According to scripture, Jesus was supposedly crucified, dead and buried and later raised from the dead. After a post-crucifixion ministry that lasted just forty days, it was said that he ascended into heaven. Then years later, he mysteriously appeared to Paul, and Paul alone, and then never seen by anyone ever again. Are you confused, because I know that I sure am.
So why for example, did Paul believe that his vision was that of Jesus, a man he supposedly never met? Would you believe a vision to be real because the vision itself said so? Even if you thought the vision was real, why would you blindly accept that it was truly Jesus since you wouldn’t have known Jesus from Adam? I know that if this had happened to me, I would have to believe that the entire episode was either a complete delusion or that it was simply just a dream. Why would any sane person believe that what had happened to themselves was, in any sense, real. Not only that, but Paul subsequently became a completely changed person. He stopped persecuting the followers of Jesus and instead dedicated his entire life as an apostle of Christ.
While it’s possible that Paul was a psychopath, it’s more reasonable to assume that the story was either entirely made up or that he had an encounter with a real flesh and blood Jesus. In any event, you would think that Paul’s vision would get at least a “mention” in any one of his famous letters (which are included in the New Testament). It didn’t. Apparently, the vision that so dramatically and completely changed Paul’s life forever was not worthy of relating to his Christian converts, or to anyone else for that matter.
How can any reasonable person reconcile Paul’s actions? Who would have acted that way? Well, as I’ve said before, one has to read the Bible with a jaundiced eye. Because the scriptures were basically heretical religious writings of the times, the names of people and places (among other things) were intentionally obscured to protect those who were being written about. As for Paul, he was a very intelligent and well-read individual who one would think would act rationally. So for me, there has to be more to the story, a lot more. The story of Paul’s conversion and subsequent path in life, needs a rational explanation. It doesn’t make sense to me…
unless, of course, Jesus was still alive when Paul had his infamous “vision.”
In that case, it would have been imperative that nobody know the truth that Jesus had survived the crucifixion. He was supposed to have been dead and people were no longer looking for him; and, of course, they would have wanted to have kept it that way. So I believe that a story was created to show that Paul had a vision of Jesus instead. The Christian movement, led by Peter and Paul, could move forward publicly while Jesus remained in the shadows.
Because of the prevailing culture at the time, Jesus most certainly would have been married and if he was married would have had to have had children. The New Testament (in Acts) mentions that the Word of God “was increased” on more than one occasion. Since Jesus was known as the Word of God, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that this is a reference to the birth of a child of Jesus. The legacy of Jesus would have eventually fallen to his children. In the generations that followed, the legends grew of the search for the Holy Grail, the bloodline of Jesus. They were the rightful inheritors of the Kingdom of God, not the Church. The die was cast and history would forever be changed.
“Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding….”
— Martin Luther