The Urantia Book – fact or fiction?

[Easyrider]

The Urantia Book – fact or fiction?

Your world, Urantia, [Earth] is one of many similar inhabited planets which comprise the local universe of Nebadon. This universe, together with similar creations, makes up the superuniverse of Orvonton, from whose capital, Uversa, our commission hails. Divine Counselor - The URANTIA Book, Page 1

There are conflicting stories ["various histories"] regarding the origin of the Urantia Papers. According to long-time faithful, Ernest Moyer (author of a book on the group's beginnings entitled THE BIRTH OF A DIVINE REVELATION--The Mechanical Origin of the Urantia Papers), information similar to that found in the Urantia Book was communicated by various "spirit beings" using a male individual ("contact person") while that person slept (a.k.a. Sleeping Subject "SS"). This communication was but a preparatory exercise. Beginning 1905-11 and over a 20+ year period, divine "revelations" were hand-recorded by a Dr. William S. Sadler, a noted Chicago physician and psychiatrist.

Interestingly, while (founder) Sadler was later willing to discuss in detail the transmission of The URANTIA Book, he refused to reveal two crucial facts: 1) the name of the individual who was used by the revelators as the channel between the revelators and the Contact Commission, and 2) the specific way in which the papers that formed The URANTIA Book appeared.10

http://www.watchman.org/profile/urantiapro.htm

The Urantia Book – fact or fiction?

[Colter]

I'm not saying that the UB lacks any great philosophical insights, but why not just try to identify the human person who said these great things (using a number of words to do so)?

Their are UB readers that have been doing just that, tracking down source material that the revelators or "human" prophet used/organized to construct the UB. here: http://www.squarecircles.com/matarticles/index.htm

The UB itself says that over 1,000 people were "sourced" in the construction of the papers. If Dr. Saddler was the prophet genius who organized the material and contributed his own ideas then the UB would be an even greater accomplishment, in fact I think the greatest compilation of science, religion, philosophy to date on this world.

If Saddler individually or in collusion with any other individual or group of individuals were able to expand the Jesus story in such a profound way the spiritual content is still revelation.

Wherever the book came from the content as a blueprint for mankind is just stunning!


Colter

[Rob]

I'm not saying that the UB lacks any great philosophical insights, but why not just try to identify the human person who said these great things (using a number of words to do so)? I think the Urantians would benefit greatly by doing so and people would probably then entertain the book as a book of human wisdom--perhaps even God inspired.

A Colter noted, a number of the human sources have been identified already. When I first started reading the book, many years ago, I found many of these myself.

For exmample, after reading the following:

To the unbelieving materialist, man is simply an evolutionary accident. His hopes of survival are strung on a figment of mortal imagination; his fears, loves, longings, and beliefs are but the reaction of the incidental juxtaposition of certain lifeless atoms of matter. No display of energy nor expression of trust can carry him beyond the grave. The devotional labors and inspirational genius of the best of men are doomed to be extinguished by death, the long and lonely night of eternal oblivion and soul extinction. Nameless despair is man's only reward for living and toiling under the temporal sun of mortal existence. Each day of life slowly and surely tightens the grasp of a pitiless doom which a hostile and relentless universe of matter has decreed shall be the crowning insult to everything in human desire which is beautiful, noble, lofty, and good. (1118.1)

I recognized this as being a paraphrase of Bertrand Russell's "Why I'm Not a Christian." While it is a creative paraphrase of Russell, the authors follow with,

But such is not man's end and eternal destiny; such a vision is but the cry of despair uttered by some wandering soul who has become lost in spiritual darkness, and who bravely struggles on in the face of the mechanistic sophistries of a material philosophy, blinded by the confusion and distortion of a complex learning. And all this doom of darkness and all this destiny of despair are forever dispelled by one brave stretch of faith on the part of the most humble and unlearned of God's children on earth. (1118.2)

This saving faith has its birth in the human heart when the moral consciousness of man realizes that human values may be translated in mortal experience from the material to the spiritual, from the human to the divine, from time to eternity. (1118.3)

The authors use Russell's quote to open the Paper on THE FOUNDATIONS OF RELIGIOUS FAITH, and follow with the section on ASSURANCES OF FAITH.

While studying comparative religion at the University of Colorado at Boulder, I found a few other sources while looking through the library. I did not continue this line of research though, because I thought there was a better way of using my time. I approached the critical evaluation of the content of the Urantia Book via comparative religion and the history of science. The methodology of comparative religion is fairly straight forward, but the history of science is a bit more subtle and involved.

In the history of science one learns that scientific concepts have a long life; often these concepts have a long history and have been passionately disputed. For example, the history of how we determined the age of the earth, 4.5 billion years, is one such concept that evolved over time and depending on the technologies and scientific discoveries at any given time led to different beliefs about the age of the earth. The date at which science has now become settled (4.5 billions years) was determined in 1953 based on solid evidence from many sources, which has been confirmed again and again since then, as it is related to the birth of our solar system, and the more we know about the solar system the more we know about the origin of the earth. Similarly, the history of the scientific communities understanding of continental drift, including the breakup of Rodinia (750 million years ago), the first supercontinent, was unknown at one point (1935/1955), and known at another (1970s) based on new knowledge and information. One can trace the historical timeline of the science of archeology and the earliest date we think Native American Indians crossed into the Americas, and see the date slowly but steadily being pushed back further in time, based on new evidence and new approaches to gathering that evidence (such as the Coastal Entry theory, which holds that important remains lie underwater).

There are to many such points to note here, but the methodology I have used is to take a statement made in the Urantia Book that is capable of being confirmed by historical studies like those noted above, and place the statements in historical context. By comparing the statement made in 1955 with the historical timeline, and by placing it within historical context, i.e., what was known about the fact asserted, when was it known, and how was it known over a period of time, one is in a better position to evaluate the meaning of the statement. Not to mention the study of the history of science is a highly valuable enterprise in itself.

Along with philosophical evaluation, I find the method above useful in critically evaluating the content of the book. So, for example, when you say Harvey,

Look at the style and context of the revelation, as QED pointed out, it strongly appears to be from the perspective of someone writing around(/shortly after) the time of Einstein's special relativity, but before his general relativity since those concepts are not mentioned. It's obviously prior to quantum theory since there's not a peep about duality (which I'm sure the author would have made a big deal of had they wrote the book after quantum theory became known).

I agree that some of the words used (style) date the book. For example, in comparative religion one will not find the term "Mohammedanism" used today, but the term was common in 1934/35, the internal claim for the creation of the papers. And of course, there are other examples.

After 30+ years of critical historical studies in the history of science, I have learned that people hold many erroneous assumptions even about the origin of scientific ideas and concepts, and have learned to critically evaluate claims regarding both science and the Urantia Book. Many readers have made naive claims about statements made within the book; and on the same token, many pseudocritics have made statements that have proved just as naive and erroneous both with regards to what the Urantia Book does or does not state and what the history of science really reveals about the history of any given idea or concept. Both neglected to engage in the hard work of historical research required to get the facts and place them in historical context, so that a fair and accurate evaluation can take place.

So, for example, while I am not saying Harvey is a naive critic,[1] as I have to much respect for his reasoning and logic, I am compelled to point out that some of the claims above may not be accurate. If by "duality" it is meant the wave/particle duality of quantum mechanics, this concept is most certainly discussed within the text, as are concepts pertaining to the relationship between time and eternity, and time and space, and the invariance relationships between the different levels of reality in time and space. In other words, before we jump to conclusions, it might be wise to examine each specific concept within historical context, examine whether or not the concept is addressed with the text, and determine how it fits within the historical context of the evolution of human knowledge as it pertains to scientific knowledge regarding these issues.

There is really nothing novel or new about this approach; scholars have been using archeology to examine the historical artifacts (evidence) of claims made within the bible (or any other religious or secular text), and have in some cases show such claims to be fallacious and in some cases true. It is based upon the critical historical analysis of external evidence to the internal claims made within the given text.

-------

[1] If I understand your argument and motivation for engaging in the philosophical enterprise correctly, you are saying that it is wise to attempt to develop a philosophy of living (or perhaps a philosophy of religion) based upon modern knowledge and which is able to counter the arguments made by some atheists that religious belief and faith is "unreasonble." I agree, this is a worthy goal, and reminds me of the following statement:

The experience of God-consciousness remains the same from generation to generation, but with each advancing epoch in human knowledge the philosophic concept and the theologic definitions of God must change. God-knowingness, religious consciousness, is a universe reality, but no matter how valid (real) religious experience is, it must be willing to subject itself to intelligent criticism and reasonable philosophic interpretation; it must not seek to be a thing apart in the totality of human experience. (69.7)

True religion is not a system of philosophic belief which can be reasoned out and substantiated by natural proofs, neither is it a fantastic and mystic experience of indescribable feelings of ecstasy which can be enjoyed only by the romantic devotees of mysticism. Religion is not the product of reason, but viewed from within, it is altogether reasonable. Religion is not derived from the logic of human philosophy, but as a mortal experience it is altogether logical. Religion is the experiencing of divinity in the consciousness of a moral being of evolutionary origin; it represents true experience with eternal realities in time, the realization of spiritual satisfactions while yet in the flesh. (1104.4)

I think many theists, such as myself, dislike those philosophies that postulate meaninglessness. While atheism is not the only view that postulates meaninglessness, it is the one of the most well-known. I personally think that some extreme forms of postmodernism teach meaninglessness (e.g., the meaninglessness of scientific truth), and I have as much disappointment with those philosophies as atheism.

Your comment is certainly supported by the philosophy contained in the Urantia Book. Indeed, metaphysical mechanistic materialism (you called it, I believe, "metaphysical naturalism") is a "meaningless" and self-contradictory philosophy, along with the extreme forms of postmodernism.

I am not completely unsympathetic to the arguments of materialists though, for we are it seems, faced with the following paradox:

Life , viewed objectively [a claim that itself is questionable, as what is "objectively?"] seems sufficiently explained in terms organic structures and their functions. Viewed subjectively, however, its inner world of experience seems inadequately explained by its own concepts of the physical world. No instrument in the laboratory can detect the existence of consciousness and yet each of us knows that consciousness exists.

-- Harrison, Edward (2000) Cosmology: The Science of the Universe. (2nd Ed.) p. 543. Cambridge.

Always must man's inner spirit depend for its expression and self-realization upon the mechanism and technique of the mind. Likewise must man's outer experience of material reality be predicated on the mind consciousness of the experiencing personality. Therefore are the spiritual and the material, the inner and the outer, human experiences always correlated with the mind function and conditioned, as to their conscious realization, by the mind activity. Man experiences matter in his mind; he experiences spiritual reality in the soul but becomes conscious of this experience in his mind. The intellect is the harmonizer and the ever-present conditioner and qualifier of the sum total of mortal experience. Both energy-things and spirit values are colored by their interpretation through the mind media of consciousness. (1136.1)

Logic is the technique of philosophy, its method of expression. Within the domain of true science, reason is always amenable to genuine logic; within the domain of true religion, faith is always logical from the basis of an inner viewpoint, even though such faith may appear to be quite unfounded from the inlooking viewpoint of the scientific approach. From outward, looking within, the universe may appear to be material; from within, looking out, the same universe appears to be wholly spiritual. Reason grows out of material awareness, faith out of spiritual awareness, but through the mediation of a philosophy strengthened by revelation, logic may confirm both the inward and the outward view, thereby effecting the stabilization of both science and religion. Thus, through common contact with the logic of philosophy, may both science and religion become increasingly tolerant of each other, less and less skeptical. (1138.4)

Does consciousness matter?

We cannot rule out the possibility that carefully avoiding the concept of consciousness in quantum cosmology may lead to an artificial narrowing of our outlook. Let us remember an example from the history of science that may be rather instructive in this respect. Prior to the invention of the general theory of relativity, space, time, and matter seemed to be three fundamentally different entities. Space was thought to be a kind of three-dimensional coordinate grid which, when supplemented by clocks, could be used to describe the motion of matter. Spacetime possessed no intrinsic degrees of freedom; it played a secondary role as a tool for the description of the truly substantial material world. The general theory of relativity brought with it a decisive change in this point of view. Spacetime and matter were found to be interdependent, and there was no longer any question which one of the two is more fundamental. Spacetime was also found to have its own inherent degrees of freedom・ This is completely opposite to the previous idea that spacetime is only a tool for the description of matter.

The standard assumption is that consciousness, just like spacetime before the invention of general relativity, plays a secondary, subservient role, being just a function of matter and a tool for the description of the truly existing material world. But let us remember that our knowledge of the world begins not with matter but with perceptions. I know for sure that my pain exists, my "green" exists, and my "sweet" exists. I do not need any proof of their existence, because these events are a part of me; everything else is a theory. Later we find out that our perceptions obey some laws, which can be most conveniently formulated if we assume that there is some underlying reality beyond our perception. This model of a material world obeying laws of physics is so successful that soon we forget about our starting point and say that matter is the only reality, and perceptions are nothing but a useful tool for the description of matter. This assumption is almost as natural (and maybe as false) as our previous assumption that space is only a mathematical tool for the description of matter. We are substituting reality of our feelings by the successful working theory of an independently existing material world. And the theory is so successful that we almost never think about its possible limitations.

-- Linde, Andrei, Author. Inflation, quantum cosmology, and the anthropic priniciple. In Science and Ultimate Reality: Quantum Theory, Cosmology and Complexity. (John D. Barrow, Paul C. W. Davies, and Charles L. Harper, Jr., eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004: 450-451.

Any scientific interpretation of the material universe is valueless unless it provides due recognition for the scientist. No appreciation of art is genuine unless it accords recognition to the artist. No evaluation of morals is worth while unless it includes the moralist. No recognition of philosophy is edifying if it ignores the philosopher, and religion cannot exist without the real experience of the religionist who, in and through this very experience, is seeking to find God and to know him. Likewise is the universe of universes without significance apart from the I AM, the infinite God who made it and unceasingly manages it. (2080.3)

[harvey1]

Rob,

I liked the Linde quote very much. But, what's the big deal with the author of Urantia? I'm sorry, I know absolutely nothing about the UB other than what a few of you guys are providing tidbits of, but it seems like it was just another guy writing in this early 20th century period. Why do you take special notice of his writings versus the writings of Whitehead, or the writings of Bradley, or the writings of Wittgenstein, etc.?

[Rob]

Rob,

I liked the Linde quote very much. But, what's the big deal with the author of Urantia? I'm sorry, I know absolutely nothing about the UB other than what a few of you guys are providing tidbits of, but it seems like it was just another guy writing in this early 20th century period. Why do you take special notice of his writings versus the writings of Whitehead, or the writings of Bradley, or the writings of Wittgenstein, etc.?

Harvey,

If two statements are in principle and philosophy stating the same thing, and both make a philosophical point or express a philosophical concept in a true, beautiful, or good manner, I find it worthwhile, irregardless who the author might be.

So, too I enjoy Whitehead, Linde, Woese, and any and all expressions of truth. So, for example, the following is a worthwhile quote in my view:

Conceptualizing Cells

We should all take seriously an assessment of biology made by the physicist David Bohm over 30 years ago (and universally ignored):

"It does seem odd ... that just when physics is ... moving away from mechanism, biology and psychology are moving closer to it. If the trend continues ... scientists will be regarding living and intelligent beings as mechanical, while they suppose that inanimate matter is to complex and subtle to fit into the limited categories of mechanism." [D. Bohm, "Some Remarks on the Notion of Order," in C. H. Waddington, ed., Towards a Theoretical Biology: 2 Sketches. (Edinburgh: Edinburgh Press 1969), p. 18-40.]

The organism is not a machine! Machines are not made of parts that continually turn over and renew; the cell is. A machine is stable because its parts are strongly built and function reliably. The cell is stable for an entirely different reason: It is homeostatic. Perturbed, the cell automatically seeks to reconstitute its inherent pattern. Homeostasis and homeorhesis are basic to all living things, but not machines.

If not a machine, then what is the cell?

-- Woese, Carl R., Author. Evolving Biological Organization. In Microbial Phylogeny and Evolution: Concepts and Controversies. (Jan Sapp, ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005: 100.

This questioning of the nature of the cell above is being made by a scientist. I find in Whitehead and in the Urantia Book enlightening philosophical arguments that humans are more than mere machines. The Urantia Book contains a self-consistent philosophy, which when viewed in the context of the whole book, sheds light on these issues.

Now I wonder Harvey, why you so consistently avoid engaging the content of the quotes? Why do you so consistently avoid addressing the philosophical arguments, which in many cases support your expressed philosophy on this site?

You seem obsessed with claims made about the book, rather then open to the honest examination of the expressed meanings and values in any given specific quotation, which I note stands on its own in many cases without any reference to the book, and is supported by the statements of some of the best minds in the history of human thought.

You remind me of a Buddhist story I once read, and I share this with nothing but good will. In the Buddhist monastic tradition one of the defilements was to have physical contact with women. There is a Zen Buddhist story which makes fun of this dogma.

Two monks were walking along one rainy day when they came across a rather large puddle in their path, and a women stranded and unable to get across. One monk did not hesitate to pick her up, and carry her across the puddle, and put her down and immediately continue on their journey. The other monk, astonished to see his fellow pick the women up and thereby defile himself, remonstrated with his fellow for miles down the road. Finally, the monk who has rendered this selfless service to the women, turned on his compatriot and said, "I put her down miles ago. You are still carrying her!"

Similarly, it seems you are still carrying around Dave's claims about the book, rather than considering the meanings and values contained within the passages so quoted. Why is that Harvey?

[harvey1]

Now I wonder Harvey, why you so consistently avoid engaging the content of the quotes? Why do you so consistently avoid addressing the philosophical arguments, which in many cases support your expressed philosophy on this site? You seem obsessed with claims made about the book, rather then open to the honest examination of the expressed meanings and values in any given specific quotation, which I note stands on its own in many cases without any reference to the book, and is supported by the statements of some of the best minds in the history of human thought... Similarly, it seems you are still carrying around Dave's claims about the book, rather than considering the meanings and values contained within the passages so quoted. Why is that Harvey?

I guess I am still carrying with me what Dave said about the UB... Why would you quote from a book that Dave claims that the author claims that he received information from ETIs? I assume Dave has relayed accruate information as to what the author claimed to be the case. If so, then I wouldn't refer to that book because it's obvious that ETIs don't communicate with humans. Therefore, the author may have been philosophically astute, but wouldn't the claim itself mean that the author had "lost it" somewhere down the road? (If my honesty is too much then please forgive me. However, you seem like the kind of person that can consider an innocent bystanders comments...)

[Rob]

Now I wonder Harvey, why you so consistently avoid engaging the content of the quotes? Why do you so consistently avoid addressing the philosophical arguments, which in many cases support your expressed philosophy on this site? You seem obsessed with claims made about the book, rather then open to the honest examination of the expressed meanings and values in any given specific quotation, which I note stands on its own in many cases without any reference to the book, and is supported by the statements of some of the best minds in the history of human thought... Similarly, it seems you are still carrying around Dave's claims about the book, rather than considering the meanings and values contained within the passages so quoted. Why is that Harvey?

I guess I am still carrying with me what Dave said about the UB... Why would you quote from a book that Dave claims that the author claims that he received information from ETIs? I assume Dave has relayed accruate information as to what the author claimed to be the case. If so, then I wouldn't refer to that book because it's obvious that ETIs don't communicate with humans. Therefore, the author may have been philosophically astute, but wouldn't the claim itself mean that the author had "lost it" somewhere down the road? (If my honesty is too much then please forgive me. However, you seem like the kind of person that can consider an innocent bystanders comments...)

Harvey,

My quoting the Urantia Book has absolutely nothing to do with Dave or his claims. If you want to disicuss Dave's claims, then go to him. I have made very plain to you my positions and methodologies regarding these claims. If you want to know what Dave thinks, then ask him. His thoughts are not my thoughts, nor are his claims mine. If you choose to make "assumptions" about Dave's claims about the book, which may or may not be accurate, than that is your choice. Personally, I don't take the claims of fundamentalist Christians who lack sound critical reasoning about the scriptures seriously without confirming the claims against the actual scriptures and outside historical sources, but if you choose to not exercise such caution, that is your right to do so. I note though that such an approach to examining the content of any work tells us more about the person making this choice than the content (meanings and values) of the text in question.

So, as I said, and you once again chose to ignore, consider the following paraphrase of Bertrand Russell:

To the unbelieving materialist, man is simply an evolutionary accident. His hopes of survival are strung on a figment of mortal imagination; his fears, loves, longings, and beliefs are but the reaction of the incidental juxtaposition of certain lifeless atoms of matter. No display of energy nor expression of trust can carry him beyond the grave. The devotional labors and inspirational genius of the best of men are doomed to be extinguished by death, the long and lonely night of eternal oblivion and soul extinction. Nameless despair is man's only reward for living and toiling under the temporal sun of mortal existence. Each day of life slowly and surely tightens the grasp of a pitiless doom which a hostile and relentless universe of matter has decreed shall be the crowning insult to everything in human desire which is beautiful, noble, lofty, and good. (1118.1)

But such is not man's end and eternal destiny; such a vision is but the cry of despair uttered by some wandering soul who has become lost in spiritual darkness, and who bravely struggles on in the face of the mechanistic sophistries of a material philosophy, blinded by the confusion and distortion of a complex learning. And all this doom of darkness and all this destiny of despair are forever dispelled by one brave stretch of faith on the part of the most humble and unlearned of God's children on earth. (1118.2)

This saving faith has its birth in the human heart when the moral consciousness of man realizes that human values may be translated in mortal experience from the material to the spiritual, from the human to the divine, from time to eternity. (1118.3)

Quite simply Harvey, I have read both Bertrand Russell and the Urantia Book's paraphrase of him. And, personally, irregardless of whom the author of the paraphrase of Bertrand Russell might be, I find it not only a beautuful paraphrase (if you read the original, the paraphrase is more artistic) and true to his statement, but I find the following comment morally, ethicially, and spiritually uplifting and consistent with my own living faith experience with God. I can appreciate the meanings and values expressed therein, without any reference to whom the authors might be.

So I am lead to ask once again Harvey:

Why you so consistently avoid engaging the content of the quotes? Why do you so consistently avoid addressing the philosophical arguments, which in many cases support your expressed philosophy on this site? You seem obsessed with claims made about the book, rather then open to the honest examination of the expressed meanings and values in any given specific quotation, which I note stands on its own in many cases without any reference to the book, and is supported by the statements of some of the best minds in the history of human thought... Similarly, it seems you are still carrying around Dave's claims about the book, rather than considering the meanings and values contained within the passages so quoted. Why is that Harvey?

[harvey1]

Similarly, it seems you are still carrying around Dave's claims about the book, rather than considering the meanings and values contained within the passages so quoted. Why is that Harvey?

Well, it's because I assume that Dave did not lie to me when he said that the author(s ?) of the UB claimed to receive this UB knowledge from ETIs. If that is true, then I wouldn't use such a book as a reference since the author(s ?) is claiming something that I consider to be delusional. If they said that God inspired them, then that's a different story since we'd have to understand what God inspired means to them. But, ETIs is different. It suggests that someone is struggling with their own personal issues. That's about as honest a reason as I can give you.

[Rob]

Well, it's because I assume that Dave did not lie to me when he said that the author(s ?) of the UB claimed to receive this UB knowledge from ETIs.

Well, then Harvey, those are your assumptions not mine. I don't speak for Dave, and he certainly doesn't speak for me; so you seem to be addressing the issue to the wrong person.

[W]e'd have to understand what God inspired means.

What does "God inspired" mean to you Harvey?

[harvey1]

Well, then Harvey, those are your assumptions not mine. I don't speak for Dave, and he certainly doesn't speak for me; so you seem to be addressing the issue to the wrong person.

Rob, out of curiosity I went to the Wikipedia article on Urantia, and I can't imagine that the vast amount of material in Wikipedia is drastically in error. It says that there's volumes of information that the UB claims were communicated from interstellar space. So, are you saying that you don't acknowledge the literal interpretation of these passages?

What does "God inspired" mean to you Harvey?

It all depends on the context. Usually, God inspired means that intuitive thought is guided by beauty to recognize certain truths. However, it could also mean that one's views are guided by certain synchronicity events. I have no problem saying that the UB could be God inspired, but this must always be parsed with the motivations and mental stability of the person making the inspirational claims. For example, I think the apostle Paul was inspired by God, however I also don't think Paul was mentally unstable or that he was motivated by greed, power, etc.. So, I think that in addition to content, we have to judge divine inspiration on other factors. "By their fruits you shall know them."

[Rob]

What does "God inspired" mean to you Harvey?

It all depends on the context. Usually, God inspired means that intuitive thought is guided by beauty to recognize certain truths. However, it could also mean that one's views are guided by certain synchronicity events. I have no problem saying that the UB could be God inspired, but this must always be parsed with the motivations and mental stability of the person making the inspirational claims. For example, I think the apostle Paul was inspired by God, however I also don't think Paul was mentally unstable or that he was motivated by greed, power, etc.. So, I think that in addition to content, we have to judge divine inspiration on other factors. "By their fruits you shall know them."

I have a question for you Harvey. Do you think Paul had an experience with the blazing light of the risen person of Christ on the Damascus road? After all, that is the foundation experience of Paul's conversion per his own claims and led him to stop persecuting the early followers of Jesus and to become one of them?