In objection to Part A, people will claim that Paul didn't actually see Jesus but that he only had a vision. This, however, contradicts Paul's own statement(s). Even if it was only a vision, that would make Paul's apostleship even more suspicious! Regardless, we need to put to rest the idea that Paul "merely had a vision"; he himself claims to actually have seen Jesus Christ in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 9 verse 1: "Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" (Emphasis Added). I can assure you, Jesus is the premier lens through which we get all our correct understanding, including our understanding of false Christs and false Prophets.
Moving on, we'll now look at Luke's recordings of Paul's testimony. Before we do this, we need to understand a few things about Luke and the Book of Acts:
- Luke is a later companion of Paul--he wasn't there with Paul on the Road to Damascus
- Luke is merely recording what he hears and sees when he's with Paul
- Acts is History
- Paul said he didn't immediately confer with flesh and blood
- FACT: Paul was with the disciples at Damascus...his disciples
- Luke said Paul went to Jerusalem
- Paul said he went from Damascus to Arabia, back to Damascus, then to Jerusalem (a three year time period)
- Paul said he met with Cephas and James only (fifteen days)
- FACT: Luke said Paul met the apostles and was "with them" at the behest of Barnabas
This may not be the "smoking gun" you expected, but there's still more to examine in Paul's testimony. Part C will go deeper.
 Vine's: "The word has also a wider reference. In Acts 14:4, 14, it is used of Barnabas as well as of Paul." (Apostle/ Apostleship)
This is an on going study and is subject to revisions.