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

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
RedEye
Scholar
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:23 am
Location: Adelaide, Australia

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

Post #1

Post by 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 Christ’s power may rest on me. 10 That is why, for Christ’s 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?
Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

User avatar
ElCodeMonkey
Site Supporter
Posts: 1587
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:49 am
Contact:

Post #2

Post by ElCodeMonkey »

That is actually very interesting. Elijah John and I have both long-suspected Paul of corruption of Jesus' message and this really does provide some interesting insight. Jesus did warn to be aware of the leaven of the Pharisees (of which Paul was) and further indicated that the kingdom would be like dough where leaven was spread all throughout. He thus warned that his message would be corrupted and return back to Pharisaical ways. What's interesting is that you see Paul as separating from the Jewish traditions, but I moreso see him returning to it. Jesus taught love and peace rather than sacrifice and ritual. Paul brought it right back to sacrifice and ritual. There are some things of "Paul" that I thought was right on target so I always feared throwing Paul under the bus entirely. Such books, however, were thought to be Paul when they were included in the Canon but were later decided not to be Paul's. So it's quite possible that Paul was 100% Pharisee wrecking Jesus' teachings, perhaps even due to illness, and anything good from him was someone else. It might even be that he turned to "Jesus" because the illness might have made him undesirable in the Pharisaical community. So he just transitioned his Pharisaical thoughts over to Jesus where they would accept him despite his illness. With all his manipulative training, it was like shooting fish in a barrel to convince the people that he spoke for God himself. It's obviously quite ridiculous that Jesus would spend 3 years teaching 12 particular people just to have Paul, who saw him that one minute, suddenly become the most expressive teacher of Christianity. Definite charlatan. I think some in Corinthians noticed this which is why they began being divisive and following "Apollos" instead of "Paul."
I'm Published! Christians Are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress
My Blog: Friendly By Nurture
The Wisdom I've gleaned.
My Current Beliefs.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14142
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 911 times
Been thanked: 1642 times
Contact:

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

Post #3

Post by William »

[Replying to post 1 by 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:
While it is possible, the theory also has to involve the idea that ALL metaphysical experiences are simply some form of brain illness, which is a convenient end-game explanation which would require far more study before it can be shown to be conclusive, if that were even possible to achieve.

Many atheists already believe that this is the explanation...'the brain did it' and argue from that convenient position.
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:
Old Ireland had its fair share of stories to tell. Assuming an elaborate truth from a few hints isn't the greatest practice to adopt.

We are not privy to what Paul thinks of as his weakness, but I would argue that it wouldn't have had anything to do with his vision on the road to Damascus, because IF it were the product of epilepsy and this was what Paul wanted the Lord to heal Paul's suffering from, THEN why would something which caused Paul such a change in direction be referred to as 'weaknesses'.

Given what we know about Paul's aversion to sexuality, I would say it is more likely he may have been referring to sexual weakness as one of more than a few weaknesses...he often wrote and preached about the weakness of the human flesh device.

He may write that he will "boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses" but wherein his writing does he do so? Not a big reader of Paul, he may well have done...a quick Google does not give anything other than the mentioning of it in the same quote you provided from the letter to the Corinthians.
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).
Given the type of character Paul was, it is doubtful his followers openly confronted him. Many Christians seem impressed with him and his apparent self-depreciation in obsessing on how unimpressive he was may be a case of false humility which many preachers use as a public front. Other writings of Paul can give the reader an impression that he possibly thought highly of himself.

One can argue that he counsels "For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but think of yourself with sober judgment, according to the measure of faith God has given you."

It is great advice, and Paul shared many words which I consider to being great advice. The problem with any great advice (be it from Paul, or Jesus, or any other biblical character - or non-biblical character for that matter) is
1: When the individuals do not take their own advice and act contrary to it, and
2:when individuals place such impressive personalities upon pedestals and practice idolatry. In doing so they take the onus of personal responsibility away from themselves, and simply end up 'playing church', in the variety of ways in which playing church unfolds through group dynamics.
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.
It may well be the case, but therein is the interesting thing. What are these common 'visions of a religious nature' and why are they religious in content?
One understands simply through a quick Google that people declare a similar understanding "That Religious Experience May Just Be an Epileptic Seizure ..." but have no deep understanding as to what exactly IS an 'Epileptic Seizure' other than it is 'just a brain malfunction' - a conveniently shallow answer at best, because of this lack of knowledge.

One thing that does set aside the theory of this having been the case is that those travelling with Paul heard the sounds - but did not see anyone, which is not something which is reported from those who witness people who have TLE's and accompanying audial visions. We can of course then say that Paul added that bit to the story, and if these witnesses heard anything, we have no independent sources to corroborate Paul's version.

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).
While of course this can be inferred, there seems no reason why one has to think that is the case.
Paul might very well be actually writing about this man.
I think it is important not to draw conclusions based upon what little we know about TLE's, by assigning such into the materialist 'case solve' basket. There is far more than meets the eye in regard to such experiences as NDE's OOBE's, Astral Projection etc, which are all metaphysical and 'brain malfunction' may well be the case, but not in the way a materialist might understand it...as being some kind of 'illness'... but more a case of the normal function of a human brain is to prevent people from easily experiencing alternate realities which do actually exist. People aften accidently experience the malfunction, but also people can actually train their brains to function in that manner - to bypass the normal inhibitors - in order to experience the metaphysical as a reality.

We simply do not know enough to make a call either way though - of course - we are free to do so if we choose, as unwise as that would be to do so.

The major point of any religious/spiritual experience which causes such tremendous ripple effect (not all negative - contrary to some arguments) is that it shapes the world in BOTH good and bad ways, depending upon how the followers choose to apply the teachings - and most opt to make idols of the teachers which effectively renders the teachings subject to distortion and thus, largely impotent.

I agree that Paul started something which evolved into what is now known as Christianity, but the direction of Christendom was shaped by those who have come along well after Paul departed the scene and - like Paul interpreting Jesus, so too was Paul interpreted in a likewise manner...Paul appears to have idolized Jesus and many Christians likewise do the same with both Jesus and Paul.

One can observe in most churches that Jesus is preached for the purpose of enticing guilt and Paul is preached for the purpose of indoctrination.

The bible (from where we get the information) was and still is one of the greatest political devices ever created, but therein spiritual inspiration can be found through bypassing the political inhibitors.

Human consciousness appears by and large to need the 'why' answers which metaphysics attempts to provide - that go beyond the 'how' answers - which are more easily obtained - but even so, neither are handed to us on a silver platter. Both require great effort to obtain in genuine ways.

It is difficult to imagine the world would be much different or somehow better without the metaphysical presence within the human psyche. Some really believe that materialism is the answer to all the worlds problems, because they believe that all the worlds problems are sourced in metaphysical beliefs.

Until science can be used to prolong human life indefinitely, the prominence of metaphysical thinking as a valid aspect of human consciousness, is here to stay.

User avatar
RedEye
Scholar
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:23 am
Location: Adelaide, Australia

Post #4

Post by RedEye »

ElCodeMonkey wrote: That is actually very interesting. Elijah John and I have both long-suspected Paul of corruption of Jesus' message and this really does provide some interesting insight. Jesus did warn to be aware of the leaven of the Pharisees (of which Paul was) and further indicated that the kingdom would be like dough where leaven was spread all throughout. He thus warned that his message would be corrupted and return back to Pharisaical ways. What's interesting is that you see Paul as separating from the Jewish traditions, but I moreso see him returning to it. Jesus taught love and peace rather than sacrifice and ritual. Paul brought it right back to sacrifice and ritual. There are some things of "Paul" that I thought was right on target so I always feared throwing Paul under the bus entirely. Such books, however, were thought to be Paul when they were included in the Canon but were later decided not to be Paul's. So it's quite possible that Paul was 100% Pharisee wrecking Jesus' teachings, perhaps even due to illness, and anything good from him was someone else. It might even be that he turned to "Jesus" because the illness might have made him undesirable in the Pharisaical community. So he just transitioned his Pharisaical thoughts over to Jesus where they would accept him despite his illness. With all his manipulative training, it was like shooting fish in a barrel to convince the people that he spoke for God himself. It's obviously quite ridiculous that Jesus would spend 3 years teaching 12 particular people just to have Paul, who saw him that one minute, suddenly become the most expressive teacher of Christianity. Definite charlatan. I think some in Corinthians noticed this which is why they began being divisive and following "Apollos" instead of "Paul."
You are assuming in that line of reasoning that there actually was a Jesus and Paul knew about him (outside of his visions). I don't see that in Paul's writings. My position is that the historical Jesus is a myth which was developed by the gospel writers after Paul (using the celestial Jesus of Paul as a starting point). Therefore I can't really subscribe to your argument above.
Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

User avatar
RedEye
Scholar
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:23 am
Location: Adelaide, Australia

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

Post #5

Post by RedEye »

William wrote: [Replying to post 1 by RedEye]

While it is possible, the theory also has to involve the idea that ALL metaphysical experiences are simply some form of brain illness, which is a convenient end-game explanation which would require far more study before it can be shown to be conclusive, if that were even possible to achieve.

Many atheists already believe that this is the explanation...'the brain did it' and argue from that convenient position.
I am not arguing that at all in this thread. I am arguing the specifics of what we know about Paul and the "affliction" which he admitted he suffered from.
Old Ireland had its fair share of stories to tell. Assuming an elaborate truth from a few hints isn't the greatest practice to adopt.
I think you may have missed the point. Christians themselves held such beliefs based on what they read. It's nothing particularly new.
We are not privy to what Paul thinks of as his weakness, but I would argue that it wouldn't have had anything to do with his vision on the road to Damascus, because IF it were the product of epilepsy and this was what Paul wanted the Lord to heal Paul's suffering from, THEN why would something which caused Paul such a change in direction be referred to as 'weaknesses'.
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..

https://www.epilepsy.org.au/about-epile ... look-like/

There was no medical knowledge about epilepsy at the time. Paul could not diagnose himself and know that all these issues that he had were related. Even TLE on its own is regarded as dangerous today. They take away your driving license until you are on medication and have not had an episode for a length of time. You are advised not to swim alone and so on. I would definitely call that a weakness regardless of what value were placed on the "visions" produced by the condition.
Given what we know about Paul's aversion to sexuality, I would say it is more likely he may have been referring to sexual weakness as one of more than a few weaknesses...he often wrote and preached about the weakness of the human flesh device.
Yes, but what caused him to think like this? He makes it clear here:
  • 1 Corinthians 7
    8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
He himself had no interest in sex and that is a common side-effect of epilepsy. That is the point I was making.
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.
It may well be the case, but therein is the interesting thing. What are these common 'visions of a religious nature' and why are they religious in content?
I think that you may have misunderstood me. TLE episodes always involve a "waking dream" of some kind. Often these "visions" have a religious theme or religious overtones.
One thing that does set aside the theory of this having been the case is that those travelling with Paul heard the sounds - but did not see anyone, which is not something which is reported from those who witness people who have TLE's and accompanying audial visions. We can of course then say that Paul added that bit to the story, and if these witnesses heard anything, we have no independent sources to corroborate Paul's version.
Paul himself does not give us the specifics of what happened when he had these visions. That comes from the author of Acts many decades later so it is hearsay. It's not surprising that a detail or two might be wrong. In fact in Acts 22:9 it says the opposite! It makes no sense if you think about it. If the vision was meant to be private to Paul and Jesus is God (and therefore omnipotent) how could he allow video or audio to leak out to Paul's traveling companions? Why would he allow one but not the other? I think the Acts author may have thrown that in deliberately to steer his readers away from the conclusion that Paul might be a madman.
While of course this can be inferred, there seems no reason why one has to think that is the case. Paul might very well be actually writing about this man.
It's fairly well accepted that Paul is writing about himself. I won't argue this further. You can do your own research.
I agree that Paul started something which evolved into what is now known as Christianity, but the direction of Christendom was shaped by those who have come along well after Paul departed the scene and - like Paul interpreting Jesus, so too was Paul interpreted in a likewise manner...
True, but without Paul that train would not have been set in motion. That is my point. And Paul himself was triggered by something which was likely only an undiagnosed medical condition. (Yes, epilepsy is a medical condition despite your denials).
Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

User avatar
ElCodeMonkey
Site Supporter
Posts: 1587
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:49 am
Contact:

Post #6

Post by ElCodeMonkey »

RedEye wrote: You are assuming in that line of reasoning that there actually was a Jesus and Paul knew about him (outside of his visions). I don't see that in Paul's writings. My position is that the historical Jesus is a myth which was developed by the gospel writers after Paul (using the celestial Jesus of Paul as a starting point). Therefore I can't really subscribe to your argument above.
Paul did say that he was persecuting the Christians before the vision. So I'm not sure how he can do that if he was the cause of Jesus as a mere Myth from his hallucination. Doesn't jive.

“I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors. I was just as zealous for God as any of you are today. 4I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, 5as the high priest and all the Council can themselves testify. I even obtained letters from them to their associates in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished."
I'm Published! Christians Are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress
My Blog: Friendly By Nurture
The Wisdom I've gleaned.
My Current Beliefs.

User avatar
RedEye
Scholar
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:23 am
Location: Adelaide, Australia

Post #7

Post by RedEye »

ElCodeMonkey wrote:
RedEye wrote: You are assuming in that line of reasoning that there actually was a Jesus and Paul knew about him (outside of his visions). I don't see that in Paul's writings. My position is that the historical Jesus is a myth which was developed by the gospel writers after Paul (using the celestial Jesus of Paul as a starting point). Therefore I can't really subscribe to your argument above.
Paul did say that he was persecuting the Christians before the vision. So I'm not sure how he can do that if he was the cause of Jesus as a mere Myth from his hallucination. Doesn't jive.

“I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors. I was just as zealous for God as any of you are today. 4I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, 5as the high priest and all the Council can themselves testify. I even obtained letters from them to their associates in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished."
Paul never uses the term "Christian" in his writings. He may have been persecuting someone but that comes from Acts and is all hearsay from many decades later. I personally don't believe that there were any proto-Christians before Paul. In fact the whole idea of him running around and jailing or killing people is preposterous. From where did he get his authority? The Romans were in charge and they didn't care about religious squabbles between the Jews. There were no Jewish jails. The story makes no sense.

https://ehrmanblog.org/how-paul-persecu ... hristians/
  • The book of Acts indicates that he ravaged the gatherings of Christians and dragged people off to prison (8:3). That’s inherently implausible: we don’t know of anything like Jewish prisons and we can assume that Roman authorities were not inclined to provide cell-space for Jewish sectarians who happened to be proclaiming a rather strange message.
Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14142
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 911 times
Been thanked: 1642 times
Contact:

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

Post #8

Post by William »

[Replying to post 5 by RedEye]
While it is possible, the theory also has to involve the idea that ALL metaphysical experiences are simply some form of brain illness, which is a convenient end-game explanation which would require far more study before it can be shown to be conclusive, if that were even possible to achieve.

Many atheists already believe that this is the explanation...'the brain did it' and argue from that convenient position.
I am not arguing that at all in this thread. I am arguing the specifics of what we know about Paul and the "affliction" which he admitted he suffered from.
Nonetheless, the implication is clearly there RedEye. Even in the thread title. Thus for me to bring the observation into said argument is a logical move to make.
Old Ireland had its fair share of stories to tell. Assuming an elaborate truth from a few hints isn't the greatest practice to adopt.
I think you may have missed the point. Christians themselves held such beliefs based on what they read. It's nothing particularly new.
I have not missed the point at all RedEye. What I have done is to extend the practice as a human one, rather than focus on one aspect of human society. In this way I get a good balance in which to base my opinions upon, contrary to your own argued ones.
We are not privy to what Paul thinks of as his weakness, but I would argue that it wouldn't have had anything to do with his vision on the road to Damascus, because IF it were the product of epilepsy and this was what Paul wanted the Lord to heal Paul's suffering from, THEN why would something which caused Paul such a change in direction be referred to as 'weaknesses'.
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?
There was no medical knowledge about epilepsy at the time. Paul could not diagnose himself and know that all these issues that he had were related. Even TLE on its own is regarded as dangerous today. They take away your driving license until you are on medication and have not had an episode for a length of time. You are advised not to swim alone and so on. I would definitely call that a weakness regardless of what value were placed on the "visions" produced by the condition.
This may well be the case, but there is still the point of missing evidence in which to make the assumption. This is why I think it more likely that Paul's weakness may have be sexual in nature, because we know through the evidence of his preaching that he had issues in that department. Either way assumption is playing its part here.
Yes, but what caused him to think like this? He makes it clear here:

1 Corinthians 7
8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.


He himself had no interest in sex and that is a common side-effect of epilepsy. That is the point I was making.
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'.
I think that you may have misunderstood me. TLE episodes always involve a "waking dream" of some kind. Often these "visions" have a religious theme or religious overtones.


I did not misunderstand you. I pointed out that experiences of alternate realities is the source of religious belief. In Paul's case, his occupation involved the murder of what were referred to derogatorily as 'Christians', but he appears to have been educated in Jewish religious beliefs, so he is effectively using those beliefs to stamp out the opposition, under the authority of Rome.

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.
Paul himself does not give us the specifics of what happened when he had these visions. That comes from the author of Acts many decades later so it is hearsay. It's not surprising that a detail or two might be wrong. In fact in Acts 22:9 it says the opposite! It makes no sense if you think about it. If the vision was meant to be private to Paul and Jesus is God (and therefore omnipotent) how could he allow video or audio to leak out to Paul's traveling companions? Why would he allow one but not the other? I think the Acts author may have thrown that in deliberately to steer his readers away from the conclusion that Paul might be a madman.


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'?
Why would the writer of Acts even use the stories of someone he thought might be seen as a 'madman'?
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.
True, but without Paul that train would not have been set in motion. That is my point. And Paul himself was triggered by something which was likely only an undiagnosed medical condition.
I already answered that argument in my previous post. If you are unable to respond to that in turn, so be it.
(Yes, epilepsy is a medical condition despite your denials).
I have not denied any such thing. I simple stated the truth that we know very little about it, or why people have visions of alternate realities and to assume people who experience such are 'mad' or have an 'illness' of the brain, is bad form - albeit a convenient argument from the atheist position.

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.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

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

Post #9

Post by tam »

[Replying to post 1 by RedEye]

Peace to you,

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.


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.


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.

Paul specifically states that he is NOT speaking about himself. As for him being so humble that he chose not to name himself as that man, that has never made sense to me. Paul has no problem speaking about himself and the things he has done elsewhere, and he has no problem signing his name to letters. Now all of a sudden he is going to remain anonymous?


No.

He is boasting about the visions of someone else. After all, there were indeed others who received visions from Christ - including John of Patmos who was taken up in the spirit to see and hear many things, even unspeakable things, things that he was specifically NOT permitted to speak of.




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

Hawkins
Scholar
Posts: 450
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 11:59 pm
Been thanked: 7 times

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

Post #10

Post by Hawkins »

RedEye wrote: 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:
You don't have to assume that Paul has only one experience. He spoke to angels, had an NDE to the third heaven.

Even in the Damascus case, it has follow-ups.

Acts 9:6
“Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.�

Rather Paul's may not sole came from the lightning in Damascus, it may be something else such as "what he have been told" after that point.


Then this,

Acts 9:17-18
Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.�
Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized

Paul was not healed by a doctor or by taking medicine. He's healed by someone who thinks that he's asked by Jesus to heal Paul. And all of a sudden Paul's healed.


And then this,

Acts 14:3 (NIV2011)
So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to perform signs and wonders.

His supernatural experience doesn't seem to end. This time he had a shared experience with Barnabas.


Other than Paul, John has the supernatural experience for him to write down the book of Revelation. Peter had the supernatural experience of seeing Moses and Elijah.

You need this to be the result of many men, instead of just one man's illness.
8-)

Post Reply