dog-on

Your definition of flesh.

gurugeorge

Yeah I would distinguish generally mystical experience strictly so-called, from visionary experience (just as a rough distinction - they do blend and bleed into each other a bit sometimes). The first is more like a cognitive insight, the latter is more like a byproduct of the way the brain models itself and the world.

Although I'm absolutely fascinated by the textual discussions that go on here at BC&H (as I note you are too ), my feeling is that to really understand how all those ancient scribblings and religious cults came to be, you can't just get the whole truth from textual investigation on its own, ultimately it will have to be a multidisciplinary approach involving several sciences.

Consider, for example, the work of the philosopher Thomas Metzinger, which is relevant to both mysticism and visionary experiences. He's done a lot of investigation of the brain's self-model, thing like the "rubber hand illusion", OOBEs, stuff like that. One of his more speculative ideas, resulting from all this investigation, is that the very concept of the "soul" itself arises from ancient peoples' OOBEs.

I think something like this is correct. If people didn't have these kinds of experiences, there would be no religion (in the sense of using entities unperceived by the normal senses as explanations for what is perceived), for in the absence of such experiences, a rational mind just does not come up with religious explanations, and it's just too much of a stretch to say that all religious people have been irrational.

The interesting thing about "Paul" is that he's quite plainly a person who has had such experiences. Even if there were a human Jesus, he's almost totally unimportant in relation to "Paul", because it's a thoroughly-tweaked version of "Paul"'s Christianity that came to dominate half the world.

It's the same story everywhere - Mohammed, the Hebrew Prophets, Celestial Masters Daoism (almost literally developed from an old, rich lady's seances), the "New Age" generally, you have the same pattern: person seems to themselves to be in communication with a non-physical entity that talks to them and gives them a "message" to give to the world. That's it, that's basically religion. All the rest - religion as "social glue", religion as socio-political phenomenon, religion as proto-philosophy, etc., etc., - comes later as a reaction to those mystical or visionary events, which often make the founders charismatic, because convinced of the reality of their own visions.

Woops, got carried away there - yes, in relation to your first point, there does seem to be something happening before "Paul", but it's not really clear what it is. It could be a school of mystics like "Paul" who had a similar type of experience before him, partly based on their own visionary experience, partly based on scripture-bothering (that's what I think); it could just be ordinary (i.e. non-"Christian") Messianists before "Paul" (which is what spin thinks) that he's talking about; or it could be, as the received story has it, that there indeed was a human Jesus who kicked it off (perhaps a political agitator who somehow got transmogrified into a saviour figure). I just think this last is the most unlikely.

aa5874

No Scientist can investigate a matter WITHOUT credible data.

"Paul" did NOT ever claim he started any religion so I don't how you can claim there would be NO religion without "these kinds of experiences".

The authors of the Gospels did NOT make any claim of "SEEING" things in VISIONS but CLEARLY used HEBREW SCRIPTURE, the SEPTUAGINT or some similar source to Create their Jesus story.

In the NT, Jesus Christ was the WORD of God.

Jesus Christ was DERIVED from the WRITTEN WORDS not from Pauline Visions based on the Gospels and "Paul" was "converted AFTER there were people in Christ.


You have NOT yet established when "Paul" actually LIVED and wrote so cannot even begin to assert "Paul" had "such experiences".

Even the very Church claimed that there was a tradition that "Paul" was AWARE of gLuke, a gospel that was written for the Gentiles.

archibald

Yes. As an atheist, my only option is to blame the brain. :]

I read quite a bit about this sort of thing at Ratskep. There are all sorts of neurological explanations, and as you say, one doesn't have to be in the least 'insane' (whatever that is) to be subject to them, though one might be tempted to rephrase a famous workplace motto and say, tongue in cheek, 'you don't have to be mad to be a religious fanatic, but it helps'. :]

The most interesting material I watched was a video of a lecture in which the lecturer suggested that religious experience was a by-product of another evolved trait, which had survival value for other, more practical reasons. It's not even exclusively a human trait. It comes under the broad heading of, 'The Intentional Stance'. You may already be familiar, I imagine. Has to do with 'detecting agency' in one's surroundings, a tendency which ends up detecting it when it's not there. And the tendency is stronger in some of us than in others. :]

[/detour]

I honestly scratch my head and wonder how you can do that (think it the most unlikely).

But there is no need for us to fall out about it. :]

Oh. I almost forgot to mention. In case anyone is interested, I happen to have an original copy of all Paul's letters, signed by him. There are even some crude drawings. There is a group sketch of him and some other men, all wearing hair shirts with 'apostles rock' scrawled on. Some if the others are upskirt images of Mary Magdalene. Oops. Time for my medication.

gurugeorge

Yes, that definitely has something to do with it (Dan Dennett's book on religion goes into it in a big way), but I think there's more going on, it's not just a vague sense of "somebody there", but rather it's more like a full-blown hallucination as a result of - again - a natural function of the brain being accidentally gerrymandered to a different role, in this case (perhaps) the function of the brain that models the self-in-the-world, becoming un-tethered from reality-testing in borderline states of consciousness.

It's most unlikely because we actually have the word of "Paul" that his case is visionary - you'd need more evidence than we have, plus the importing of later texts' purport back to earlier texts', to get a human Jesus out of that picture. Yeah, it's possible, but there's simply so little evidence for it as a hypothesis - certainly no external evidence, and precious little that could look like internal evidence even if you were hallucinating (Remember, we need more than mentions of earthly/fleshly things, we need that causal chain.)

The man himself says "For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." Why look any further? That's the Christ he's talking about, his Christ, the Christ he saw in visions and believes in because he saw Him, and because He spoke to him, giving him a message of some sort. A spiritual entity who "Paul" believed had once sojourned on Earth in fleshly form.

(And yes, this could fit with a human Jesus. He could be hallucinating a spiritualized version of someone who had been on earth, and he just doesn't care about what the person did while he was on Earth - although he does care about the crucifixion bit - but again, you need your independent confirmation of a human Jesus for that to be a rational interpretation of the passage; till then it's just a free-floating hypothesis compared to the big positive fact of visionary experience right before our eyes.)

Plus, there's a good rationale for the later (post-Diaspora) focussing-in of this particular myth to a certain time and place, with more and more confabulation of concrete detail.

GakuseiDon

Why?

gurugeorge

Paul's visions were not based on the gospels, that is correct.

Paul's visions took their departure, to some extent, from the Septuagint, that is correct.

The gospels are later, post-Diaspora items with a lot of scripture-bothering, that is correct.

But Paul being converted after there were people in Christ is also part of that later story (Acts, and interpolations in the letters.)

You cannot start a religion with a bunch of fey intellectuals juggling writings - ordinary people would see through that instantly.

You start a religion with a person who's utterly convinced of the reality of what they've seen and heard, and who has tremendous charisma because of that. It's that charisma, that conviction, that convinces the humble farmer to leave his crops and follow the strange person; or the middle class dilettante to spend money on travelling to hear his preaching.

And, incidentally, you aren't one to talk about "credible sources", as you have no idea what's credible and what's not, since you haven't got the languages. When it comes to what's credible and what's not, I'll listen to spin and Toto and Stephan Heuller, and even Roger Pearse and Andrew Criddle and people like that, not you.

Until then, if you are basing your interpretation on English translations like the rest of us amateurs here, you have no authority to speak about "credible sources".

dog-on

Because early Christians obviously believed that flesh could fly, (the ascension) . That being the case, I think you might be missing something in your analysis.

GakuseiDon

Okay.

archibald

But...but....

Why stop at what he says about the vision? Sure, it's a vision, but who is it a vision of? Someone that no one else had been following, who hadn't died before appearing as a ghost to him? If you are willing to take your lead from the texts, why stop there? Why not consider that Paul says he persecuted the prior followers, then joined their cult? What to do with my list of items (a) to (f) etc?

The pattern is there in almost every epistle. Start with an impartial reading of the first three verses of Romans for example. The 'prophesies' are fulfilled. (What prophecies? Did the prophecies not say someone would come to earth?). Resurrection of the dead. What dead? Us? What bloomin' use to us farties is a mythical ghost being raised from one upper level to another upper level? In order to see it as relevant, we need someone who demonstrated the principle that we could die and rise.

You are holding out for this 'causal chain', and I'm not sure it's even necessary, and only gets back to what you/we think Paul 'should' have included. I think Gakuseidon has covered this with examples of other texts which don't do bio either. And as I keep saying, there's damn all bio, period, including mythical narrative.

By the way, I think the idea that the previous followers were also basing everything off similar visions adds complication, as compared to the alternative. One guy having a mystical experience is one thing, but a whole bunch having corresponding ones? Sure, it's possible. But it's totally speculative. And has left no evidence. Where's the mystical cult? And there's the switch to 'earthly' only decades later, as far as we can tell. All sounds like a pretty rare set of explanations.

Some crummy prophet attracts followers (followers do tend to follow actual prophets). Prophet dies (not uncommon). Followers linger on (happens all the time in cults). Some guy has a vision of a dead guy's ghost (happens all the time).

Incidentally, I'm not totally convinced the others saw a similar vision before Paul. I'm developing an open mind on that one. :]

Sure. He got stuff from a vision. But the reasons for not stopping there are numerous. And they're in the remainder of the texts. There's plenty enough to suggest he didn't 'start the religion with his vision'. He says so.

Now, I grant you, we may not be reading the original words of Paul, and then we move to the rewrite scenario. But that's a different issue.

Pesonally, I would consider this the best alternative option. Reading the texts as they are, it's clear he's conceptually referring to someone who was once earthly before he died and Paul saw his ghost, detailed bio or no detailed bio.