Jehanne

Okay, this fact is widely known among secular humanists, but do most "professing" Christians know about it:

http://www.epilepsy.com/epilepsy/famous_religious.html

Follower of Christ

Id say youd have to PROVE it was epilepsy and not an authenic meeting with Christ before most christians would give the thought the time of day

Jehanne

that I had sex with the Virgin Mary (of course, she would no longer be a virgin :devil3: ), would you "believe" me? The fact is that the description of Saint Paul's experience conicides with the clinical description of frontal lobe epilepsy. Given that the rate of epilepsy across “time and space�? is between 0.5 and 1.5% of the population, which is more likely:

1) Saint Paul had an epileptic neurological disorder and his "visions" were a product of his own brain.

2) Jesus really did rise from the dead and met Paul.

3) Elvis traveled back in time and met with Paul, claiming to be "The King" but Paul misunderstood him.

4) Aliens who later landed at Roswell encountered Paul and created the "Christian myth" to disguise their true identity.

5) We are all in some alien "Star Trek" episode, which means that none of this is real!

funinspace

I think the real point of contention here would be your use of the word "fact". From the link:

"Paul is thought by some physicians" and "According to Dr. Jerome Engel, a number of men and women who have attained religious prominence may have done so in spite of, or perhaps due to, their epileptic" are both opinions, not facts.

I agree that this is a real possibility, but "fact" is an awfly strong word that many of the non-theists around here tear into the xians for mixing up with "probable" or "opinion".

Jehanne

that those physicians can no longer do a EEG, CAT, MRI and/or PET scan on Paul's brain to see if he really had epilepsy or not (and, in many cases, a person could have epilepsy and still have a "negative result" for all those tests, in which case the epilepsy would be idiopathic but still diagnosable.) Just because Paul's condition will remain forever undiagnosed does not change the fact that he had epilepsy, because that is the best medical explanation that modern science has for his behavior, unless Christians are prepared to admit that Paul was a "drug user".

Biff the unclean

Except the meeting with Jesus is a scene lifted from a play about the god Dionysus, plot/dialogue and all, that was over 400 years old when Acts was written.
This isn't a case of epilepsy, it's a case of plagiarism.

Toto

The passage that describes Saul's experience which resembles epilepsy is only in the book of Acts, and there are three conflicting versions of the story there. (And that was before Saul became Paul.) The book of Acts is not reliable history. There is nothing in Paul's letters that confirms this story.

He might have been. In ancient times, epilepsy was considered a sort of divine madness, so if he were epileptic, it might have enhanced his credibility. But we don't know.

Burzum

"Heliga Birgitta" or "Holy Birgitta" , a well known Swedish saint had epilepsy and probably also a brain tumor.

funinspace

Again the article you cited also didn't claim it as fact, just you. Again your own words alude to it not being a fact "the best medical explanation". That's my only point. I agree it's a fact that Paul/Saul existed, as much as we can presume anything in ancient history. It's a fact that he supported Christianity. It's probable he was a epileptic. It's plausable he was a closet homosexual. It's possible he was a total fraud. Probably, plausable, probably, and facts are all very different words for a good reason.

Aravnah Ornan

Let's apply that reasoning to the example of Muhammad. I'd say you'd have to prove that it was epilepsy and not an authentic meeting with the Archangel Gabriel.