Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>Montgomery: There's a wonderful passage here. Would you permit me to quote you?
>>Naland: I have no choice.
>>Montgomery: "What could have caused Paul's vision? Common sense suggests several possibilities."
Incidentally, "common sense" is a very poor guide. I had a Professor of Philosophy at
Cornell by the name of Max Black who said, "Anytime anyone says `obviously,' it isn't!"
"...Common sense suggests several possibilČities. It is possible that Paul suffered from an
organic disease such as epilepsy which would account for his collapse. He might be referring
to this malady when he wrote `a thorn was given me in the flesh.'" It also could have
been falling hair. There's no indication in the account at all as to what the disease
was, but suddenly it's "epilepsy." All right? "...Or perhaps the heat and exertion of a
walking journey under the midday sun in the Middle East could have led to a heat stroke."
>>Naland: It happened to Martin Luther.
>>Montgomery: Oh no, not at all. It wasn't a heat stroke, it was a lightning storm. But
anyway, to my way of thinking, this is so terribly speculaČtive. It is just speculative.
There is no possible way to establish anything like that.
>>Naland: Correct.
>>Montgomery: Well, then why do you...
>>Naland: I wasn't there; you weren't there.
>>Montgomery: Ah-hah!..all right...
>>Naland: But some people act like they were.
>>Montgomery: Ah! Right! The people who...
>>Naland: Some modern people.
>>Montgomery: That's right. That's right. And they're wrong, aren't they. They certainly
shouldn't give that sort of an impression. But it seems to me that unlike you and me,
who weren't there, we've got Paul who was there. And Paul describes his experience on
the Damascus Road and his companion, the physician Luke, describes it also, in two places in
the book of Acts. And so out of this we find that this thing was certainly not a "Fig Newton"
of Paul's imaginaČtion. This was not a matter of pure subjectivity.
>>Naland: But what does Acts say? Does it say his followers saw nothing?...
>>Montgomery: Oh no...
>>Naland: ...followers did not see Jesus...
>>Montgomery: Ah, no...
>>Naland: ...they saw a light...
>>Montgomery: Careful. But by the way, do you read Greek? Do you handle the Greek New
Testament?
>>Naland: No, I do not.
>>Montgomery: Okay, I wondered, because in a footnote to your article -- footnote 85
-- you say...
>>Naland: That's my favorite footnote.
>>Montgomery: Yes it is...I thought it would be. Yes. That "Acts 9 and Acts 22 contain
bizarre contradictions in dealing with the same thing..." Do you know, on the basis of
the Greek there's no contraČdiction at all there. What the text says is that "the people
with Paul were not able to make out the person who was there, but they saw a man" -- right,
they saw a light. Huh?
>>Naland: Well, which is it?
>>Montgomery: It's "light." It's "light."
>>Naland: Okay. Careful!
>>Montgomery: "They saw a light, but they were not able to make out the person, the
individual."
>>Naland: Well, what did they hear? Did they hear the voice?
>>Montgomery: Ah! They heard sound but they were not able to make out the words. That's
the distinction between "acouein" followed by the genitive and "acouein" followed by
the accusative in those two passages. This is a clear distinction between hearing sound
and making out specific words. So the point of those passages is, that even the people
with Paul were directly affected objectively by something happening outside of Paul. So
you can't very well say that this was a vision that he created out of...maybe he had had
poor hot tamales for lunch before this had occurred.
>>Naland: But you and Mr. Ankerberg keep talking like we could go back and pick up the old
Cable News Network tape of what actually happened. Or we could go back and pick up the old New
York Times edition that morning and see what actually happened.
>>Montgomery: No, no. Merely Paul's own writing and that of his immediate companion -- the
"Tonto" to his "Lone Ranger" -- namely, Luke.