John Stoner’s “Apostles Re- Examined” only tells part of the story about Paul. Stoner cites the blinding-light conversion story as told by Luke in Acts 9 to support his opinion that the church is wrong about where Paul was converted (on the Damascus road rather than in Ananias’ house as Stoner suggests). And Stoner is right in his quoting of Luke’s version. But, just as many stories are told in more than one place in the Bible, so too is Paul’s conversion.
Why did Stoner only choose one story? In Acts 26:12-20, Paul gives his own interpretation of his conversion as he stands before King Agrippa. I challenge Stoner to read this passage and compare it to Acts 9. Either Paul left out details Luke added, or the Bible is puzzling, as it often is. Neither story is right or wrong. What is wrong is for Stoner to cite only one story to support his bias.