Did Paul believe Jesus appeared to him as a non-physical vision/light?

• Paul: “Jesus physically appeared to me”

  

  Paul denies that Jesus appeared non-physically (e.g. intra-mentally), insisting instead that what appeared to him was quite physical and extra-mental; it was Jesus in the flesh, and so externally perceptible. It was not a mere vision or epiphany.

  This page analyzes these 8 arguments:

  • 1 Cor 9:1 (“I've seen”) denotes normal sight.
  • 1 Cor 15 (“buried-appeared”) = physical appear.
  • 1 Cor 15:6 (“most remain”) meant witnesses.
  • Paul: “Jesus-appearances and visions differ.”
  • Paul: “Jesus resurrected physically.”
  • An overtly immaterial visit'd not persuade.
  • Acts: “Paul says Jesus’ visit hit his group.”
  • Acts: “Jesus physically appeared to Paul.”

  This is relevant, because if Paul hallucinated, it would’ve been either through a visual hallucination or non-visual hallucination (e.g. an epiphany), and neither of these is compatible with Paul’s understanding of the event.

  No,

  • Paul: “Jesus resurrected non-physically.”
  • Paul: “Apostles etc. saw it same as me.”
  • God did not raise Jesus from the dead.

  So?

  • It was a convincing hallucination.

• A non-physical vision wouldn't persuade

  

  If Paul only had a vision (hallucination?) on the road to Damascus, it is improbable that it would have resulted in Paul's converting.

  • Ancients knew about hallucinations.

  But no…

  • Paul couldn't tell the difference.

• Acts: “Jesus appeared as a shapeless light”

  

  In the purported appearance of Jesus to Paul recorded in Acts, did Paul in fact only see a “light” which he identified as Jesus (rather than seeing Jesus himself)?

  This page analyzes this 1 evidence:

  • Acts mentions light, but no body

  This is relevant because a light as such is non-physical.

  But no…

  • Paul: “the light was of Jesus’ glory-body.”
  • Acts says Jesus rose physically.
  • Acts harmonizes with Paul’s letters.
  • A light wouldn’t be called a vision “of Jesus.”

• Optasia (e.g. Acts 26 “vision”) isn’t physical

  

  The Greek “optasia” philologically denotes a denotes a non-physical experience. (See full page here.) This is relevant because Acts 26:19 reports Paul saying “I did not prove obedient to the heavenly vision [optasia]” and the “heavenly vision” was Jesus himself (or the nature of his appearance).

  But no,

  • “Optasia” is usually physical.

  So what? Plausibly…

  • The vision is not of Jesus, but of Paul’s mission. [Forthcoming]

• Paul ”I felt him appear in me”

  

  Paul actually was proclaiming that Jesus appeared inside of him in some sense.

  This full page analyzes these 4 arguments:

  • Gal 1:12 (“revelation”) = intra-mental.
  • Gal 1:16 (“His Son in me”) says “in” (not “to”).
  • 2 Cor 4:6 (“shown in hearts”) = the appearance.
  • Paul’d have described the body (in 1 Cor 15).

  But so what?,

  • These scriptures fit equally well on the physical appearance hypothesis.¹

  1. That is to say, these scriptures at best support the vision hypothesis by highlighting that there was a non-visual component to the experience, one that is subjective and epiphany-like. But you can have this subjective and epiphany-like experience just as easily if Paul was seeing the physical Jesus before him.

• 2 Cor 4:6 (“shone in hearts”)= the appearance

  

  In writing 2 Corinthians 4:1-6 (“[Jesus] has shone in our hearts”) Paul is he referring to Jesus’ appearing to him?

  • Acts: “Jesus’s visit involved light!”.
  • “Face” refers to Paul seeing Jesus’.

  But no…

  • When Paul says “our,” he includes Timothy etc.
  • Context: it’s the “light of the gospel” that “shone”
  • Paul’s conversion was shocking (not warm)