Historians say this about your statement (and it is well documented).
(your statement) As for Paul’s encounter with Christ, you reason that Jesus was a common name. But the Jesus with whom Paul had dealings said to him, “Saul, Saul why persecutest thou Me...I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.” The Lord narrowed it down quite nicely which Jesus it was that was talking with him.
THE FACTS. Paul did not make that journey until after the crucifixion of Jesus (Jesua). The trip to Damascus was his attempt to let people know that Jesus was dead and no longer a threat. It is thought that it happened as early as one month after the crucifixion to maybe a year after.
Since there is no date given for the crucifixion one can only speculate but the travel of Paul was well documented by Herod and the Roman Legions still in Israel. (The BAD GUYS kept good records of such events).
Who did he meet on the road to Damascus? It could have been the embodiment of Jesus - or Paul could have simply had an Epiphany and converted then and there.
I don’t know. Neither do you. Documents show my version to be more correct and your only source is a 2000 old document that was pieced together by thousands of men throughout history, numerous churches, governments, kings, scribes etc.
Historians, you say.....Hmmmmmm....
It clearly states in Acts 9 that Paul’s purpose for traveling to Damascus was to carry letters to condemn those professing faith in Christ (now, I wonder why anyone would be doing THAT, given that He was dead and all...) You said your historians stated he was on a trip to tell folks Jesus was no longer a threat. So, right from the outset, the historians you are relying upon are incorrect.
One has to wonder how these “historians” are going about their research. Given that the Bible has proven to be a completely accurate text in terms of documenting human history, it seems questionable (to say the least) that these “historians” should disregard such an important piece of text evidence given the biblical nature of the story. But they (and you) have sure had no problem putting emphasis on texts written by “the BAD GUYS” (as you’ve called them.) Why is that? I mean, we know why Herod would not care to record anything about Christ, right? I’m talking about these “historians”...why would they be so willing to take at face value the historical writings of those working for (and doubtlessly doing so with great fear) a megalomaniac.
The biblical record of Saul/Paul reveals a man who “was breathing out threatenings” against the early Christians. The record goes on to say that he had an encounter with Christ on a road heading toward Damascus. It goes on to record a change in this person of such proportion to indicate something significant had “come over him” (my words). And, like the disciples who all gave themselves to the preaching of the gospel that resulted in their persecution and deaths (save John), Paul gave himself utterly to the preaching/teaching of the gospel (of One whom he previously persecuted) to the point of numerous persecutions, imprisonments and ultimately, his own beheading. THESE ARE THE FACTS.
Somewhere in your post you said, “the BAD GUYS” kept good records of such events. I beg to differ. Like the historians you’ve mistakenly relied upon, they got it wrong then and their readers get it wrong to this day.