Is Christianity Just The Result Of One Man's Illness?

[RedEye]

We all know the story of St. Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus. Most Christians accept this story as being a true vision or encounter with a celestial Jesus. But was it? What if it was only a manifestation of a medical condition? At least one researcher in Neuropsychology thinks that this could be the case:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1032067/

• Evidence is offered to suggest a neurological origin for Paul's ecstatic visions. Paul's physical state at the time of his conversion is discussed and related to these ecstatic experiences. It is postulated that both were manifestations of temporal lobe epilepsy.

In old Ireland, epilepsy was known as "Saint Paul's disease". The name points to the centuries-old assumption that the apostle suffered from epilepsy. So Christians themselves came to this conclusion based on hints in the epistles:

• 2 Corinthians 12
  7 Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. 9 But he said to me, My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness. Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christs power may rest on me. 10 That is why, for Christs sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

Paul tells us that he has some despised physical affliction but doesn't name it. This is perhaps through shame because in ancient times people used to spit at epileptics, either out of disgust or in order to ward off what they thought to be the "contagious matter" (epilepsy as 'morbus insputatus': the illness at which one spits).

• Galatians 4
  13 As you know, it was because of an illness that I first preached the gospel to you, 14 and even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn.

Again Paul tells us that he suffers from some debilitating condition. How can we conclude that this condition must be a form of epilepsy? Let's look at his conversion "vision".

• Acts 9
  3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?
  5 Who are you, Lord? Saul asked.
  I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting, he replied. 6 Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.
  7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

This description has all the hallmarks of a temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) episode. Paul's sudden fall, the fact that he first lay motionless on the ground but was then able to get up unaided, led people very early on to suspect that this dramatic incident might have been caused by a grand mal seizure. In more recent times, this opinion has found support from the fact that sight impediment - including temporary blindness lasting from several hours to several days - has been observed as being a symptom or result of an epileptic seizure and has been mentioned in many case reports. Having visions of a religious nature are not uncommon in TLE episodes.

Another hint that Paul suffered from epilepsy is his complete disinterest in sex. This is a common symptom. Studies suggest that over half of men with epilepsy, and a third of women with epilepsy, say they have problems with sex. The most commonly reported problems for men are a reduced interest in sex, and getting and keeping an erection.

The above is not the only vision Paul tells us about. We also have:

• 2 Corinthians 12
  1 I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know"God knows. 3 And I know that this man"whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows" 4 was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell. 5 I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses.

Obviously Paul is talking about himself here (but trying to be humble). The evidence is very strong that Paul's "visions" are simply the products of a brain condition that he suffered from but which was not treatable at the time. This means that what he saw was no more real than the episodes epileptics experience today before they are diagnosed and put on medication.

I don't think I need to argue that Paul kicked off what later became Christianity. He was responsible for most of the major doctrines which differentiated it from Judaism. The idea of a saviour Jesus came from him and later gospel authors fleshed Jesus out and gave him a back story. This means that without Paul we probably would not have the Christianity we know today. That begs the question. If Paul's visions were only manifestations of his lifetime brain illness, what does that say about the validity of the origins of Christianity?

[Tart]

[Replying to post 1 by RedEye]

Lets give you the benefit of the doubt, for the sake of argument, that Paul hallucinated Jesus's Resurrection...

Are you suggesting that hallucination led to the dozens of other witnesses believing they met the risen Christ? That Peter, James, John, etc, beliefs that Jesus was the Risen Messiah, ultimately came from Paul's hallucination? Are you suggesting that Paul genuinely believed that Jesus was risen from this hallucination, and that he falsely gave his reasoning through fulfillment of prophecy? Did he lie about that, or did his hallucination play a role? Was the prophesied messiah in the Old Testament, some kind of strange coincident linked to Paul's hallucination? (from dozens of prophets?)... Did Paul also hallucinate all the other witnesses? Or the churches he visited? Was the reasoning in the Epistles, a result of hallucination? That is to say, Jesus as the fulfillment of the sin sacrifice, the Lamb of God, the Messiah, is somehow connected to Paul's hallucination? That the reasoning they give for Jesus as the Messiah, which is pretty sound reasoning, came from a random hallucination?

Im just trying to get a coherent explanation for the evidences of Christianity.. Paul hallucinating Christianity into existence is certainly not a complete explanation by any means... In fact, it seems to me that this would be taking a rather minor peace of evidence (Paul's conversion), and deviating from any coherent explanation for the evidences at whole.

[RedEye]

[Replying to post 5 by RedEye]

You are making a lot of assumptions. If Paul suffered from epilepsy he could have experienced a variety of different episodes ranging from fits/seizures (the most common) to strange "waking dreams" (as in TLE episodes). The latter can involve falling down and blacking out but there are no violent spasms or frothing at the mouth etc.

So what are you arguing now? That the TLE episodes are not the type of fits/seizures Paul saw as his weaknesses?

No. I'm arguing that he could have had a range of symptoms with TLE "waking dreams" or "visions" being one of them. Or it could be the regular "visions" themselves (which could vary in severity and content) that he considered to be an affliction.

This may well be the case, but there is still the point of missing evidence in which to make the assumption.

I suggest that you actually read the link I provided to the paper by the neuropsychology researcher. The evidence is there. Also remember that Christians themselves called epilepsy "St. Paul's disease". How much more evidence do you need?

Fortunately Paul wrote a lot, so we can find clues elsewhere. Do you have any more clues which would go towards us safely assuming Paul was asexual, thus never had to struggle with sexuality issues? He does seem to understand the idea of 'burning with passion'.

Understanding an idea does not mean that you necessarily feel it yourself. Any more clues? How about this:

• 1 Corinthians 7
  28 But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
  29 What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31 those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.
  32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lords affairs"how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world"how he can please his wife" 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lords affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world"how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

Is Paul not advocating celibacy for both men and women? Would he not be a hypocrite if he did not practice what he preached?

I did not misunderstand you... One would expect that his religious "visions" would be themed according to his beliefs, yet what he experienced was contrary to that and effectively changed his approach to persecuting the 'evil Christian cults' which were apparently moving through society like wildfire.

Are you under the impression that the content of TLE episodes is under conscious control? Where does that come from?

Wouldn't such an act be for the purpose of having it appear there were witnesses to the event rather than for the purpose of concealing the actions of a 'madman'?

That is my point. If there were witnesses (either video or audio) then it lessens the thinking that this may have been just the delusions of a madman.

Why would the writer of Acts even use the stories of someone he thought might be seen as a 'madman'?

Did he have a choice? The body of work produced by Paul was out there. In a very real sense they defined what Christianity became.

It's fairly well accepted that Paul is writing about himself.

Argumentum ad populum ...no matter how many accept this idea, it is still assumption.

It's not an argumentum ad populum. It is an argument from authority. Check almost any biblical scholar on the subject. Throughout chapter 11, Paul is unambiguously boasting about himself. There is no contextual evidence to suggest that he suddenly shifts focus to boast of another person in chapter 12. In fact, to do so would contradict the lengthy argument that he is making! To make the matter even clearer, he continues in verse 7 by saying:

• And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure.

By his own words, Paul admits that the revelations he mentions in conjunction with being caught up to the third heaven are his own. By examining this evidence, most Bible scholars agree that Paul is referring to his own experience 14 years earlier.

Obviously the OP heavily implies that the sole reason for Christianities existence hinges on Paul's "vision" and that in itself is a rather shallow and somewhat desperate argument because there are many things in which Christianity is based, rather than only one thing.

Yes, many things, but you can't identify one. Paul is solely responsible for the core of Christian doctrine. (It was added to in later centuries but you can't add on to something if it doesn't already exist). Without Paul there would be no Christianity as we know it today.

https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/christ ... -paul.aspx

• One could in fact make a case that without Paul, Christianity as we know it today would never have been possible, and that the Western world--which continues to be, nominally, at least, Christian--would never have adopted this faith, and would have remained firmly committed to the various polytheistic religions of the Roman empire.
  
  Paul's importance to Christianity, and hence, to world history, can be seen in three areas. First, with respect to the book that stands at the foundation of the Christian religion, the New Testament. Without Paul, the New Testament would be radically different, if it had come into existence at all... All told, it is safe to say that without Paul, there would be nothing like the New Testament as we know it today.
  
  Second, with respect to the development of Christian beliefs and theology: without Paul, the distinctive teachings of Christianity may never have developed.
  
  Third, with respect to the spread of Christianity: without Paul, the Christian mission, which eventually overtook the entire Roman empire, may never have happened as it did.

[RedEye]

[Replying to post 1 by RedEye]

If a person ignores any details that conflicts with their theory or agenda, then of course a person can make up any story they like.

1 - Epileptic episodes do not have external things that other people experience. The two men with Paul heard the sound (they did not understand the words, but they did hear), and while they did not see Christ Himself, they are described as seeing a light that surrounded them all.

That is not a description of epilepsy. Nothing more should be needed than that.

I have already addressed that in my previous posts. I refer you to the first page of this thread.

2 - Something like scales fell from Paul's eyes. This is suggested by some to be a metaphor, but I understand that something like scales truly fell from his eyes. This is also not in line with epilepsy. But even if one cannot accept that, point 1 effectively disputes epilepsy. Unless of course one chooses to ignore any evidence that disproves their theory.

See above. A TLE episode can be a powerful and emotional experience. If the person having it is not aware of the cause (that it is a problem within the brain --- an uncontrolled electrical "storm") then of course they may consider the "visions" produced to be real.

3 - He was not speaking about himself in the passage about the man who had received visions, taken up to the third heaven, in or out of the body. You are correct that it is widely accepted that he is speaking of himself yet being humble, but something being widely accepted is not a good reason to believe it.

See my post just above this one where I have comprehensively refuted that claim.

[RedEye]

You need this to be the result of many men, instead of just one man's illness.

You are confusing cause and effect. Without Paul (his writings) there would probably have been no Acts. The author of Acts is writing many decades later with knowledge he can't possibly have in many cases. At best it is hearsay. I don't have to accept fabulous accounts of miracles and the supernatural in Acts. Why would you imagine that I should?

[RedEye]

[Replying to post 1 by RedEye]

Lets give you the benefit of the doubt, for the sake of argument, that Paul hallucinated Jesus's Resurrection...

Where did I say that? Jesus had a vision of a Jesus from whom he claims he received his gospel. From that he then fashioned a theology about a celestial Jesus who was crucified as a penance for the sins of mankind and who was then resurrected in heaven to later appear to him in his vision on the road to Damascus.

Are you suggesting that hallucination led to the dozens of other witnesses believing they met the risen Christ? That Peter, James, John, etc, beliefs that Jesus was the Risen Messiah, ultimately came from Paul's hallucination?

Yes, I'm saying that those later fictional stories are embellishments on Paul's theological construct of a crucified and resurrected celestial Jesus.

Are you suggesting that Paul genuinely believed that Jesus was risen from this hallucination, and that he falsely gave his reasoning through fulfillment of prophecy? Did he lie about that, or did his hallucination play a role?

You will need to elaborate. I don't know what you are talking about. If you mean that Paul tried to relate his hallucinations to what he read in the Septuagint (being a Jew himself) then yes, that is what I am saying. I don't see where lying is involved. It's just Paul trying to make sense of what he had experienced (which he no doubt accepted to be real).

Was the prophesied messiah in the Old Testament, some kind of strange coincident linked to Paul's hallucination? (from dozens of prophets?)...

I don't recall Paul ever really talking about a Jewish messiah. You may need to refresh my memory. He said nothing about a Jewish Messiah or the teachings of the historical Jesus but wrote at length on the worship of a dying-rising savior God-like figure. That is my take on it.

Did Paul also hallucinate all the other witnesses?

What?

Or the churches he visited?

Relevance?

Was the reasoning in the Epistles, a result of hallucination?

Have I made that claim?

That is to say, Jesus as the fulfillment of the sin sacrifice, the Lamb of God, the Messiah, is somehow connected to Paul's hallucination? That the reasoning they give for Jesus as the Messiah, which is pretty sound reasoning, came from a random hallucination?

Why not? (Sound reasoning is your opinion).

Im just trying to get a coherent explanation for the evidences of Christianity.. Paul hallucinating Christianity into existence is certainly not a complete explanation by any means... In fact, it seems to me that this would be taking a rather minor peace of evidence (Paul's conversion), and deviating from any coherent explanation for the evidences at whole.

What evidence as a whole? There is no evidence. I'm not sure what you are finding hard to understand. Paul has a powerful religiously themed TLE experience (perhaps a series of them) and it inspires him to produce a new theology as an offshoot of Judaism leaning heavily on existing Jewish literature. As time goes on he departs more and more from Jewish customs and rituals. That seems like a fairly simple concept to me. What exactly are you having difficulty with?

[William]

[Replying to post 12 by RedEye]

Is Paul not advocating celibacy for both men and women? Would he not be a hypocrite if he did not practice what he preached?

From the evidence you provided, Paul was advocating - 2000 years ago - that the world would change dramatically in relation to these things he preached people should do. The world didn't.
As to preachers advocating one thing while secretly doing the opposite, that is certainly something of a common practice.

But as I said, whatever is guessed at, is simply assumption.

I suggest that you actually read the link I provided to the paper by the neuropsychology researcher. The evidence is there. Also remember that Christians themselves called epilepsy "St. Paul's disease". How much more evidence do you need?

As I said, Christianity is built upon more than the experience Paul had on the road to Damascus. Even Paul's own beliefs are built upon more than that one incident.
And that is the focus of the OPQ, is it not? Why are you struggling with the answers which are attempting to explain this to you?

Are you under the impression that the content of TLE episodes is under conscious control? Where does that come from?

No. I am saying that not all such experiences can be categorized as TLE, which your arguments are implying.

That is my point. If there were witnesses (either video or audio) then it lessens the thinking that this may have been just the delusions of a madman.

Which leads to the obvious question. Are you suggesting that those who have these seizures are mad?

Why would the writer of Acts even use the stories of someone he thought might be seen as a 'madman'?

Did he have a choice? The body of work produced by Paul was out there. In a very real sense they defined what Christianity became.

Why are you ignoring the fact that Christianity is not defined only by Paul's experience on the road to Damascus? Is it because it describes the defining life-changing experience? Is the episode which changed a Roman authorized murderer so dramatically that he stopped practicing that lifestyle, the actions of a madman? Surely it is more truthful to think his prior actions as expressions of madness?

It's not an argumentum ad populum. It is an argument from authority.

Argumentum ab auctoritate is another well known fallacy. That it is also argumentum ad populum only doubles the fallacy.

By his own words, Paul admits that the revelations he mentions in conjunction with being caught up to the third heaven are his own. By examining this evidence, most Bible scholars agree that Paul is referring to his own experience 14 years earlier.

I am not entirely sure what this has to do with the OP subject, but what experience 14 years earlier are you referring to?

Obviously the OP heavily implies that the sole reason for Christianities existence hinges on Paul's "vision" and that in itself is a rather shallow and somewhat desperate argument because there are many things in which Christianity is based, rather than only one thing.

Yes, many things, but you can't identify one.

If there were only one, then Christianity would only speak of the one.

Paul is solely responsible for the core of Christian doctrine. (It was added to in later centuries but you can't add on to something if it doesn't already exist). Without Paul there would be no Christianity as we know it today.

But your earlier quote from Paul appears to defy your own argument here. Christians as we see them today are still by and large, getting married etc. The Christianity Paul was preaching would present a whole different type of Christianity than what we actually know it to be today.

[RedEye]

[Replying to post 12 by RedEye]

Is Paul not advocating celibacy for both men and women? Would he not be a hypocrite if he did not practice what he preached?

From the evidence you provided, Paul was advocating - 2000 years ago - that the world would change dramatically in relation to these things he preached people should do. The world didn't. As to preachers advocating one thing while secretly doing the opposite, that is certainly something of a common practice.

Since you are talking past me there is no need for comment. (I find Paul to be sincere if misguided).

But as I said, whatever is guessed at, is simply assumption.

It's not a guess. It's a reasoned conclusion based on examining the evidence of Paul's own writings. You asked for more hints, I supplied another, and then you revert to calling it all "guesses". What would satisfy you and why ask for something which you will immediately dismiss?

I suggest that you actually read the link I provided to the paper by the neuropsychology researcher. The evidence is there. Also remember that Christians themselves called epilepsy "St. Paul's disease". How much more evidence do you need?

As I said, Christianity is built upon more than the experience Paul had on the road to Damascus. Even Paul's own beliefs are built upon more than that one incident. And that is the focus of the OPQ, is it not? Why are you struggling with the answers which are attempting to explain this to you?

Once again you are talking past me. Since you haven't addressed my response I can only assume that you concede it.

Are you under the impression that the content of TLE episodes is under conscious control? Where does that come from?

No. I am saying that not all such experiences can be categorized as TLE, which your arguments are implying.

No, I never implied that at all. And once again you have gone off on an unrelated tangent.

That is my point. If there were witnesses (either video or audio) then it lessens the thinking that this may have been just the delusions of a madman.

Which leads to the obvious question. Are you suggesting that those who have these seizures are mad?

No. (I think this means that you concede that I made a valid point. Thank you).

Why would the writer of Acts even use the stories of someone he thought might be seen as a 'madman'?

Did he have a choice? The body of work produced by Paul was out there. In a very real sense they defined what Christianity became.

Why are you ignoring the fact that Christianity is not defined only by Paul's experience on the road to Damascus?

That was not my point. You have gone off on another unrelated tangent.

It's not an argumentum ad populum. It is an argument from authority.

Argumentum ab auctoritate is another well known fallacy.

Not when the personages referred to really are an authority. You may need to brush up on your fallacies.

That it is also argumentum ad populum only doubles the fallacy.

Except that it isn't such an argument as already explained. I find it annoying that you would repeat this claim when I have already denied it.

By his own words, Paul admits that the revelations he mentions in conjunction with being caught up to the third heaven are his own. By examining this evidence, most Bible scholars agree that Paul is referring to his own experience 14 years earlier.

I am not entirely sure what this has to do with the OP subject, but what experience 14 years earlier are you referring to?

You seem to lose track of the discussion point easily. You claimed that Paul was not speaking about himself in relation to the visit to "third heaven". He explicitly states that it happened 14 years ago at the point he is writing and I have argued strongly that he was referring to his own experience. What are you having difficulty with?

Obviously the OP heavily implies that the sole reason for Christianities existence hinges on Paul's "vision" and that in itself is a rather shallow and somewhat desperate argument because there are many things in which Christianity is based, rather than only one thing.

Yes, many things, but you can't identify one.

If there were only one, then Christianity would only speak of the one.

You have missed the point completely.

Paul is solely responsible for the core of Christian doctrine. (It was added to in later centuries but you can't add on to something if it doesn't already exist). Without Paul there would be no Christianity as we know it today.

But your earlier quote from Paul appears to defy your own argument here. Christians as we see them today are still by and large, getting married etc. The Christianity Paul was preaching would present a whole different type of Christianity than what we actually know it to be today.

You're off on another tangent. I was talking about doctrinal issues. Celibacy was not a doctrinal issue for Paul. He advised people to stay single like him but he didn't state that it was mandatory. Far from it. The only reason I raised that matter was to demonstrate his disinterest in sex (as you asked).

[William]

[Replying to post 17 by RedEye]

You have missed the point completely.

The reader can decide if that is the case. I have nothing else to add to my argument.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 1 by RedEye]

Lets give you the benefit of the doubt, for the sake of argument, that Paul hallucinated Jesus's Resurrection...

Where did I say that? Jesus had a vision of a Jesus from whom he claims he received his gospel. From that he then fashioned a theology about a celestial Jesus who was crucified as a penance for the sins of mankind and who was then resurrected in heaven to later appear to him in his vision on the road to Damascus.

Are you suggesting that hallucination led to the dozens of other witnesses believing they met the risen Christ? That Peter, James, John, etc, beliefs that Jesus was the Risen Messiah, ultimately came from Paul's hallucination?

Yes, I'm saying that those later fictional stories are embellishments on Paul's theological construct of a crucified and resurrected celestial Jesus.

Are you suggesting that Paul genuinely believed that Jesus was risen from this hallucination, and that he falsely gave his reasoning through fulfillment of prophecy? Did he lie about that, or did his hallucination play a role?

You will need to elaborate. I don't know what you are talking about. If you mean that Paul tried to relate his hallucinations to what he read in the Septuagint (being a Jew himself) then yes, that is what I am saying. I don't see where lying is involved. It's just Paul trying to make sense of what he had experienced (which he no doubt accepted to be real).

Was the prophesied messiah in the Old Testament, some kind of strange coincident linked to Paul's hallucination? (from dozens of prophets?)...

I don't recall Paul ever really talking about a Jewish messiah. You may need to refresh my memory. He said nothing about a Jewish Messiah or the teachings of the historical Jesus but wrote at length on the worship of a dying-rising savior God-like figure. That is my take on it.

Did Paul also hallucinate all the other witnesses?

What?

Or the churches he visited?

Relevance?

Was the reasoning in the Epistles, a result of hallucination?

Have I made that claim?

That is to say, Jesus as the fulfillment of the sin sacrifice, the Lamb of God, the Messiah, is somehow connected to Paul's hallucination? That the reasoning they give for Jesus as the Messiah, which is pretty sound reasoning, came from a random hallucination?

Why not? (Sound reasoning is your opinion).

Im just trying to get a coherent explanation for the evidences of Christianity.. Paul hallucinating Christianity into existence is certainly not a complete explanation by any means... In fact, it seems to me that this would be taking a rather minor peace of evidence (Paul's conversion), and deviating from any coherent explanation for the evidences at whole.

What evidence as a whole? There is no evidence. I'm not sure what you are finding hard to understand. Paul has a powerful religiously themed TLE experience (perhaps a series of them) and it inspires him to produce a new theology as an offshoot of Judaism leaning heavily on existing Jewish literature. As time goes on he departs more and more from Jewish customs and rituals. That seems like a fairly simple concept to me. What exactly are you having difficulty with?

What evidence do you accept from Paul? What books he wrote? Do you think he knew others that believed they met the risen Christ? Do you believe Peter, James, John existed? Or any others within the Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles??

You obviously believe Acts is somewhat reliable... Do you believe only in part of the book? and not the rest? Where do you draw those lines, in Acts and the Gospels and the Epistles??

[Jagella]

If Paul's visions were only manifestations of his lifetime brain illness, what does that say about the validity of the origins of Christianity?

Obviously, if Paul's religious experiences can be explained naturalistically, as some kind of brain disorder like epilepsy, then there is no need to appeal to the supernatural. Christianity then can be fully and adequately explained as the product of human effort and human imagination.

But why favor a naturalistic explanation over a theistic or miraculous explanation for Christianity? Simply put we know that some people are epileptic and hallucinate as you document in the OP. However, we do not know if gods appear in the sky to people or talk to them. So it is more reasonable to conclude that "Christianity is (no more than) the result of one man's illness."