Steven Carr

2 Corinthians 12

Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 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. And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell.

Why should we ever trust the witness of a man who claims to have gone to the third Heaven, where he was told things that a mortal is not allowed to repeat?

Such a man would be called a lunatic nowadays.

How can we know that Paul did not have a vision of Jesus appearing to 500 people and so knew that Jesus really had appeared to 500 real people?

Malachi151

Thanks for pointing this out. Even more interestingly, if Paul was writing around 45-50 CE, and this guy supposedly got his info from heaven 14 years earlier, that puts this guy's "journey to heaven" at around 31-36 CE, so I would have to ask, why is the primary source of info a journey to heaven at a time when Jesus is supposedly on earth or shortly thereafter?

Sounds like another points against the Jesus Myth to me !

Toto

It has been argued on these boards before that the 500 are a later interpolation (possibly by Eusebius or someone who thought like him), and that Paul's letters in any case cannot be dated to any particular year before about 140 CE.

If you take the passage at face value, Paul (or his interpolator) is offering up the 500 as witnesses, some of whom are still around.

andrewcriddle

On the usual dating (which I agree is by no means rock solid) Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians about his journey to heaven c 53-56 CE which would put the vision c 40 CE Some years after Pilate lost his job as governor of Judaea.

Andrew Criddle

Malachi151

Still, that is only about 5-8 years after "Jesus" supposedly died. Seems quite odd.

Gamera

Demosthenes would be called a lunatic today too. So would Newton, who was deeply into spiritualism. Plato had the crazy idea that there was this ideal realm (which somehow he discerned and we can't) which determines the phenomenal world Crazy.

So I suspect by your standard most authors prior to the early modern period would be considered nuts.

I guess to answer your question, we don't evaluate the beliefs of people in the past (everybody held whacky ideas in the past), but these men's demeanors. Demosthenes seems rational to me, by all accounts. He was simply making a point. Plato was a clear thinking man, apparently. And Paul, we have his writings -- does he seem like a lunatic to you. Seems very focused and insightful to me.

Malachi151

Plato never claimed to have gone to heaven, he only conjectured about it, obviously influenced by mythology, and I don't consider Plato a good philosopher anyway, he was the main anti-materialist.

Gamera

The issue is do you consider him insane for positing this nonphysical realm as an "explanation" of the phenonmenal world. Sounds crazy by modern standards. But Plato doesn't strike me as nuts, just a serious, creative, questioning thinker dealing with fundamental issues as best he can. I get the same impression about Paul. His writings don't appear to be that of a madman.

Malachi151

I disagree. Speculation is one thing, claiming that you have had a vision of Jesus, or that you physically went to heaven are whole other issues.

Gamera

Are you really saying Plato was speculating? He seemed pretty convinced to me. Basically Plato believed that he had access to knowledge of the ideals behind the phenonmena through the power of discursive reason. A bizarre claim in retrospect. But there it is. He claims that he has acquired that knowledge, but you haven't, but if you agree to follow him, he'll show you, by means of discursive reason. He really shows no doubt about any of this. Indeed, he insists he's right and all his interlocutors are wrong. That's not speculation.

How exactly is that different from Paul having a vision?