Theland, perhaps Paul didn't see it as deception - perhaps he, himself, was deluded. Have you considered that? You could ask why any of those who found new religions do it. We've been talking about Joseph Smith on another thread. He claimed to have met and spoken to an angel several times, but despite the huge following his newly founded religion has managed to accumulate in a relatively short space of time, you ridicule him. Why? If you believe the words of a man from 2000 years ago, who wasn't an eye witness, and you are well aware that the doctrine of the church was agreed upon by committees of men centuries after the event, why don't you believe someone who claims to have experienced religious revelations that apply to your god and to your messiah less than 200 years ago? How do you differentiate?