JAS said

TTHorne56 said

From what I understand, most scholars believe that Paul had some sort of vision that led him to his ministry.  What we cannot know is whether whatever Paul experienced is true in an ontological sense, i.e. a vision of the Truth.

Exactly, and this is the problem with any personal experience being related to others, especially experiences that go beyond common and shared events. The more difficult they are to verify by independent means, the more difficult they are to accept. The mere conviction with which they may be related cannot be considered evidence, and yet the fact that they cannot be proven does not inherently make them untrue. For incidental matters, such concerns may be easily ignored, but for matters that have real meaning, that problem can be very troublesome indeed.

  

You unexpectedly find that narrating your personal revelation can be difficult and counterproductive due to the skepticism of the audience. I agree 100%, I wrote about it once myself. Therefore, it is much easier and more beneficial to talk about someone else’s revelation. The invented tradition of the great apostle of the past will always be more acceptable than announcing that you have spoken to Christ at night. Your dedication to spreading this third person apostolic revelation will be appreciated.

Jarek said

You unexpectedly find that narrating your personal revelation can be difficult and counterproductive due to the skepticism of the audience. I agree 100%, I wrote about it once myself. Therefore, it is much easier and more beneficial to talk about someone else’s revelation. The invented tradition of the great apostle of the past will always be more acceptable than announcing that you have spoken to Christ at night. Your dedication to spreading this third person apostolic revelation will be appreciated.

  

I don’t know that talking about someone else’s personal visions is any more beneficial, although it might, in some sense, be easier. Paul’s claims of visions are no more plausible merely by being by someone else, or being nearly 2,000 years old. What grants their claims some special credibility, if one chooses to accept any such accounts, is that they were recorded at a time when Christianity was not safely ensconced, when there were few benefits in making them, and, indeed, more than a little danger. (It is perhaps a bit trickier for the gospel accounts since we don’t really know who is making them, only to whom they are attributed.) Paul’s dramatic conversion story is also powerful to the extent that one believes it. And, of course, there is a considerable amount of skepticism as well. It is really the quality of Paul’s letters that grants him some special status. Something apparently happened to him, we just cannot be sure what it was.

Stephen said
Jarek it doesn’t surprise me that you would prefer hearsay to first person accounts. Have you ever actually read Paul’s letters?  That is not a rhetorical question.  Or snark.  I’ve known a few honest fanatics in my day and Paul strikes me as one of those.  

  

I read the Polish translation of the letters. What struck me was the maturity of the author’s views that was visible in all the letters. In 20 years, Paul has hardly developed. He knows too much from the beginning. He does not develop as a writer or a theologian. And this is impossible, if only because of the changing environment and the growing baggage of his own experiences. How has he managed not to change his mind on anything for 20 years? What is taken to be the arguments for the authenticity of the letters allegedly written for 20 years – their specific language, specific theology and ethics are the most suspect. The letters do not testify to the 20-year development of their author. The letters are a summary of many years of experience written years later in a short time by experienced man.