• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

So, was Jesus Resurrected?

Wrong wrong, wrong. Paul was no such thing. Nowhere in his letters does he claim to have ever met a historical Jeebus.

What Paul was not an eyewitness to Paul's life? I think you will find he was. And where did I say he was? I wrote "Paul was an eyewitness to Paul's stuff, including a purported resurrection appearance." I think you misread this sentence? Easily done.

And I never said he did, did I? He certainly claims to know of a historical earthly Jesus though - from the guy's brother, among others.

cj x
 
Wouldn't place too much emphasis on Paul, he was after all suffering from mental delusions.
 
Wouldn't place too much emphasis on Paul, he was after all suffering from mental delusions.


Evidence? You defining "mental delusions" in terms of the DSM IV? I can't see how we can really assess his mental state except from his writings, but it's certainly a worthwille line of investigation, yeah...

cj x
 
"some may be right, some may be wrong"... With no way of determining which would be which because of all the disagreements in the originals, it is saner to withhold judgement/acceptance on all of it, until something resembling hard evidence can be located.
Billy Ockham would tell you to go for the simplest conclusion, they're all wrong, seeing as to what they are dealing with, the spirit world.
 
If we're going to accept the possibility of miracles, then there are an infinite number of possibilites. A poster named TEP over at RichardDawkins.net put forth these possibilites in a similar thread:

Well, here's another couple of ideas that don't even need anything supernatural.

Most of the NT we inherited is one way or another via Paul. Plus some later additions, but still in the context of his version. (Even gospels we now inherited as from Matthew or Peter seem to be actually later confabulations.) We also know that he had no problem with making up lies to proselitise, and he actually did it at least once. (2 Corinthians 12:16)

1. This guy called Saul is quite the zealot (and according to some the Zealot) kind of guy, and by his own accounts quite active in hunting down Christians and instigating that they be killed. Unfortunately he doesn't seem too effective, and their numbers slowly grow.

Then one day he gets a (Baldrick-class;)) cunning plan: be even more active in spreading a massively distorted version of their teachings, to the extent of his even directly bad-mouthing the sect of the actual people who knew Jesus (now led by James and calling themselves the Ebionites). And I mean so different that, by what we know now, the Ebionites considered Saul/Paul an apostate. He even has to be rescued by the Roman authorities from them because they wanted to stone him... and that pretty much tells you how well his version fits with the version of those who knew Jesus in person.

Essentially, Saul nips Christianity in the bud by creating enough following for his own BS that the Ebionites would run into a massive conflict with later. He only doesn't foresee how successful his fiction will prove, but we can forgive him for that.

2. Almost the same setup: Saul is, if we believe that interpretation, a Zealot. Nasty fundamentalists and quite the anti-roman group. Saul is born abroad and a Roman citizen, so he probably is viewed with suspicion by a lot of other Zealots, but I'd assume for others he's the cute poster-child for the idea that even someone like that would see things their way. (Sorta how creationists nowadays love a former scientist who saw the light as their poster child.) In true fanboy fashion, he'd probably try to be even more rabid, to prove that he really does belong to their group. It would explain his earlier extreme zealotry.

Now Saul probably joined them earlier, in their militant but still moderate early days. Unfortunately, over time they grow more and more xenophobic. Eventually, rabid YHWH fanboy or not, he'd be the foreigner they all hate. It's sorta like being the black guy in the KKK.

His revelation would come after being rejected by them. And after all he's done for them. He feels betrayed.

In a common rejected-fanboy maneuver, Saul switches allegiances over night to opposing them. (There are no more rabid fanboys against Sony than those who were once rabid fanboys of Sony.) If heresy is what they hate, he'll show them heresy. And it's telling that he pretty much preaches ignoring the teachings of Judaism entirely, or even outright against them. In a complete reversal of the Zealot position, now he actually preaches favourably for the Romans and unfavourably towards the followers of Judaism.

He's not even as much in it for the religion of Jesus, as just against Judaism. If a perversion of Judaism is what it takes to get the "you don't have to follow the Torah any more" message across, so be it. He's just using the Jesus incident as a framework on which to build his anti-Judaism, and soon runs into conflict with the actual followers and disciples of Jesus too.

3. Saul actually has a "revelation" in a sunstroke or maybe after an Ergot-contaminated meal. (Ergot effects are identical to LSD, which is known to occasionally leave people convinced that they had mystical experiences and revelations.)

He doesn't have a clear idea at this point exactly what these Christian guys believe in, so he (subconsciously) mixes his own doubts and ideas with elements of mystery cults and doomsday cults that he was obviously familiar with. (And would be hard not to be.) E.g., the resurrection theme, as well as bread and wine being the body and blood of a god, are for example pretty much _the_ central element of the Osiris-Dionysus mystery cult.

He's probably genuinely convinced that he had a genuine revelation. To the extent that when he finally does learn what the Christians believe, he sticks to his own version.
 
Evidence? You defining "mental delusions" in terms of the DSM IV? I can't see how we can really assess his mental state except from his writings, but it's certainly a worthwille line of investigation, yeah...

cj x

Did he not see and hear delusions on the road to Damascus? Surely, he didn't see or hear the man that was executed years before. Dead people stay dead. Never in the history of this planet has it ever been otherwise.
 
"some may be right, some may be wrong"... With no way of determining which would be which because of all the disagreements in the originals, it is saner to withhold judgement/acceptance on all of it, until something resembling hard evidence can be located.
Billy Ockham would tell you to go for the simplest conclusion, they're all wrong, seeing as to what they are dealing with, the spirit world.
Ironically, Billy would probably have held up the biblical texts as proof: “For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture.”WP
 
Did he not see and hear delusions on the road to Damascus? Surely, he didn't see or hear the man that was executed years before. Dead people stay dead. Never in the history of this planet has it ever been otherwise.

See my original post on "supernatural" events and induction. However on the purported Road to Damascus, and bear in my mind we seem to have problems reconciling this account from Acts with Paul's own account anyway! (ie. The Bible may contradict here.)

However the hallucination hardly qualifies as evidence for Paul's suffering from delusion (after all by definition delusions in the medical sense rarely feature visual hallucinations, but I suspect you are using the term much more loosely?) Maybe epilepsy, that is often suggested, and TLE experiences do appear to create culturally mediated hallucinations, based on my rather limited work on temporal (and to a lesser extent parietal) seizures being interpreted in terms of ghosts (2 cases) and ufo/abduction (1 case)? Admittedly I am no expert - well actually I guess I might be as i get cited on it, simply because i have actually done some field work, but I certainly don't know a lot about it compared to the real authorities - anyway it's a possibility worth looking at.

Hallucinations happen in all kinds of people - my girlfriend happens to be doing her PhD on hallucinations in the healthy, but this book I am planning to review for the JREF sometime soon is pretty good introduction to current state of play in the field - http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/...m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_r=16AMTCDNRJ4YVPSYK6R5

Paul had an odd experience, or so he claimed. Lots of people do. The phenomenological content - no idea.

cj x
 
Last edited:
Ironically, Billy would probably have held up the biblical texts as proof: “For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture.”WP
.
The eye-motes have existed since way back when. :)
 
I happen to be a rare oddity who don't believe Jesus ever existed historically anyway. So for me at least, a non-existent man cannot possibly rise from a death that never happened.

:)
 
That the correct word for Paul's experience is "hallucination" instead of "delusion", is correct, but IMHO it doesn't change the fact that the whole resurrection incident is based on something that was just one malfunction or another in Paul's brain.

Again, the actual guys who knew Jesus, including relatives like James, almost stoned Paul for what he was preaching and he had to be rescued by the Romans as a Roman citizen. We also know in the meantime that that particular sect would bear the name of Ebionites, and that they thought Jesus was _not_ God's son (except in as much as every Jew was) and that he stayed dead. They would be later classified as a heresy.

Exactly what Paul's reason and motivation were, is anyone's guess, and I've speculated about possibilities before. But what remains in any case is that he pretty much made up Christianity as we know it.
 
Is it possible to say how much Paul was aware of things like the Osiris story and other myths, and whether he incorporated them into his story weaving, or did that kind of syncretism only start after the church was more established?

Sorry, that's about three questions in one, but I'm late coming aboard.


:)
 
I happen to be a rare oddity who don't believe Jesus ever existed historically anyway. So for me at least, a non-existent man cannot possibly rise from a death that never happened.

:)


Hi Amb - have a look at Geoff Price's book - Jesus a Very Jewish Myth - I put a link to buy it earlier - while i regard the myther position as contrary to most of the evidence and logic, Geoff and I got on well on the forums and his book is by far the best argument for the nonexistence case i have seen. You may well like it, and find it useful if as you already agree with his central premise - Jesus never existed. (And i like it because i have already formulated my responses, lol!)

cj x
 
It's been noted by contemporary researchers that Paul's "experience" on the road to Damascus was amazingly similar to accounts of temporal-lobe epilepsy. I seem to recall some other references to Paul suffering from this condition.

If Bart Ehrman is correct, the four canonical Gospels were chosen (very much later...) not so much because they were deemed to be "correct" but because they most closely followed the line of theology that the early church had chosen to adopt.
In other words, a political decision.
The dozens (over 100..) of other Gospels were discarded, though Thomas nearly made the cut.
Ehrman points out that none of the Gospels were written by the individuals who they are attributed to, none were written by first-person witnesses, and all are the result of copies of copies of copies (often using sub-par scribes) only written down after years of oral tradition.
He points out many cases where the earliest texts we have contain errors, deletions, additions, and other alterations which often reflect the changing view of the emerging Christian theology.
A religion that evolved along the same lines that all the other "great" religions have evolved.
 
It's been noted by contemporary researchers that Paul's "experience" on the road to Damascus was amazingly similar to accounts of temporal-lobe epilepsy.

A hypnagogic hallucination could also account for Paul's experience.
Does anyone know of any examples of people who have had similar "episodes" which have given them complete changes of direction either philosophically or politically?
 
Well, here's another couple of ideas that don't even need anything supernatural.

Most of the NT we inherited is one way or another via Paul. Plus some later additions, but still in the context of his version. (Even gospels we now inherited as from Matthew or Peter seem to be actually later confabulations.) We also know that he had no problem with making up lies to proselitise, and he actually did it at least once. (2 Corinthians 12:16)

1. This guy called Saul is quite the zealot (and according to some the Zealot) kind of guy, and by his own accounts quite active in hunting down Christians and instigating that they be killed. Unfortunately he doesn't seem too effective, and their numbers slowly grow.

Then one day he gets a (Baldrick-class;)) cunning plan: be even more active in spreading a massively distorted version of their teachings, to the extent of his even directly bad-mouthing the sect of the actual people who knew Jesus (now led by James and calling themselves the Ebionites). And I mean so different that, by what we know now, the Ebionites considered Saul/Paul an apostate. He even has to be rescued by the Roman authorities from them because they wanted to stone him... and that pretty much tells you how well his version fits with the version of those who knew Jesus in person.

Essentially, Saul nips Christianity in the bud by creating enough following for his own BS that the Ebionites would run into a massive conflict with later. He only doesn't foresee how successful his fiction will prove, but we can forgive him for that.

2. Almost the same setup: Saul is, if we believe that interpretation, a Zealot. Nasty fundamentalists and quite the anti-roman group. Saul is born abroad and a Roman citizen, so he probably is viewed with suspicion by a lot of other Zealots, but I'd assume for others he's the cute poster-child for the idea that even someone like that would see things their way. (Sorta how creationists nowadays love a former scientist who saw the light as their poster child.) In true fanboy fashion, he'd probably try to be even more rabid, to prove that he really does belong to their group. It would explain his earlier extreme zealotry.

Now Saul probably joined them earlier, in their militant but still moderate early days. Unfortunately, over time they grow more and more xenophobic. Eventually, rabid YHWH fanboy or not, he'd be the foreigner they all hate. It's sorta like being the black guy in the KKK.

His revelation would come after being rejected by them. And after all he's done for them. He feels betrayed.

In a common rejected-fanboy maneuver, Saul switches allegiances over night to opposing them. (There are no more rabid fanboys against Sony than those who were once rabid fanboys of Sony.) If heresy is what they hate, he'll show them heresy. And it's telling that he pretty much preaches ignoring the teachings of Judaism entirely, or even outright against them. In a complete reversal of the Zealot position, now he actually preaches favourably for the Romans and unfavourably towards the followers of Judaism.

He's not even as much in it for the religion of Jesus, as just against Judaism. If a perversion of Judaism is what it takes to get the "you don't have to follow the Torah any more" message across, so be it. He's just using the Jesus incident as a framework on which to build his anti-Judaism, and soon runs into conflict with the actual followers and disciples of Jesus too.

3. Saul actually has a "revelation" in a sunstroke or maybe after an Ergot-contaminated meal. (Ergot effects are identical to LSD, which is known to occasionally leave people convinced that they had mystical experiences and revelations.)

He doesn't have a clear idea at this point exactly what these Christian guys believe in, so he (subconsciously) mixes his own doubts and ideas with elements of mystery cults and doomsday cults that he was obviously familiar with. (And would be hard not to be.) E.g., the resurrection theme, as well as bread and wine being the body and blood of a god, are for example pretty much _the_ central element of the Osiris-Dionysus mystery cult.

He's probably genuinely convinced that he had a genuine revelation. To the extent that when he finally does learn what the Christians believe, he sticks to his own version.

So short a response:

Bravo! Bravo!
 
Hi Amb - have a look at Geoff Price's book - Jesus a Very Jewish Myth - I put a link to buy it earlier - while i regard the myther position as contrary to most of the evidence and logic, Geoff and I got on well on the forums and his book is by far the best argument for the nonexistence case i have seen. You may well like it, and find it useful if as you already agree with his central premise - Jesus never existed. (And i like it because i have already formulated my responses, lol!)

cj x

Could you post that link again please. Thanks in advance.
 
Does anyone know of any examples of people who have had similar "episodes" which have given them complete changes of direction either philosophically or politically?


For the TLE, this paper is fairly old but outlines several case studies. It apparently does not happen very often, but it is possible. I apologize that the link is a PDF. If this is a problem, I will try to find another one.

http://www.uni-graz.at/~schulter/se04_religiosity.pdf

Regarding hypnagogic experiences, I have seen several mentions of it in conjunction with Paul's experience, but a quick Google only brings up some pretty technical things on the first page. I will try to find a decent, yet legible (;)) reference when I have a little more free time. As a side note, when kurious kathy was asked to explain why she changed from being a "sinful Pagan" to an evangelical Christian, her description of her conversion experience sounded very much like a hypnagogic hallucination. She claims she was shown Hell and that is what convinced her Christianity is true.
 

Back
Top Bottom