18:34, 24:45, and Acts 28:27 to indicate a lack of understanding. So, if Paul (or Luke) had meant that Paul’s companions heard the voice but did not understand it, they could have easily chosen to use “syniete” instead, so that there would have been no question of contradiction in testimony. You’d think this would be important.

…For Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
2 CORINTHIANS 11:14

Regardless of the voice his campanions heard (and did not hear), there is the issue of the big light that persuaded Paul. Even before he is told who his Big Light is, Paul addresses it as “lord” (which tends to make the whole account sound rather contrived). But, Paul already recognises an “Angel of Light” as Satan (see 2 Cor 11:14 above). And, in fact, an Angel of Light is identified in Isaiah 14:12 as Tyre the Morning Star, who is the enemy of GOD fallen from heaven for claiming to ascend to heaven (Tyre is often seen as representative of Satan). So, for Paul to immediately call a Big Light his “lord” is quite telling.
Incidentally, St. John’s version of Jesus calls himself the Morning Star (Rev 22:16). And, it is interesting in light (excuse the pun) of the fact that the “ascending” imagery in Isaiah 14:12 also closely resembles the “ascending Jesus” of St. Paul’s doctrine. It just leaves wondering, and what is one to make out of this.

It is too much of a paradox, because the verse prior to the one above (in which he refers to his rivals as discussed earlier). Paul states

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ.
2 CORINTHIANS 11:13

The saint (?) is accusing others of being deceitful while he himself, not only practices deceit, but admits to it as well as takes pride in it. According to this strange mentality, he thinks he can beautify the word “deceit”, and expect everyone to buy into it. The term deceit does not having opposing definitions, i.e., a positive connotation for Paul and a negative one for his competitors.
(this point was discussed in an early note)