Paul and the Invention of Christianity : How Did a Pharisaic Jew Transform the Religion of Jesus ?
Where did the story of Paul’s encounter with Christ come from ?
( Part 5 of 8 )
❓ Who was Paul ? And why do we know almost nothing real about him ?
It’s truly astonishing that a figure as significant as Paul—upon whom the current doctrines of Christianity were built—remains, to this day, a mysterious and obscure figure, unknown in origin and identity !
LIf I were to ask you now :
What was Paul’s father’s name ?
Who was his mother ?
Do we know anything about his upbringing or his life ?
The shocking answer : Almost nothing!
All we know is that Paul (Saul of Tarsus) was a zealous Jew from the Pharisaic sect.
✅ He persecuted the followers of Christ : "But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison ."
( Acts 8 : 3 )
🔴 How could such an obscure figure become the cornerstone of Christian doctrines ?
🔍 Consider this scenario carefully :
A man suddenly emerges from obscurity—no known origin or lineage—then confidently declares :
🗣️ " Christ appeared to me in a direct revelation! "
But…
📖 If Paul—as the Church claims—was truly " the Apostle to the Gentiles ," why did Christ Himself never mention him ?
📖 Not a single word in the four Gospels records Jesus referring to Paul, neither by name nor by description.
👥 Even the disciples who lived with Jesus never made a clear statement affirming Paul as a true apostle sent by God.
❌ There is not a single witness who saw this "revelation."
❌ No independent document confirms it.
Paul repeatedly claims that his teachings came not from any human source, nor from Jesus’ disciples, but from direct revelation :
" For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ ."
( Galatians 1 : 12 )
The Sound Mind Asks :
If Christ did not mention this man, the Gospel did not mention him, and the disciples did not explicitly endorse him…
How can we believe that all his teachings came from true divine revelation ?
Are the words of a single person, without witnesses, enough to establish a major doctrine that changes the entire face of religion ?
✨ Here begins the journey of seeking the truth...
It is thought-provoking that Paul—despite leaving us many letters considered among the earliest texts of the New Testament—never recorded a clear and detailed account of his alleged encounter with Christ.
This observation alone opens the door to a critical question :
If this event was the pivotal turning point in his life, why did he not describe it in a single word with its details ?
1️⃣ The Disciples Saw Christ in His Physical Body
🔹 Christ entered among them in a tangible, physical body.
🔹 They heard His voice and spoke with Him face to face.
🔹 He ate with them.
2️⃣ Paul Did Not See Christ in a Physical Body .
Paul himself honestly admitted that he never met Jesus during His earthly life, and this confession raises an important question: How did his faith and teachings form without a direct encounter with the very person he claimed to be delivering a message from ?
✅ Paul did not see Christ with his own eyes, did not touch Him with his hands, and did not speak to Him face to face. So how can any logical mind believe that he truly met Christ without evidence or witnesses ?
All he mentioned were vague descriptions like :
✅ ( A vision ) and (A revelation of Christ), with no details—phrases insufficient to prove a real encounter.
" Here lies the clear difference between the disciples of Christ, who saw Him face to face and witnessed tangible, real encounters, and Paul’s experience, which was merely an ambiguous vision without witnesses or proof of its authenticity ."
3️⃣ When examining other sources, the gap widens further :
✦ The Gospels themselves say nothing about Paul’s encounter with Christ and do not mention Paul at all.
✦ There is no letter or text attributed to Jesus confirming that Paul saw Him or was chosen by Him.
✦ Thus, the Book of Acts becomes the sole source that narrates this story.
4️⃣ Who is the author of the Book of Acts ?
Many believe that the Book of Acts was written contemporaneously with the events, but historical reality suggests otherwise :
🔹 Critical evidence indicates that Acts was written around the end of the first century AD (between 90–100 AD).
🔹 Meanwhile, Paul likely died in Rome around 64 AD.
🔹 This means the story was recorded at least thirty years after Paul’s death.
✦ As for its author, it was a person named Luke, about whom we have no precise information:
We do not know his full name or his social background.
🔹 Luke was not one of Jesus’ disciples and did not witness any events from His life firsthand. Instead, he relied on narratives circulating long after they occurred.
This historical disconnect leads every serious researcher to ask:
⚠️ How can we rely on a story written by an unknown person thirty years later, with no eyewitnesses present ?
5️⃣ Did Paul mention Luke as a close witness ?
In Paul’s letters, he mentions the names of many of his companions and coworkers, such as:
✦ Timothy
✦ Titus
✦ Silas
✦ Tychicus
🔹 Paul never mentioned Luke even once as a witness to any major event in his life.
🔹 Luke never claimed to have seen Paul’s encounter with Jesus with his own eyes. Instead, he relayed the story without being present when it happened. So, how can we rely on an account written by someone who was not there when the events took place ?
🔹 It is true that there is a reference in the Epistle to Colossians that says:
" Luke, the beloved physician, sends you his greetings."
( Colossians 4 : 14 )
But this very reference is highly debated among scholars :
✅ Many doubt that Colossians was even written by Paul.
✅ Its language and theological style clearly differ from his authentic letters, such as Romans and Galatians.
This further deepens the mystery surrounding Paul’s true relationship with Luke.
🟢 More critically, what Paul wrote in his letters significantly contradicts the narrative of Acts, which was written long after his death—a discrepancy that cannot be ignored, as it raises profound questions about the story’s origin and credibility.
6️⃣ When comparing what Paul himself wrote with what the author of Acts attributed to him, a clear gap emerges, including events Paul never mentioned. It is as if the narrative was reshaped later to justify his sudden transformation.
🔹 Many believe that Paul himself recounted the details of his encounter with Jesus, but the reality is entirely different. Paul’s letters contain no clear description or detailed account of that vision which changed the course of his life.
This absence raises rational and serious questions about the accuracy and reliability of the story that serves as the cornerstone of his teachings.
🟢 Paul, in his letters, does not mention the details Acts attributes to him, and this striking silence poses a legitimate question : If those events were true, why did Paul himself ignore them ?
🔹 An example of this is not mentioning these details :
🟢 Paul does not mention, " As I was on my way and approaching Damascus."
🟢 Paul does not mention, " I fell to the ground and heard a voice ."
🟢 Paul does not mention, " A light from heaven, brighter than the sun, flashed around me and those traveling with me."
🟢 Paul does not mention, " A voice addressed me, saying, ' Saul, Saul .'"
🟢 Paul does not mention, " Those who were with me saw the light and were terrified, but they did not hear the voice speaking to me ."
🟢 Paul does not mention, " A voice saying, 'Why are you persecuting me ?'"
🟢 Paul does not mention, " I asked, 'Who are you, Lord ?' And He replied, ' I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting .'"
🟢 Paul does not mention, " But rise and stand on your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose: to appoint you as a servant and a witness of what you have seen and what I will reveal to you."
( Acts 26 : 16 ).
🟢 Paul does not mention Christ saying to him :
" Hurry and leave Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about Me."
( Acts 22 : 18 ).
🟢 Even Ananias, who is said in the narratives to have healed Paul’s blindness, is not considered by Christian tradition to be one of the twelve apostles of Christ.
🧠 Critical and rational observations :
The story of Ananias appears only in the Book of Acts and not in any of Paul's own letters.
Ananias is not prominently mentioned anywhere else, and he seems to appear suddenly and disappear, raising the possibility that he is part of a constructed narrative.
In Paul's letters, he never mentions Ananias by name, nor does he refer to anyone healing him of blindness.
The story seems to be part of a dramatic narrative aimed at transforming Paul from a persecutor of Christians into a chosen apostle.
📖 Read the narrative (Acts 9 : 10–18 ):
7️⃣ The accounts of Paul’s encounter with Christ in the Book of Acts: Contradictory stories that raise questions
🟢 These are not accounts written by Paul himself but by Luke in the Book of Acts.
When we open the Book of Acts to search for the story of Paul’s encounter with Christ, we are surprised to find that the account is not told once but repeated three times, each time with different details that reveal contradictions hard to ignore. Here is a summary of these accounts :
1️⃣ The first account (Acts 9) :
The companions who were with Paul stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.
Paul gets up blind and needs someone to lead him by the hand.
2️⃣ The second account (Acts 22) :
Here, almost the opposite occurs : Those with me saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice.
3️⃣ The third account (Acts 26) :
He says : They all fell to the ground, but he does not mention whether they saw or heard anything.
📌 The scholarly question here :
If this were a fixed historical event, why would the same author (Luke) narrate three conflicting versions ?
And why didn’t Paul himself mention any detailed account of this life-changing story in his own letters ?
8️⃣ Where did the story of Paul’s meeting with the disciples come from ?
🟢 The four Gospels do not mention any meeting between Paul and the disciples—in fact, they do not mention Paul at all.
If we trace the sources of these stories, we find two distinct narratives separated by time and style :
1️⃣ The First Source – The Book of Acts :
Filled with dramatic scenes resembling a long film :
- Paul enters Jerusalem, and the disciples are terrified.
- Barnabas rescues him from suspicion and introduces him to the apostles.
- Lengthy meetings and conspiracies follow him.
- He is smuggled at night from one city to another.
2️⃣ The Second Source – The Epistle to the Galatians :
This is the only account Paul himself provides, a brief narrative devoid of drama :
"Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas (Peter) and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother."
( Galatians 1 : 18 – 19 )
✦ Paul does not mention anything from the Book of Acts :
✦ Paul does not mention " But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles ." ( Acts 9 : 27 )
✦ Paul does not mention " They were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple." (Acts 9 : 26 – 28)
✦ Paul does not mention that " he went immediately to Jerusalem and met the apostles." (Acts 9 : 26 – 30)
In Galatians 1 : 16–20, Paul explicitly denies this and confirms that he did not go to Jerusalem until three years later, and even then, he only met Peter and James.
✦ Paul does not mention " the Jewish conspiracies, attempts to kill him, or his dramatic escape."
✦ There is no mention of his healing from blindness, his meeting with Ananias, or any miracles.
✦ Paul does not mention " any stories about these miracles" :
- Healing the lame man in Lystra (Acts 14).
- Raising Eutychus from the dead
- (Acts 20).
- Healing many sick people in Malta
- (Acts 28).
It is as if Paul is clearly stating :
"These stories were not part of my testimony."
0️⃣ ❖ This raises a fundamental question for every honest researcher :
The story that made Paul known as the " Apostle of Christ " has no real foundation.
Paul himself did not write a clear account of it, none of his contemporaries witnessed it, no reliable Gospel mentions it, and Christ never endorsed it.
It suddenly appeared in a late text written by an anonymous author without verified sources or eyewitnesses, in a context filled with contradictions and ambiguities.
Can it really be that a doctrine affecting the fate of humanity is based on an ambiguous narrative with no origin or evidence ?
How can a man who never saw Christ, never heard from Him directly, and was never entrusted with a message, be given authority surpassing those who actually lived with Him ?
Faith is not built on assumptions, and doctrines are not established on unsupported stories—otherwise, what distinguishes us from those who follow myths ?
✦ Emotions may deceive us, but they do not create truth.
✦ The scale of truth always favors direct testimony over exaggerated tales.
The path to certainty always begins with a simple question :
" Where is the proof ?"
