All right.
I have pusued the links you did not provide; the ones you imply are the "source" of my claim that the Pauline corpus itself is said to be said to contain the claim, attributed to Paul, thet Paul only met Jesus in his hallucinations.
Let's unpack:
To begin,
topix Islam, "Did Paul really meet Jesus? or its another myth of Paul!!!
(here's the link, so you can read it:
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/islam/TD4V3VF9O7KSOPIG7)
Unveiling Christianity, "Did Paul really meet Jesus?";
(here's the link, so you can read it:
http://unveiling-christianity.org/2008/04/06/did-paul-really-meet-jesus/)
Muslim Debate Initiative, "Did Paul actually meet Jesus?"
(here's the link, so you can read it:
http://www.muslimdebate.org/polemics/christianity/240-did-paul-actually-meet-jesus)
...and...
Muslim Responses, "The Problem of Paul"
(here's the link, so you can read it:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/problem_of_paul.htm)
...are all simply recopies of the same article, apparently first published in 2009. The author, Sami Zaatri, makes the point that the canonic record of Paul's Damascus Experience does not, in fact, admit to any reasonable interpretation other than that Paul had a "vision" of a "meeting" with a dead man.
This one,
Skeptics Annotated Bible, "Did Paul see Jesus on the road to Damascus?"
(here's the link, so you can read it:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/paul_see.html)
...takes the form of posing a question, and presenting a positive and negative answer for comment (which is the SAB
schtick); as of 7:01 AM MDT 29 May 2014, no poster has yet answered, either the positive of the negative.
This one:
Debunking Christianity, "Paul and Visions"
(here's the lonk, so you can read it:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/05/paul-and-visions.html)
...compares Paul's "vision" of Jesus on the road to Damascus (from the canon) with "visions" of the Virgin Mary.
I did not pursue this one:
The John Ankerberg Show (various episodes with guests), "Did Paul actually see the risen Jesus, or did he simply have some sort of vision?"
...for reasons I have explained before.
Frankly, this one:
Keywords Landing, "Did Paul Really See Jesus?"
...appears to be you mistakenly including your search terms as a search result; at any rate, a web search did not produce an article of this title and attribution.
Do note that the "source" for my claim that Paul is sad to be said to have
boasted that he met "the lord" only in his vision, is the xian canon, which has been my point all along.
Your claim:
What is the source cited by those who say Paul never met Jesus, a position you appear to endorse?
Perhaps it's . . .
...implying that my "source" for an observation, based upon what is actually included in the xian canon, is articles about the same point (particularly given the recent provenance of the articles you provided) is demonstrably incorrect. My source is the canon itself.
I do wonder at the purpose of your duplicated citations of Zaatri's article . Did you read it? Did you not
notice that you sourced the same thing four times? (I admit that I have an idea about what you thought you were doing...)
Your conclusion,
Thus we see the "pristine" source material for many of the conjectured claims made in your all-too-convenient third/fourth/fifth citations ("who is said to have said," etc.).
...is erroneous. My source, as I have pointed out, is the xian canon. Others agree with me, using the same source.
I wonder at your scare-quoted use of "pristine". Do you claim that I used that word? Is this just another example of you attributing words to me, words that I did not use?
What you call my
...third/fourth/fifth citations...
...are not actually "citations" at all. I have explained the form, "said to be said to be attributed", and will continue to use it to make it clear that I am not attesting to the authenticity, or accuracy, of the canon; only to its content.
As far as:
You can't prove that Paul didn't have an encounter with the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus.
I don't have to "prove" anything. The
onus probandi is yours. The canon is not said to be said to record any meeting of Paul and Jesus before Jesus was killed.
I am curious as to what, in your opinion, are limits of what can be claimed about extracanonical activities and concepts. Does it make sense to say that you cannot
prove that Judas was not a tansvestite pole-dancer? That you cannot
prove that Jesus wasn't a
gringo?
My point has been, and will continue to be, that such are not said to be said to be recorded in canon.
