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?

[tam]

Peace to you,

No, I pointed out that accounts provided by hearsay decades later are not necessarily reliable in every detail.

Yes, I know, the details that refute your hypothesis are the ones that are unreliable, right?

In this instance, given all the other indicators for it being epilepsy which I have listed, yes I firmly believe that to be the case. You take the position that every word in every gospel is the literal truth. You do this for no good reason other than your faith.

I have told you previously that I do not take the position that every word is the literal truth. You have simply assumed this, and then assigned me a reason for doing what you assume I am doing.

I do not. How do you explain the contradiction between Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9?

Why don't you copy the accounts out and pinpoint for us the exact contradiction?

You can't unless you are prepared to admit that the details can be messed up (or invented).

I can't because there is no contradiction in this case. Regardless, my claim was never that details cannot be messed up (or invented), but that you label any detail that refutes your claim as the messed up (or invented) detail. That is just picking and choosing what you want to accept according to a conclusion you have accepted. Conclusion first, evidence second.

I also pointed out the incoherent nature of the claim that one of video/audio would be "leaked" to other bystanders.

Why would this claim be incoherent? You're assuming 'leaked' as if this was supposed to have been something that no one else witnessed. Why do you assume this?

Um, because if it was a TLE episode then no-one could have seen or heard anything. It was all in Paul's head.

How is that not circular reasoning?

My point is that if this was not an epileptic episode and spirit Jesus was giving a vision to Paul for some purpose then you would expect that he would provide full video and audio for everyone present or he would provide video and audio only to Paul.

My question was why do you expect this?

Just because this intervention was meant for Paul does not mean that others could not be aware that Christ was speaking to Paul.


For example, I can hear that my husband is being spoken to on the phone without understanding the words being spoken to him.

Furthermore I provided a reason why the author of Luke/Acts might have inserted such a detail.

To give it weight?

That is not what I argued although this could have been a minor reason. Please address what I actually argued.

You may have to repeat what you argued then.

You are claiming that Paul's sole testimony of this vision was enough for Luke to believe, since you are stating that Christ was not even an idea before Paul had and shared his vision (even though both Luke in Acts and Paul in his own letters refute this claim... Galatians 1:13).

The Galatians quote is from long after Paul had his vision so I'm not sure what point you think you are making.

I'm not sure what point you think you are making with this comment about the timing.

It mentions nothing about persecuting Christians and that is consistent with my position of Paul hallucinating Jesus Christ due to an epileptic seizure.

It certainly does mention persecuting Christians.


For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.


A - Paul is not going to call something other than Christians the church of God.

B - Even if you do not accept "A" for some reason (you might need to explain how a Christian man would consider something else to be the church of God), Paul himself makes it clear who he is referring to by the end of the chapter:

I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only heard the report: The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.


He clearly states that it is those in Christ that he formerly persecuted, and that the faith he now preaches is their faith that he formerly tried to destroy.

You are also suggesting that someone who so devotedly believed (as Paul would have believed, due to his vision)... lied.

Only after three years did I go up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas, and I stayed with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lords brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing to you is no lie.

"James, the Lord's brother" also disputes your claim that Paul had no knowledge of a human Christ.

This is one of those probable later interpolations I have referred to:

https://vridar.org/2016/01/16/the-funct ... tians-119/

If it is not, it could still be the case that "brother" was used as Paul used it often --- to refer not to family but to brethren in the church. All members of such a congregation considered themselves as "brothers" and used this language. Therefore this one verse is not conclusive proof of anything. (This is off-topic though and I won't respond to this further).

Here is a corroborating verse then of Paul knowing about the human Messiah:

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: that the Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me. In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me. 1 Corinth 11:23-25

Since you address none of these arguments I can only assume that you concede them.

I think you may have assumed a great many things that are untrue.

At the point I wrote that you hadn't addressed any of my arguments so it was a perfectly reasonable assumption to make.

Then you must see how easy it is for even a 'perfectly reasonable assumption' to be wrong.

What do you want me to say? Do I believe that literal scales can fall from people's eyes? No, I don't. That's ridiculous. Of course it is a metaphor and that is what I was addressing, the underlying experience which might invoke the use of such a metaphor.

But Luke is the author, not Paul, correct? Luke did not have that underlying experience so as to invoke the use of such a metaphor. Nor does Luke use that metaphor in his previously written gospel, in which a blind man did receive his sight. (Luke 18:35-43).

Is this supposed to be a refutation? Anyone can use a metaphor whether it applies to a personal experience or a description of one. I have nothing more to add unless you make a valid point.

You are the one who mentioned a personal experience in conjunction with the scales from the eyes description:

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.


I questioned what that had to do with anything, and then you gave the response that you have quoted above.

That can be easily explained by Paul choosing to show humility in this instance. In verse 7 though he reveals that it really is about him.

You mean humility for a couple of sentences? Why?

Um, because he was a humble person perhaps?

If he reveals in verse 7 that it was really about him, then where is the humility?

In the verses preceding it.

If Paul stated immediately that this account was indeed about him, that completely undermines the claim that humility was the cause of Paul not naming himself to begin with.

Why don't you try addressing the actual point (which is not about his attempts at humility and whether they are successful or not)? Do you agree that in verse 7 Paul reveals that he is talking about himself? Yes or no.

No.

But let's look at your points:

Paul is different because:

a) He tells us that he suffered from an embarrassing lifelong "affliction".

No he does not. He said that he was given a thorn in the flesh (stating that this 'thorn' must be epilepsy is speculation and conjecture). Paul does not state that this thorn was lifelong.

Let me qualify. It was lifelong for at least his adult life. Paul tells us that he pleaded three times with God to remove this affliction but God would not ("in order to keep me from becoming conceited") That makes it lifelong to me.

Yes, that is possible (though the account does not state or even describe what that affliction is).

Nor is it ever mentioned anywhere that Paul suffered from seizures (and continued to suffer this through his entire ministry), which seems a simple enough thing to mention if it were true.

I have already addressed this. He didn't want to name his condition through embarrassment and shame.

How does that make sense? If people were already aware of it, how does not naming it save him embarrassment and shame? He is the one who brings it up (the thorn in the flesh). What about anyone else? There are no episodes of it recorded in any of his many experiences in Acts.

If epilepsy was one of those diseases that people 'spit at', does it seem likely that Paul would have been rising in the ranks as a Pharisee (just think about how much importance was placed upon afflicted and diseased people being unclean, being sinners - that such a man would rise in the ranks?)?

And why should I believe that story?

You did not answer the question.

b) He exhibits a common symptom of epilepsy (disinterest in sex).

I believe William disputed this earlier with Paul's knowledge of what it meant to 'burn with passion'.

And I believe I refuted that having knowledge about something necessarily means that you experience it yourself. I have knowledge of people (including priests) having an uncontrollable urge to sexually abuse young children. That doesn't mean that I have that urge.

True.

Just because one chooses not to marry (or even to be celibate) does not mean that they are suffering from epilepsy or even that they are disinterested in sex.

That wasn't my argument.

Then you do not seem to have an argument (please correct me if I have overlooked it), and you have presented no evidence that Paul was disinterested in sex.

c) He himself alludes to visions (how he received the gospel from no man).

He states that he learned from Christ. I have no argument with you on that. But one does not need to have visions in order to learn from Christ. One can listen (and so hear Christ), as is also attested to. Paul does not state that he learned only in visions.

Again, is this supposed to be a refutation? I see nothing here except an appeal to mystical communication with a mythical being.

It is just a clarification.


So far, point (a) is conjecture about the affliction Paul refers to; (b) has no evidence to support it and (c) is simply referring to visions of which there could be many causes, including that it was a true vision from Christ.

*Side point: You are suggesting also that Paul's vision invented Christ, are you not? But then how were others (such as the apostles) preaching Christ first?

Were they? Prove it (from Paul's authentic writings, not what came later).

Both Galatians and Corinthians (the two books from Paul that I have quoted from) are undisputed authentic writings from Paul.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorshi ... e_epistles


Undisputed Authentic Pauline epistles

First Epistle to the Thessalonians
Epistle to the Galatians
First Epistle to the Corinthians
Second Epistle to the Corinthians
Epistle to the Philippians
Epistle to Philemon
Epistle to the Romans

Disputed Deutero-Pauline epistles;
may be authentic

Epistle to the Ephesians
Epistle to the Colossians
Second Epistle to the Thessalonians

Pastoral epistles;
probably not authentic[10]

First Epistle to Timothy
Second Epistle to Timothy
Epistle to Titus

Anonymous sermon;
not authentic

Epistle to the Hebrews



As well, Acts, contents from which you are basing your entire theory upon, also corroborates the fact of others preaching Christ before Paul.

d) Later independent support in Acts from the author of that work.

Later independent support from Acts also corroborates Paul stating that he is the least of the apostles and that Christ appeared to him LAST.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas and then to the Twelve. After that, He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles. And last of all He appeared to me also, as to one of untimely birth. For I am the least of the apostles and am unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 1 Corinthians 15:3-9

This directly refutes your claim that Paul's vision invented Christ and others later made up an 'historical Jesus'. The above quote from Paul in Corinthians is corroborated by the account given by Luke in Acts.

It's actually lifted straight from Acts. It's yet another later interpolation. "The stubborn fact remains: in Galatians Paul tells his readers that what he preached to them when he founded their church was not taught him by human predecessors. In 1 Cor 15 he is depicted as telling his readers that what he preached to them when he founded their church was taught him by human predecessors". That's a direct contradiction.

Please quote from 1 Cor 15, where Paul tells his readers that what he preached to them was taught to him by human predecessors.


(as well, if Acts corroborates what Paul said in 1 Cor 15, I don't know why you are disputing it, since a similar corroboration is part of what you have claimed as your evidence that Paul really did have a vision)

http://historical-jesus.info/9.html

The "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" gives the game away. What scriptures could Paul know about that had Christ dying for our sins? They hadn't been written yet! (This is also off-topic though and I won't respond further to this side issue).

He is referring to the only writings he would have called scripture: Moses, the Psalms, the Prophets. Such as Isaiah 53. What some would call the "Jewish scriptures" (even though they belonged to more than just the Jews).

e) The accounts have sufficient detail (eg. temporary blindness) to link it to a TLE episode (supported by a neuropsycholy researcher).

To suggest the possibility of that link you mean (providing that one ignores the two witnesses and the absence of any mention of further episodes). In the paper you linked to in the OP, others disputed the likelihood that Paul had epilepsy, and still others postulated multiple medical possibilities for his blindness.

Even diagnosing someone in person often has a great deal to do with ruling things out, even with all our medical advancements and technology.

Apart from the nit-picking, the linked article arrives at the conclusion of epilepsy. Correct?

Incorrect.


While the true state of Paul's health cannot be known, with TLE as a hypothesis for the cause of his ecstatic visions it is suggested that his 'thorn in the flesh' was the occasional supervention of grand mal attacks, and that he may have had an attack of TLE on the road to Damascus, followed by post-ictal blindness - this taking place while he was undergoing a profound spiritual change, his conversion to the Christian faith.


The link (and author) speaks only of a hypothesis.

(side note: please note that in the article you are using as evidence to support your claim, the author states that this vision and blindness took place while Paul was converting to the Christian faith... meaning the Christian faith already existed in order for him to convert to it; Paul did not just dream it up out of the blue)

f) Some Christians had come to the same conclusion themselves referring to epilepsy as St. Paul's disease in old Ireland.

Some may have believed this; but that is hardly evidence for it being true.

I love it. Whenever you state that you believe something in future, this will be my standard response back to you.

By all means. If you ever find me stating "I believe" as evidence for something, feel free to call me on it.

I also believe that his vision occurred, so I have no argument with you on that. Just on the cause.

You may believe this; but that is hardly evidence for it being true.

Never claimed that it was.



Peace again to you!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[RedEye]

I have told you previously that I do not take the position that every word is the literal truth. You have simply assumed this, and then assigned me a reason for doing what you assume I am doing.

I can only go on what I observe and I cannot remember you ever acknowledging that a Bible passage is wrong or likely to be wrong.

I do not. How do you explain the contradiction between Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9?

Why don't you copy the accounts out and pinpoint for us the exact contradiction?

Really?

• Acts 9:7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.
  Acts 22:9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.

In Acts 22 the others saw the flash of light and heard someone speaking (but for some unspecified reason could not understand the words - yeah, believable). In Acts 9 there is no mention of the others seeing the light (presumably they saw nothing because surely a heavenly flash would be worth noting) but they heard a sound (except not a voice of someone speaking). You don't see a contradiction? You don't see how details can be messed up in a retelling (by the same author!) of an alleged event?

Regardless, my claim was never that details cannot be messed up (or invented), but that you label any detail that refutes your claim as the messed up (or invented) detail. That is just picking and choosing what you want to accept according to a conclusion you have accepted. Conclusion first, evidence second.

If I accepted the Acts 9 passage at face value (as you do despite your denials), how would I ever arrive at a conclusion other than a supernatural event?

Anyway, you have my approach all wrong. It's: Draw a reasoned conclusion from all of the available evidence first, examine each piece of evidence critically second. It's the "critical examination" part which you omit in favour of "just accept what the author is saying". You deny you do that, but my experience is that this is always your position and you defend it doggedly.

Um, because if it was a TLE episode then no-one could have seen or heard anything. It was all in Paul's head.

How is that not circular reasoning?

What? If ... then ... is a reasoned argument. What is circular about it?

My point is that if this was not an epileptic episode and spirit Jesus was giving a vision to Paul for some purpose then you would expect that he would provide full video and audio for everyone present or he would provide video and audio only to Paul.

My question was why do you expect this?

Just because this intervention was meant for Paul does not mean that others could not be aware that Christ was speaking to Paul.

It's obvious that you haven't understood the point I was making.

For example, I can hear that my husband is being spoken to on the phone without understanding the words being spoken to him.

This wasn't a phone call.
Phones hadn't been invented yet. The only options are 1) in Paul's head (no sound waves) 2) audible sound waves in the air.

It mentions nothing about persecuting Christians and that is consistent with my position of Paul hallucinating Jesus Christ due to an epileptic seizure.

It certainly does mention persecuting Christians.

For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.

A - Paul is not going to call something other than Christians the church of God.

Assertion. Since Paul never uses the word "Christian" you cannot possibly know what he was referring to. I asked you for evidence of him persecuting Christians. These folk in the "church of God" could have been any of dozens of sects that existed at the time. Probably a community of gnostics would be my guess.

B - Even if you do not accept "A" for some reason (you might need to explain how a Christian man would consider something else to be the church of God), ...

What Christian man? The term "Christian" had not even been coined yet. That happened much later in Antioch if we believe Acts.

Paul himself makes it clear who he is referring to by the end of the chapter:

I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only heard the report: The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.

He clearly states that it is those in Christ that he formerly persecuted, and that the faith he now preaches is their faith that he formerly tried to destroy.

There's only one problem. Paul tells us that his gospel came to him from a spirit Jesus and did not come from any man. See verses 11-12. If he was preaching exactly the same thing that he had been persecuting then that claim is a lie. Take your pick. My take on it is that what he was originally persecuting was a group of gnostics who had similar beliefs to Paul but he added on Jesus Christ to their "good god" (who was in opposition to the "inferior god" or Demiurge who created the corrupted world according to gnosticism). That is fully compatible with the passage you have quoted. (That Paul's tradition is compatible with gnosticism is proven by its later adoption by Marcion).

Here is a corroborating verse then of Paul knowing about the human Messiah:

Also another interpolation (almost word for word lifted straight from Luke 22) and off-topic to this thread.

http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2019

(Second post down by "spin").

Why don't you try addressing the actual point (which is not about his attempts at humility and whether they are successful or not)? Do you agree that in verse 7 Paul reveals that he is talking about himself? Yes or no.

No.

I'm sorry but "no" is not an argument. (This is what I mean about you failing to acknowledge it when a passage in scripture goes against you).

Yes, that is possible (though the account does not state or even describe what that affliction is).

Good. Progress even if you won't acknowledge your error directly. (I have provided a probable reason for why Paul would not name his affliction. You are just repeating yourself).

How does that make sense? If people were already aware of it, how does not naming it save him embarrassment and shame?

Why do you assume that his audience for his letters is exactly the same as the (probably small) group of people who had specific knowledge of his affliction? You do know that epileptics look completely normal unless you witness a seizure, right? Brief TLE episodes might even go completely unnoticed by a bystander.

Then you do not seem to have an argument (please correct me if I have overlooked it), and you have presented no evidence that Paul was disinterested in sex.

Yes, I have. He was unmarried and a sexual ascetic who advised others (male and female) to follow his lead. Someone with an interest in sex would probably not be such a passionate advocate for single-minded devotion to God. You can accept this evidence or you can reject it but you can't claim that I provided no evidence.

*Side point: You are suggesting also that Paul's vision invented Christ, are you not? But then how were others (such as the apostles) preaching Christ first?

Were they? Prove it (from Paul's authentic writings, not what came later).

Both Galatians and Corinthians (the two books from Paul that I have quoted from) are undisputed authentic writings from Paul.

Agreed (but with possible later interpolations). Now where is the proof I asked for?

It's actually lifted straight from Acts. It's yet another later interpolation. "The stubborn fact remains: in Galatians Paul tells his readers that what he preached to them when he founded their church was not taught him by human predecessors. In 1 Cor 15 he is depicted as telling his readers that what he preached to them when he founded their church was taught him by human predecessors". That's a direct contradiction.

Please quote from 1 Cor 15, where Paul tells his readers that what he preached to them was taught to him by human predecessors.

Verse 3. The pair of words "received / delivered" (paralambanein / paradidonai) is technical language for the handing on of rabbinical tradition. That means a human source.

Apart from the nit-picking, the linked article arrives at the conclusion of epilepsy. Correct?

Incorrect.

While the true state of Paul's health cannot be known, with TLE as a hypothesis for the cause of his ecstatic visions it is suggested that his 'thorn in the flesh' was the occasional supervention of grand mal attacks, and that he may have had an attack of TLE on the road to Damascus, followed by post-ictal blindness - this taking place while he was undergoing a profound spiritual change, his conversion to the Christian faith.

Which is good scientific language (giving the boundaries of uncertainty) for a qualified conclusion. Thank you.

The link (and author) speaks only of a hypothesis.

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/hypothesis

(Side note: please note that in the article you are using as evidence to support your claim, the author states that this vision and blindness took place while Paul was converting to the Christian faith... meaning the Christian faith already existed in order for him to convert to it; Paul did not just dream it up out of the blue).

You're not serious are you? This is just an echo of the Christian position.

By all means. If you ever find me stating "I believe" as evidence for something, feel free to call me on it.

I did. See below.

I also believe that his vision occurred, so I have no argument with you on that. Just on the cause.

You accept that the cause was supernatural at face value and your evidence for this is that you implicitly believe what the Bible says.

[Jubal]

Argumentum ab auctoritate is another well known fallacy.

Indeed it is.
Are you sure you have it the right way 'round ?

It is often used completely bass-ackwards lately, (notably by climate change deniers.)

The FALLACY of Argument to Authority means listening to someone who is ONLY an authority (in general,) but is OUT of their field.

Examples of fallacious argument to authority :
* what the Pope says about evolution
* Einstein's definition of insanity
* Hawking's views on religion
* Neil de Grasse Tyson on politics and culture
* politicians' views on climate change

Examples of valid and useful arguments to authority - NOT fallacious :
* the Pope's statements about Catholic doctrine
* Einstein on relativity
* PZ Myers on biology
* Hawking on astrophysics
* IPCC on climate change
* Nancy Pelosi on procedures in Congress

Jubal

[William]

[Replying to post 33 by Jubal]

Welcome to the debate Jubal

What is your position in regard to the OP blurb and question?

[tam]

Peace to you redeye,

I have told you previously that I do not take the position that every word is the literal truth. You have simply assumed this, and then assigned me a reason for doing what you assume I am doing.

I can only go on what I observe and I cannot remember you ever acknowledging that a Bible passage is wrong or likely to be wrong.

"I have never seen it, therefore it has never happened."

This is not a good reason upon which to draw a conclusion.

I do not. How do you explain the contradiction between Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9?

Why don't you copy the accounts out and pinpoint for us the exact contradiction?

Really?

• Acts 9:7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.
  Acts 22:9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.

In Acts 22 the others saw the flash of light and heard someone speaking (but for some unspecified reason could not understand the words - yeah, believable). In Acts 9 there is no mention of the others seeing the light (presumably they saw nothing because surely a heavenly flash would be worth noting) but they heard a sound (except not a voice of someone speaking). You don't see a contradiction? You don't see how details can be messed up in a retelling (by the same author!) of an alleged event?

Yes really.

A contradiction would be one account stating that they saw a light and the other account stating that they did not see a light (or that they saw nothing at all).

The claim of not seeing the person does not contradict the claim of seeing the light (that accompanied that person). In both descriptions though, the two men witnessed something.

Regardless, my claim was never that details cannot be messed up (or invented), but that you label any detail that refutes your claim as the messed up (or invented) detail. That is just picking and choosing what you want to accept according to a conclusion you have accepted. Conclusion first, evidence second.

If I accepted the Acts 9 passage at face value (as you do despite your denials), how would I ever arrive at a conclusion other than a supernatural event?

I think you are proving my point.

Anyway, you have my approach all wrong. It's: Draw a reasoned conclusion from all of the available evidence first, examine each piece of evidence critically second. It's the "critical examination" part which you omit in favour of "just accept what the author is saying". You deny you do that, but my experience is that this is always your position and you defend it doggedly.

I have said that if you ignore the evidence that conflict with your theory, you can make up any theory you like.

That is exactly what you have done here.

Witnesses disprove the hypothesis of epilepsy, so you dismiss that bit of evidence and state that Luke must have lied about that detail.

That is also what you did with the Centurion who wanted Christ to heal his servant. You claimed that the details that refuted your 'theory' were simply 'made up'. Even though your theory is what had been just 'made up'. People sometimes project onto others what they do, themselves.

Um, because if it was a TLE episode then no-one could have seen or heard anything. It was all in Paul's head.

How is that not circular reasoning?

What? If ... then ... is a reasoned argument. What is circular about it?

If it was a TLE episode then no one else could have witnessed it because it was all in Paul's head. That is obvious. But stating that no one could have witnessed it because it was a TLE episode is circular.

I had asked you why you thought it was 'incoherent' that others could have seen or heard the experience (if indeed it was a 'supernatural' experience) and the above was your response. Perhaps you misunderstood that this is what I was asking?

My point is that if this was not an epileptic episode and spirit Jesus was giving a vision to Paul for some purpose then you would expect that he would provide full video and audio for everyone present or he would provide video and audio only to Paul.

My question was why do you expect this?

Just because this intervention was meant for Paul does not mean that others could not be aware that Christ was speaking to Paul.

It's obvious that you haven't understood the point I was making.

You still did not answer the question.

For example, I can hear that my husband is being spoken to on the phone without understanding the words being spoken to him.

This wasn't a phone call.
Phones hadn't been invented yet. The only options are 1) in Paul's head (no sound waves) 2) audible sound waves in the air.

Of course it was not a phone call. It was simply an example of being able to hear a sound (even hear someone speaking) and yet not be able to make out what was being said at the same time. To show that this is indeed something that is possible.

It mentions nothing about persecuting Christians and that is consistent with my position of Paul hallucinating Jesus Christ due to an epileptic seizure.

It certainly does mention persecuting Christians.

For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.

A - Paul is not going to call something other than Christians the church of God.

Assertion.

Irony.

What happened to examining all the evidence to come to a reasoned conclusion?

Since Paul never uses the word "Christian" you cannot possibly know what he was referring to. I asked you for evidence of him persecuting Christians. These folk in the "church of God" could have been any of dozens of sects that existed at the time. Probably a community of gnostics would be my guess.

Your guess?

Even though your guess is not based upon the evidence?


Because that EVIDENCE (as shown in the rest of the passage) shows that Paul is referring to those in Christ.

I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only heard the report: The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy."

B - Even if you do not accept "A" for some reason (you might need to explain how a Christian man would consider something else to be the church of God), ...

What Christian man? The term "Christian" had not even been coined yet. That happened much later in Antioch if we believe Acts.

Focusing on the term "Christian" is just a distraction. Why would a man who is IN CHRIST consider some other group or religion to be the church of God.

Paul himself makes it clear who he is referring to by the end of the chapter:

I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only heard the report: The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.

He clearly states that it is those in Christ that he formerly persecuted, and that the faith he now preaches is their faith that he formerly tried to destroy.

There's only one problem. Paul tells us that his gospel came to him from a spirit Jesus and did not come from any man. See verses 11-12. If he was preaching exactly the same thing that he had been persecuting then that claim is a lie.

First he persecuted faith in Christ. Then he preached faith in Christ.

He did not learn (or receive) his faith from men, he learned (and received) from Christ Himself. That does not mean he did not know that a faith in Christ already existed.


So there is no problem here. Just a lack of understanding. This also does not refute what Paul himself states - that he was indeed persecuting those who were in Christ. Therefore Christ could not have been invented by Paul.

Take your pick. My take on it is that what he was originally persecuting was a group of gnostics who had similar beliefs to Paul but he added on Jesus Christ to their "good god" (who was in opposition to the "inferior god" or Demiurge who created the corrupted world according to gnosticism). That is fully compatible with the passage you have quoted.

It is in direct conflict with the passage I quoted, since the people he claims to have been persecuting were already IN CHRIST.

Here is a corroborating verse then of Paul knowing about the human Messiah:

Also another interpolation (almost word for word lifted straight from Luke 22) and off-topic to this thread.

I'm sorry, are you saying that "Luke" was written before Corinthians?

Why don't you try addressing the actual point (which is not about his attempts at humility and whether they are successful or not)? Do you agree that in verse 7 Paul reveals that he is talking about himself? Yes or no.

No.

I'm sorry but "no" is not an argument. (This is what I mean about you failing to acknowledge it when a passage in scripture goes against you).

Lol, you said "Yes or no". I simply answered in the parameters you gave me.

I had previously elaborated that Paul was not referring to himself in that passage.

Yes, that is possible (though the account does not state or even describe what that affliction is).

Good. Progress even if you won't acknowledge your error directly.

What error? You had to qualify your response (I did not change my position; I agreed only after you qualified yours).

Then you do not seem to have an argument (please correct me if I have overlooked it), and you have presented no evidence that Paul was disinterested in sex.

Yes, I have. He was unmarried and a sexual ascetic who advised others (male and female) to follow his lead. Someone with an interest in sex would probably not be such a passionate advocate for single-minded devotion to God.

Probably?

So this is just speculation, and you have no real evidence that Paul was disinterested in sex, and even less evidence that this disinterest comes from epilepsy.

People can (and do) set one thing aside because they love something or someone else MORE. They are not all suffering from a disinterest in sex or from epilepsy.

Paul is simply giving advice, trying to help people put God first without being divided or conflicted by a spouse.

You can accept this evidence or you can reject it but you can't claim that I provided no evidence.

How in the world can you can claim that as evidence, and at the same time state it is merely an assertion that the people Paul persecuted were Christians (those in Christ)?

*Side point: You are suggesting also that Paul's vision invented Christ, are you not? But then how were others (such as the apostles) preaching Christ first?

Were they? Prove it (from Paul's authentic writings, not what came later).

Both Galatians and Corinthians (the two books from Paul that I have quoted from) are undisputed authentic writings from Paul.

Agreed (but with possible later interpolations). Now where is the proof I asked for?

How was anyone in Christ (as the passage in Galatians states) before Paul if no one preached Christ before Paul? Or did everyone know Christ personally as well? Is it possible that none of them ever preached Christ?

Are you also suggesting that Luke lied about those details that describe these people as preaching Christ before Paul, in Acts as well?

It's actually lifted straight from Acts. It's yet another later interpolation. "The stubborn fact remains: in Galatians Paul tells his readers that what he preached to them when he founded their church was not taught him by human predecessors. In 1 Cor 15 he is depicted as telling his readers that what he preached to them when he founded their church was taught him by human predecessors". That's a direct contradiction.

Please quote from 1 Cor 15, where Paul tells his readers that what he preached to them was taught to him by human predecessors.

Verse 3. The pair of words "received / delivered" (paralambanein / paradidonai) is technical language for the handing on of rabbinical tradition. That means a human source.

That is one way in which the word is used, but not the only way:

paralambn, par-al-am-ban'-o; from G3844 and G2983; to receive near, i.e. associate with oneself (in any familiar or intimate act or relation); by analogy, to assume an office; figuratively, to learn:"receive, take (unto, with).

I to take to, to take with one's self, to join to one's self

A - an associate, a companion

B - metaph.

i - to accept or acknowledge one to be such as he professes to be

ii - not to reject, not to withhold obedience

II to receive something transmitted

A - an office to be discharged

B - to receive with the mind

i - by oral transmission: of the authors from whom the tradition proceeds

ii - by the narrating to others, by instruction of teachers (used of disciples)

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 3880&t=KJV



A - Christ is a Teacher (a rabbi); the Teacher, from whom Paul claims to have learned.

B - Please also note that this is also the exact same word used when Paul states that he "received" from the Lord, in Corinthians.

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you... 1 Corinth 11:23


So there is no contradiction.

By all means. If you ever find me stating "I believe" as evidence for something, feel free to call me on it.

I did. See below.

I did not state 'I believe' as evidence for something.

I also believe that his vision occurred, so I have no argument with you on that. Just on the cause.

You accept that the cause was supernatural at face value and your evidence for this is that you implicitly believe what the Bible says.

I said nothing of the sort.


I simply stated that I had no argument with your position that Paul had an actual vision - since I believe the same - and that we simply disagree on the cause.


I did not state "I believe" as evidence of anything.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Tart]

If Christianity was a result of Paul. That the risen Christ was just a figment of Paul's imagination...

What about all the others, that Paul spoke of in 1 Corinthians 15

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Wouldnt this suggest Paul was the last person who experienced the risen Christ out of hundreds of others? Over a dozen of which we know the identities of, who also collaborated about the Risen Christ in other written letters.

[Jubal]

Hey William,

What is your position in regard to the OP blurb and question?

The Pauline epilepsy theory is indeed possible, even plausible.

Firstly - Paul's apparent experiences do seem somewhat like epilepsy - Tim is right that's a well-known idea.

Paul was clearly a key figure in Christianity, sometimes called Paulianity for that reason. Paul may have been the effective founder, if Jesus was a myth.

Heavenly visions were important events in ancient times - consider the tales of prophets like Daniel, or the Vision of Isaiah. Someone who had a heavenly vision could be highly regarded by religious types (even today.)

Paul boasts about his visit to the third heaven (it's obviously himself) establishing his authority on spiritual matters.

So yes, it's possible that Christianity is essentially based on an epilectic fit.

On the other hand - the evidence is so corrupted it's hard to be sure.

Jubal

[Jubal]

If Christianity was a result of Paul. That the risen Christ was just a figment of Paul's imagination...

What about all the others, that Paul spoke of in 1 Corinthians 15

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Wouldnt this suggest Paul was the last person who experienced the risen Christ out of hundreds of others? Over a dozen of which we know the identities of, who also collaborated about the Risen Christ in other written letters.

Over a dozen ?
Please present the evidence for over a dozen identified persons who claimed to have experienced the Risen Christ.

In fact there are only TWO :

* Paul's claims
* 2 Peter's story of the transfiguration (an obvious forgery)

The rest are nothing but stories and claims by others.


Jubal

[Jagella]

What about all the others, that Paul spoke of...

Paul cannot make his claim any more credible by saying other people saw what he claims to have seen. When Paul says there were other eyewitnesses to Christ, to do so is just a more elaborate claim. Making claims more elaborate doesn't make them truer.

But you did raise a very important question: who were these other eyewitnesses Paul spoke of? If they were real people, then as far as I know all we have is the New Testament as evidence for them.

[Tart]

If Christianity was a result of Paul. That the risen Christ was just a figment of Paul's imagination...

What about all the others, that Paul spoke of in 1 Corinthians 15

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Wouldnt this suggest Paul was the last person who experienced the risen Christ out of hundreds of others? Over a dozen of which we know the identities of, who also collaborated about the Risen Christ in other written letters.

Over a dozen ?
Please present the evidence for over a dozen identified persons who claimed to have experienced the Risen Christ.

In fact there are only TWO :

* Paul's claims
* 2 Peter's story of the transfiguration (an obvious forgery)

The rest are nothing but stories and claims by others.


Jubal

Ya so this topic is about whether or not Paul created Christianity because of his "illness", a hallucination about Jesus Christ Resurrection.

By Paul's own words, he was the last of hundreds of people who believed Jesus was Resurrected... So on topic, wouldnt that suggest the answer to the topic question is simply "no".. By Paul's own words, many were believing in the Risen Christ before him..

Now whether you want to debate who Paul is actually talking about in 1 Corinthians 15, you can start another topic about that.. Or do you think it is something related to this topic?

The people Paul mentions is Cephas, and James. He also says "the twelve", referencing the twelve Disciples... Which would be a hint at identifying people like Peter, John, Matthew, Thomas, ect...

This passage Paul telling us, hundreds others have testified they met the Risen Christ...

You claiming only 2 people have is a gross understatement, becuase you are probably making some kind of other criteria.. Like they had to have met the Risen Christ, and wrote about it... But that isnt a criteria for meeting the Risen Christ... We have evidence telling us hundreds have encountered the Risen Jesus, in this passage 3 are known by name, and 12 are suggested with specific identities, and hundreds others whom we dont know the identities of.