Yes, but a guy who essentially shaped Christianity as most people know it today. His writings (and Peter's) are responsible for the greater portion of rules, regulations and restrictions that mainstream Christians impose on themselves and others. The fact that he's been dead for 2000 years, doesn't lessen the relevance, IMHO.
Maybe it was an epiphany, or a religious experience and not a physiological event. Maybe there was no medical condition. But in my observation, people who have a true spiritual experience become kinder, more enlightened and less tied to influence and organization, not more so. In my mind, I just can't link the conversion of Saul and his subsequent metamorphosis into Paul with the work that enlightened individuals do in our time (Ghandi, Mother Theresa, etc).
For myself anyways, my curiousity about Paul, and what changed him is due to the fact that, though he changed religions, it doesn't seem that he really changed... he no longer physically presided over the killings of people who believed other than him, but he still believed Jesus would come and do it for him. He never really changed his attitude toward women from the way he was as a Pharisee in the Jewish tradition, in spite of the fact that he admonished Euodia and Syntyche to be friends, and he acknowledged other women. As to that point, some may argue that was all he could accomplish given the social climate. But Jesus didn't follow social climate, nor did he endeavor to keep women in place by teaching.
If he really was enlightened by Christ, why does Paul's flavor of Christianity taste different from what Jesus offered? Still thinking physiological event in his case. Just because I am unconvinced of Paul's experience, doesn't mean I doubt that enlightenment happens at all...
O
