What Happens When You See Jesus?

There is a population of people in all cultures throughout history who hear voices that aren't there and see things that don't exist to other people. Modern American society labels these beliefs the product of a mental illness and it is given several different names. Most patients with severe, persisting delusions are schizophrenic, a disorder that can be treated with medication, but at the moment is incurable. One of the most common types of delusions seen in schizophrenics is that of religious figures appearing to them or speaking to them.

A study done in 2002 in the UK compared patients who had religious delusions with those who did not have religious themes as part of their delusion. I'll get to the findings in a bit but first, a bit about schizophrenic delusions.

Patients with schizophrenia can be very convincing. Most people who work with the mentally ill have at one time or another had a twinge of concern that perhaps the person they were evaluating might really be being persecuted. They have extremely good logical skills and can generally answer any objection to their overarching theory with a detailed explanation of why they are correct.

For example, some people imagine that celebrities are secretly in love with them. Some people imagine that various government agencies have listening devices located in unusual places and are closely monitoring their activities. Some people believe that the people around them are being replaced with impostors. Still others believer that angels and devils appear to them. Some even have Jesus or the angel Gabriel appear to them.

Now I want to be clear here. If someone you know is seeing Jesus appear to them, please get them to see a mental health professional as soon as possible. There is almost no chance Jesus is actually appearing to them, regardless of what they tell you, and there is a very high chance they are severely mentally ill and in need of medication and therapy.

What's worse, in the study done in the UK, the patients with religious delusions had much worse overall pathology and were harder to treat.

Now -- the hard part for me to understand is this. From my point of view, the present is the key to the past. It is likely that processes that are going on now on earth are the same ones as have taken place for the bulk of our history as a species, especially as it concerns mental functioning.

So if someone today has Jesus appear to him, we don't listen to what he says Jesus told him. We get him to a psychiatrist and medicate him. Rarely, we don't, and the results are usually quite predictable.

So it is odd, given the facts that we have today, that Christians find the appearances of Jesus to Paul to be evidence of God acting in history, yet they don't find the same analogous actions occurring today to be the same phenomenon. Surely Christians believe that Jesus, being omnipotent, could appear should he choose to. In fact, most believe he will appear at some time in the near future.

So I ask again to all my Christian friends:

Let me know what you would think if three of your friends came to tell you about one of them having an appearance from Jesus, and two of them seeing a light and hearing a voice. Assume Jesus instructed your friend he appeared to that all Christians should run daily marathons and become vegans.

Is this something you would consider authoritative? If not, why not, and by what method do you differentiate between ancient appearances, for which we only have textual evidence and modern appearances, for which we have live witnesses whom we can interrogate to determine the veracity of their claim?

54 comments:

ahswan said...

"Christians find the appearances of Jesus to Paul to be evidence of God acting in history, yet they don't find the same analogous actions occurring today to be the same phenomenon."

Upon what are you basing this statement? Are you assuming that since some people with mental illness have religious delusions, any vision of Jesus would therefore be such a delusion? This is simply bad logic.

(Now, in your example about Jesus instructing people to become vegans, I would probably agree with you, since it makes no sense and would seem to contradict what Jesus told Peter in Acts 10. )

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Hi Evan,

I see you have moved on. I guess my last postings were not up to scratch. I will endeavor to try harder.

I have just three comments.

(1) Clearly we disagree about Paul having this initial "Vision." Lets look at Acts 9.


3 Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him.

I don't see a vision of Jesus here, just a flashing light.

4 And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?"

Paul, Hears a voice. Does not see anything.

5 And he said, "Who are you, Lord?" And he said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.

Paul's question infers lack of sight here.

6 But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do."

7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.

The other people, did not see anyone either, but heard a voice emphasizing as I read it that there was no vision here.

8 Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus.

Paul is now Blind, Initially perhaps from the flashing light not a vision.

9 And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

So I do not read it from this that he had a vision of Jesus at all.

Furthermore, from previous comments your response to this was to quote that "flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom of God." From 1 Cor 15? Correct?

This I maintain is a miss reading of 1 Corinthians 15. If I'm correct then I'll try and explain later.

(2) The logic of your post seems to indicate that Visions on there own are an indication of cerebral delusion or psychological disease or a mental health issue? This is because we cannot deny the vast amount of social/psychological/mental/emotional benefits issuing from Christian faith. Seligman's "Authentic Happiness" is an example of this but there are many others. So clearly it is the vision aspect that is the issue here not the Jesus factor, something I'm not convinced Paul had on a tight reading of Acts and 1 Corinthians 15?

Looks like your debunking Visions not evangelical Christianity?

(3) When you say Vision, I find myself confused as to precisely what you mean?

Are dreams considered "Visions?"

Can thoughts be considered "Visions?"

Are sudden affections and emotions directed at something non-material, "Visions?"

Either way I am confused as to what you mean?

Regards Rev. Phil.

N T Wrong said...

But could a mass hallucination be possible? Or, rather, could a mass visionary experience be written about in an ancient history or biography? We were discussing this at my Biblical Studies Blog, here.

ahswan said...

NT.. Mass hallucination of what? of a single event, or of the entire revelation of God throughout history? I supposed it's of course as possible as "The Matrix" option.

However, even an analysis of a single event, such as the resurrection of Jesus (which of course still involves many separate revelatory events) is very difficult to sell as mass hallucination.

Philip R Kreyche said...

I think the mass hallucination theorists are giving early Christian writers too much credit.

It's quite possible that there were several personal visions, that with time, tradition and propoganda became grouped together as a single event.

According to Paul, Jesus "appeared to the five hundred." Note that nowhere (to my knowledge) does Paul say that Jesus appeared to them all at the same time.

N T Wrong said...

Hi AHSwan.

One of the most plausible explanations of the resurrection accounts is that they developed from individual visions, to reports of visions being seen by entire groups of people. There are a number of comparative examples where this has occurred in ancient historiography and biography. See here for examples.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Hi Guys,

The problem with mass hallucination is that external evidence supports the claim that it was not a hallucination. This is a long bow to draw.

Jason said...

I'm interested in knowing what Jesus told Paul to tell believers to do that's equivalent to Jesus telling someone today to tell believers to run marathons and become vegans.

Anonymous said...

Hi Evan,
great piece of work.
The "all in the mind" podcast has an episode detailing religious visions caused by a temporal lobe epilepsy. Not only visions but "feelings". And they have many dealing with schizophrenia. Schizophrenia runs in families in various degrees and is a very (relatively common) genetic mutation. It seems that inheritence cannot account for its prevalence.

about the comments,
It seems that Rev is talking about differences without distinctions. Nit-picking the details and ignoring the point.
"Looks like your debunking Visions not evangelical Christianity?"
How can someone not understand that one follows from the other? Not only that, christians are not the only ones that get visions. Visions happen accross categories.

and it looks like some other reviewers and not considering the "self-fulfilling" prophecy of religious visions, whereas the person has an experience and they already have a "heuristic" in the a "religious" explanation to handle it with.

It is recognized by experts that humans are pattern processors and when given ambiguous information will create a story to explain it. Its how it gets stored in memory. there is a strong relationship to story telling and memory. Think about the mnemonics.

and some of your commenters are not considering the "rumor mill" and "telephone game" which are established phenomena which have some bearing here in terms of propagation of information.

sorry I can't be more specific and argumentative but I'm trying to publish my next article before the end of the month.

N T Wrong said...

Rev Phillip,

Your comment, "external evidence supports the claim that it was not a hallucination", was rather too broad. Did you simply mean all the evidence, without any qualifications? Or did you have some particular evidence in mind? I know of plenty of 'external evidence' that supports interpreting the resurrection accounts as deriving from visions. Visions were a common occurrence for early Christian writers.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Hi Guys,

Hey Lee,

Looks like we are at it again.

@ Lee,

You said...

It seems that Rev is talking about differences without distinctions. Nit-picking the details and ignoring the point.
"Looks like your debunking Visions not evangelical Christianity?"
How can someone not understand that one follows from the other? Not only that, christians are not the only ones that get visions. Visions happen accross categories.

Your defamation is interesting but I think it stops at that. However what do you mean Lee?

(1) Believing in Jesus means having a Vision?

(2) Having a Vision means believing in Jesus?

(3) Neither

(4) You last point is mine exactly. Thank you for agreeing with me.

By the way my blog still eagerly awaits your response to your challenging question. Do you think you are ignoring my point to your question?

Here is the address in case you have forgotten! I'm sure you can find the time since your are on your friends comment stream?

https://christianityversusatheism.blogspot.com

You said...

and it looks like some other reviewers and not considering the "self-fulfilling" prophecy of religious visions, whereas the person has an experience and they already have a "heuristic" in the a "religious" explanation to handle it with.

It is recognized by experts that humans are pattern processors and when given ambiguous information will create a story to explain it. Its how it gets stored in memory. there is a strong relationship to story telling and memory. Think about the mnemonics.

I like this Lee but this just proves the Christian point. This blog is aimed at taking apart a biblical account of the resurrection. Or as you put it ambiguous information. Therefore why is the atheist position better pattern story than the Christians?

@ N.T. Wrong

You said...

Rev Phillip,

Your comment, "external evidence supports the claim that it was not a hallucination", was rather too broad. Did you simply mean all the evidence, without any qualifications? Or did you have some particular evidence in mind? I know of plenty of 'external evidence' that supports interpreting the resurrection accounts as deriving from visions. Visions were a common occurrence for early Christian writers.

Sure.

(1) The Empty Tomb?

(2) Historical deterrents against Christianity affirm an empty tomb.

(3) Women testified for the resurrection.

(4) The resurrection was believed from the very beginning of Christianity.

(5) Historical Scholars still today take the resurrection very seriously, University of Oxford's recent published biography on works credited to the resurrection is a prime example.

By the way I saw your link and have one question. Why do you not consider the gospels in your Blog?

You say?

So arguably, therefore, the development of Christian traditions about Christ’s resurrection and exaltation are most explicable as developing from the imaginative visionary ascent practices of Christians who wrote about Christ’s own ascent.

Yet you don't not consider the Gospels the prime evidence? Or any of the reasons quoted above?

Regards, Rev. Phil.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

@ N T Wrong

Sorry but I have had a greater look at your blog and you do attempt to answer some of these questions. I would love to dialogue with you. I cannot seem to post a comment on your blog though.

Can you do it on mine?

http://christianityverswusatheism.blogspot.com?

P.S. sorry for the s in the last address. :)

Rev. Phil.

Anonymous said...

Hi Rev,
(4) You last point is mine exactly. Thank you for agreeing with me.
thanks for admitting I'm right.
;-)

Do you think you are ignoring my point to your question?
No, I answered it, you just didn't like it and started nit-picking the details and ingnoring the inference from data that hindus believe that history supports their religion as well as christians. The point you seem to be choosing to argue is that I mucked up how lord rama fits into hiduism. fine, I'll stipulate the point for argument sake hows that, now how does that refute my claim? It doesn't it.

Therefore why is the atheist position better pattern story than the Christians?
well, heres a reason that comes to mind, MY BRAND NEW PLAUSIBILITY SCALE! YIPEE!

This blog is aimed at taking apart a biblical account of the resurrection. Or as you put it ambiguous information. Therefore why is the atheist position better pattern story than the Christians?
1. are there witnesses?
yes

2. a claim has a verifiable precedent?
no

2. a claim has support of physical evidence?
no

2. is it a claim that can be reproduced?
not yet, still waiting

I give it a plausibility ranking of 1

now, lets try the next step of that algorithm that I have in development and see how it works.
does anything in the story map to any real world events? if yes, what are they?
- literature
- folklore
- The "all in the mind" podcast has an episode detailing religious visions caused by a temporal lobe epilepsy. Not only visions but "feelings". And they have many dealing with schizophrenia. Schizophrenia runs in families in various degrees and is a very (relatively common) genetic mutation. It seems that inheritence cannot account for its prevalence.
- "Looks like your debunking Visions not evangelical Christianity?"
How can someone not understand that one follows from the other? Not only that, christians are not the only ones that get visions. Visions happen accross categories.
- and it looks like some other reviewers and not considering the "self-fulfilling" prophecy of religious visions, whereas the person has an experience and they already have a "heuristic" in the a "religious" explanation to handle it
- It is recognized by experts that humans are pattern processors and when given ambiguous information will create a story to explain it. Its how it gets stored in memory. there is a strong relationship to story telling and memory. Think about the mnemonics.
- and some of your commenters are not considering the "rumor mill" and "telephone game" which are established phenomena which have some bearing here in terms of propagation of information.


so now lets try the plausibility claim that the visions are something else
1. are there witnesses?
yes

2. a claim has a verifiable precedent?
- literature
- folklore
- The "all in the mind" podcast has an episode detailing religious visions caused by a temporal lobe epilepsy. Not only visions but "feelings". And they have many dealing with schizophrenia. Schizophrenia runs in families in various degrees and is a very (relatively common) genetic mutation. It seems that inheritence cannot account for its prevalence.
- "Looks like your debunking Visions not evangelical Christianity?"
How can someone not understand that one follows from the other? Not only that, christians are not the only ones that get visions. Visions happen accross categories.
- and it looks like some other reviewers and not considering the "self-fulfilling" prophecy of religious visions, whereas the person has an experience and they already have a "heuristic" in the a "religious" explanation to handle it
- It is recognized by experts that humans are pattern processors and when given ambiguous information will create a story to explain it. Its how it gets stored in memory. there is a strong relationship to story telling and memory. Think about the mnemonics.
- and some of your commenters are not considering the "rumor mill" and "telephone game" which are established phenomena which have some bearing here in terms of propagation of information.

2. a claim has support of physical evidence?
yes all the precedents can be verified with physical evidence

2. is it a claim that can be reproduced?
yes, all the evidence can be reproduced.

I give the hypothesis that it is something else a plausibility ranking of 7

put that in your payote pipe and smoke it.
;-)

mdf1960 said...

Why do we assume that people who claim to see Jesus are hallucinating? Has anyone considered that they may just be lying?

Also, exactly how would a person know if he had seen Jesus as his portrait was never painted in life?

In addition, a mind cannot be ill, except in a metaphorical sense. Some people may have hallucinations because of drugs or a brain disorder, but they should either be getting off the dope or be seeing a neurologist. Psychiatry is pure nonsense as a medical science.

mdf1960 said...

Question to atheists: Are all theists mentally ill? Why or why not?

Anonymous said...

Hi mdf,
Has anyone considered that they may just be lying?
lets add that to the list of real world precedents!

Anonymous said...

mdf,
Are all theists mentally ill? Why or why not?
not all atheists are QUALIFIED to answer that question.

but from a sheer logic perspective, probably not.
;-)

Logosfera said...

If you DON'T dismiss all visions as halucinations you CAN'T dismiss any of them. The naturalistic approach to life entitles you to dismiss ALL visions while the supenatural approach forces you to allow everyone believe in their delusions. Once you submitted to the supernatural you don't have the MORAL RIGHT to say to a suicidal terorist that his vision is an illusion. You have the right to believe in your mind that he's deluded but not publically say it.

lee said...

This is just a thought, far more people have seen UFO's and bigfoot than have seen Jesus, and we can know who these people are and interview them.

Unknown said...

(off topic - but related and interesting)

Neuroscientists Identify Brain Regions Responsible for Warding off Negative Emotion: (PhysOrg.com) -- A team of cognitive neuroscientists from Columbia University has identified the brain pathways responsible for the body's emotional defense against gruesome and other aversive forms of imagery. The study, published today in the journal Neuron, could lead to better understanding of psychological diseases, improve behavioral therapies and spawn new federal policies for hospitals and treatment centers.

"The study showed that negative emotions are regulated through two distinct neurological pathways. The first pathway connects the prefrontal cortex, the brain's emotional command center, to the nucleus accumbens, a region linked primarily to positive emotion; the second connects it to the amygdala, which is linked primarily to negative emotion.

Thirty healthy subjects were recruited into the study, conducted inside an MRI lab at Columbia's Neurological Institute of New York. Participants' brains were monitored while they wore video goggles showing a series of 48 aversive photographs, such as a mutilated human hand and a malnourished child. Participants viewed each image for eight seconds.

Moments before viewing half of the photographs, participants were instructed by a researcher to use cognitive "reinterpretation" techniques that protect the body from adverse visceral reaction. Each subject practiced these techniques during a training session beforehand. If a subject viewed an image of a sick man in a hospital bed, for example, he could prevent a negative reaction by telling himself the bedridden man wasn't sick, but resting. After viewing each photograph, subjects evaluated the intensity of their emotions.

Researchers found that subjects most successful in warding off negative emotions activated the nucleus accumbens and amygdala regions of the brain more than unsuccessful subjects. They hypothesize that the nucleus accumbens is used to suppress the negative emotional response generated by the amygdala. "

Brain regions that regulate emotional responses generate the feelings experienced by delusional persons and used to justify religious prescriptive rules are responsible for religious phenomena like that described by Paul.

JenniferAnchor said...

If you take a look at http://www.freewebs.com/worldbusybody/ you will see why I stopped calling myself an Atheist and started calling myself a Nigelist. I have not seen anything, but after emailing with the author I cam convinced that there are people who experience things that cannot be proven by the usual means and have to rely on indirect methods. My Grandfather told me of his grandfather who defended the flat earthers and the earth-centrists. He said my great-great-grandfather thought those people were wrong, but they could look out their window and see that the earth was flat. And any fool could see that the sun goes around the earth. They cited the fact that if the earth moved, the equator would be ogoing at 1,000 miles an hour--which would fling them off into space. So they needed defending even if wrong--because it did no harm. The same with religion. Sure, religion is responsible for wars and stuff, but just think how many more wars and stuff would happen if you could suddenly snuff religion out of existance. You have to think about that for a minute, or maybe a week. So I have found something that I can comfortably call my "belief" and I don't need defending, but it would be nice anyway.
Cheers,
Jenny
http://onethousandmodels.com/members/jenniferanchor.html

ahswan said...

Interesting as the discussion has been, I still think Evan's initial argument is based on faulty logic. Also, it simply can't be tested. And, I'm willing to bet that if you tried to examine everyone who has claimed to have a religious vision, you'd find your theory falls apart. Not that you could prove or disprove that it happened; but, I doubt you'd find a high % of mental illness.

You might just want to consider that the Resurrection happened. That is the explanation that makes the most sense. You might also want to consider that some visions (not all) are real.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Hey Lee,

Ha Ha, Good fun.

I do have a pipe. Sounds like a good idea.

You said...

The point you seem to be choosing to argue is that I mucked up how lord rama fits into hiduism. fine, [sic] I'll stipulate the point for argument sake hows that, now how does that refute my claim? It doesn't it. [sic]

Well actually it does. If you are wrong about Lord Rama then you have not presented any concrete evidence for your hypothesis. A very un-scientific thing to do?

You said..

1. are there witnesses?
yes

I agree

2. a claim has a verifiable precedent?
no

Not sure what you mean? What about the presents of many many Christians believing in the resurrection? That's surely a precedent?

2. a claim has support of physical evidence?
no

Are we talking about the "Vision" or the "resurrection?"

If vision then others were with Paul?

If Resurrection the then (1) the empty tomb? That was not a vision. Concrete physical evidence attested by Christians and Pagans alike?

2. is it a claim that can be reproduced?
not yet, still waiting

Sure but this does not mean the evidence is inaccessible? Just like black holes... We cannot even observe them yet belief in them is quite universal. Therefore I find this scale need perhaps more work.

Regards, Rev Phil.

@ ahswan.

Spot on! A digression into visions by Christians in unhelpful. Just as is visions on the whole. What I still find interesting is where this vision idea came from. Surely not Acts 9????

I still think this is a debunking visions not Christianity?

R.P.

akakiwibear said...

Evan, it is hard not to agree with ahswan that your conclusion that Paul’s D Rd experience is attributable to mental illness has no foundation – you don’t even demonstrate a vague logical link. Oops no wait you do … some schizophrenics have religious experiences therefore all religious experiences are related to mental illness. It is simply a non sequitur, at best an argument by generalisation.

Do you explain the shared experience of those travelling with him – or is ‘shared single event schizophrenia’ a new diagnosis you propose based on sound case records?

Do you demonstrate a medical linkage to Ananias’ related experience (because by your reasoning he must also have been a schizophrenic)?

But hey … I should be generous, you have after all explained, at least to yourself, why the D rd experience should be dismissed.

Sala kahle - peace

Anonymous said...

Well actually it does. If you are wrong about Lord Rama then you have not presented any concrete evidence for your hypothesis. A very un-scientific thing to do?
see, there you go again ignoring the fact that a court case was brought about to stop the destruction of the bridge that lord ramas army of monkeys built connecting those two land masses. Lord rama is part of hindu religion, the religion supports the claim that he and his monkeys built the bridge, it was a real event in "time and space" as you say, and your equivocation of calling it "social" reasons is not going to change it. It is just simply special pleading and denial on your part.

Not sure what you mean? What about the presents of many many Christians believing in the resurrection? That's surely a precedent?
The ony precedents that appear for any kind of dying and rising god are mythical. surely you must agree to that.
Anecdotal evidence does not carry as much weight as physical evidence. How do you distinguish the accounts from literature and folklore?

Are we talking about the "Vision" or the "resurrection?"
both, others were with paul but acts 9:7 and acts 22:9 are not consistent on what they observed. That doesn't map consistently to real world events, in Information quality terms thats called Garbeling and an indicator of a poor quality information sources. Thanks for the exmaple, I think I'll use it in my next article. another problem is that the author is unknown and not current. Like it or not, that is a serious hit when it comes to information quality.

the other instances of "evidence" (empty tomb and such) are anecdotal carrying relaitively little weight and "garbled" (inconsistent) and the authors are unknown and are not current. Poor quality.

Just like black holes... We cannot even observe them yet belief in them is quite universal. Therefore I find this scale need perhaps more work.
predictions about them have and can be made, their affects can be seen, lateral evidence supports them, the evidence is current, bad analogy.

Anonymous said...

Hi Kiwi and ahswan,
you are not figuring the facts that
- the authors are unknown,
- not current,
- inconsistent and
- the facts that the "rumor mill" and
- the "telephone game"
which are established phenomena which have some bearing here in terms of propagation of information into the equation.

You need to consider those other five dimensions before you go putting so much "faith" into those stories.

akakiwibear said...

Lee,
It seems you delight in attacking the content of the Bible when it suits you, however when it refutes your arguments you want to see the authors interviewed on prime time TV, complete with certified video of the event. Can’t have your cake and eat it!

As for the facts that the "rumor mill" and - the "telephone game" by your reasoning the recent Olympics are part of a similar conspiracy because the media accounts vary so!!!

The account we the D rd experience is what we have - no camera crew on site. Tough, get over it, or are you one of the denialists that claim Paul never existed because he never autographed your poster?

Sala kahle - peace

N T Wrong said...

Rev Phil,

Anyone can make comments on my blog, so there shouldn't be a problem. If you wish, please add any comments to this post, as it is on the topic of the resurrection vision reports. I couldn't see anything on that topic on your blog.

Anonymous said...

Hi Kiwi,
It seems you delight in attacking the content of the Bible when it suits you, however when it refutes your arguments you want to see the authors interviewed on prime time TV, complete with certified video of the event. Can’t have your cake and eat it!
name an instance of that, and additionally, you've strawmanned me. We know who wrote lots of important documents but we don't know who the authors of some of the most "important" works of western civilization (the bible) were. Thats mighty different than wanting video.

As for the facts that the "rumor mill" and - the "telephone game" by your reasoning the recent Olympics are part of a similar conspiracy because the media accounts vary so!!!
here's a real world example of an olympic conspiracy, the media accounts don't vary so much, and the data is there to investigate He Kexin.

lets test this, if one newswriter says the following
"The men traveling with He Kexin stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone."
and then further on in the article the same writer recounts it like this:
" 'I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,' he replied. My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me."
would you be inclined to accept that on it face? I doubt it. Why?
probably for some very rational principles, some of which I mentioned already, that you won't apply to Acts.

The account we the D rd experience is what we have - no camera crew on site. Tough, get over it, or are you one of the denialists that claim Paul never existed because he never autographed your poster?
Thats quite a forceful rejoinder you've got there Kiwi, not sure I can rebound from that.
;-)

Anonymous said...

I'm going to say something now that got a laugh and derision from Robert Price on his bible geek podcast when I asked him about it.

enjoy!

Pauls thorn in the flesh has been debated for a long time.

however, the epilepsy hypothesis looks good because it fits the data.

Elementary visual hallucinations, blindness, and headache in idiopathic occipital epilepsy: differentiation from migraine

- visual hallucinations
- convulsions
- blindness
- reoccur
- weakness/infirmity

I'll chalk up the part where the other men hear the voice to the folklore process.

brian_g said...

Several observations about Evans initial post.
1) While I don't pretend to be an expert on psychology from what I understand, schizophrenics mostly have auditory hallucinations, visual hallucinations are very rare.

2) Secondly, when people have religious hallucinations, the hallucinations are culturally influenced. We would expect religious hallucinations today (in the US) to take the form of Jesus or Mary, because there is a large number of people who were brought up with these religious ideas from their childhood.
This doesn't explain the how a religious hallucination took the form of Jesus in the first century. As far as I can see, Paul would not have had any predisposition to seeing Jesus. The twelve, were with Jesus for about three years, but would this be enough influence to cause religious hallucinations to take the form of Jesus. Would not childhood stories of Moses and Abraham be more likely candidates?

3) Paul understood these appearances of Jesus to have stopped with him. "last of all he appeared to me." They clearly understood that the seeing the risen Jesus was different from other religious experiences that were on going in the church. This makes a mental disorder a strange fit. A number of people had some type of brain disorder that caused them to see Jesus, then they all get better, and no one else has this temporary mental disorder.

4) The Christians were in agreement on the meaning of these appearances: Jesus had risen from the dead. The early Christian church was quite capable of have disagreement and debate. (circumcision, eating of unclean foods, etc.)
How is it that a number of people having an (apparently temporary) brain disorder, would reach such a uniform understanding, while these same people had differences of opinion about many other doctrines of Christianity?

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Hey Lee,

You said...

see, there you go again ignoring the fact that a court case was brought about to stop the destruction of the bridge that lord ramas army of monkeys built connecting those two land masses. Lord rama is part of hindu religion, the religion supports the claim that he and his monkeys built the bridge, it was a real event in "time and space" as you say, and your equivocation of calling it "social" reasons is not going to change it. It is just simply special pleading and denial on your part.

Please see the post. I looks like you have not read it?

http://christianityversusatheism.blogspot.com

You said..

The ony precedents that appear for any kind of dying and rising god are mythical. surely you must agree to that.
Anecdotal evidence does not carry as much weight as physical evidence. How do you distinguish the accounts from literature and folklore?

Sure, a couple of things.

(1) A degree os plausibility is defined as the degree to which our present knowledge implies the falsity of our present knowledge. Our present knowledge states that people do not rise from the dead.

(2) None of the accounts about the resurrection read like a myth? Simple stories with simple language.

(3) The Gospel texts are pure and not fabrications.

(4) The Gospels are reliable.

(5) There was nothing social, economical, or psychological to be gained from following a resurrection myth initially?

(6) Proponents against Christ's resurrection attested to the empty tomb?

There are also more.

As yet plausibility states the only reason not to adopt the resurrection is that there were previous myths and people sometimes have visions now... This is hardly the best explanation scenario.

The plausibility is that ht historical reality of an empty tomb supports the gospel accounts perfectly. The very city that crucified Jesus was a flourishing Christian community again almost positive concrete evidence that it was not based on visions.

You said

both, others were with paul but acts 9:7 and acts 22:9 are not consistent on what they observed [sic]. That doesn't map consistently to real world events, in Information quality terms thats called Garbeling and an indicator of a poor quality information sources. Thanks for the exmaple, I think I'll use it in my next article. another problem is that the author is unknown and not current. Like it or not, that is a serious hit when it comes to information quality.

Acts 9:2 says...
The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.

Acts 22:9 says...
Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me.

Lee, no-one and light are different things??? :( Where is the inconsistency? Will this be part of your article? Seems the information is fine. Your initial reading is the Garbeling I think at this point?

You said.

the other instances of "evidence" (empty tomb and such) are anecdotal carrying relaitively little weight and "garbled" (inconsistent) and the authors are unknown and are not current. Poor quality.

To vague Lee. Same can be said about your previous comment to me?

You said.

predictions about them have and can be made,

Same with the resurrection?

their affects can be seen,

Same with the resurrection?

lateral evidence supports them,

Same with the resurrection?

the evidence is current, bad analogy.

He He? When was the idea of a black whole first proposed? Not so current?

Rev. Phil.

Anonymous said...

Hi all,
this is turning into one of those "coulda, shoulda, woulda" dialogues that I try to avoid, so I'm going to bail and work on my next DC article.

and I take reverend phils claim
The very city that crucified Jesus was a flourishing Christian community again almost positive concrete evidence that it was not based on visions.
as a mistake because from a historical perspective, unless he wants to equivocate flourishing to mean 1-5% of the population or something and then it becomes ridiculous.

and his six item numbered list is question begging, circular. The items in his list are exactly what is in question. We how accurate are the scriptures? How much do they represent real world events? I'm off to explore that.

and brian g seems
to say that more visions went on about Jesus than you would statistically expect. Reasoning from writings from unknown sources that are two thousand years old that make claims that only have precedent in folklore should be dismissed on its face. That can only be defended by special pleading, appeal to tradition, authority and the band wagon fallacy.

its been fun,
see ya.

akakiwibear said...

rev Phil - I would have thought that the socio-political environment and the time of the resurrection presented the best reason for denying it.

The crucifixion was the result of the Jewish hierarchy dismissing Christ's teaching, which while generally consistent with the scriptures presented a new interpretation which was critical of and threatening to the hierarchy.

Post the crucifixion the only witnesses were from the group being persecuted. Now why would the Jews choose to believe the resurrection?

Today's political environment is no different in that sense - the Jews acknowledge that the group being persecuted were right? - that Christ had risen, was the Masai & oops we crucified Him?

No, like today's politicians they would have put it down to lies all lies by the early Christians. They would have demanded conclusive proof - bring on the certified video footage, the multiple independent witnesses etc.

Nah! the world has not changed that much.

Paul was persecuting the early church because he believed they were 'heretics' - blasphemers. He was incensed by their teaching!

Now would an epileptic seizure have changed his mind - note no prior history of "possession by demons" or he would not have held the position he did. (Nor for that matter any subsequent mention).

But would it have made him change his mind on the validity of the teaching and then put himself up for persecution by adopting the same teaching?

Hamab kahle - peace

Philip R Kreyche said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Hey Lee,

You say,

this is turning into one of those "coulda, shoulda, woulda" dialogues that I try to avoid, so I'm going to bail and work on my next DC article.

Sounds familiar! I find it interesting Lee, how you choose some things to answer yet some you don't/cannot? Let's go back to the bible where you said it was contra-dictionary? Or did you fail to research sufficiently as you did with Lord Rama?

You said.

as a mistake because from a historical perspective, unless he wants to equivocate flourishing to mean 1-5% of the population or something and then it becomes ridiculous.

Where did this come from? Where is your secular textual evidence? Or was this from the Bible that you gained this? Something you say is faulty?

You said.

and his six item numbered list is question begging, circular. The items in his list are exactly what is in question. We how accurate are the scriptures? How much do they represent real world events? I'm off to explore that.

I'm still waiting for a debunking Lee? But as yet it appears to me you don't even know the texts in question as you miss represent them? But not just the bible, easily found historical texts???? Yes more work is needed from you.

Where is the "coulda, shoulda, woulda" dialogues that I try to avoid.

Funny rhetoric but wholly unconvincing.

Regards, Rev. Phil.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Hey akakiwibear.

You said.

rev Phil - I would have thought that the socio-political environment and the time of the resurrection presented the best reason for denying it.

Yep That's my point.

The Christians whom adopted it had nothing to gain from anything else but the truth.

Cheers, Rev. Phil.

Anonymous said...

hi rev,
one parting shot
you ask where I got the 1-5% from.
I pulled it out of my ash, based on my knowledge of the topic.

so what percentage would you give it? better than 25%?
here what smiths bible dictionary says about it from 1901, which can be considered a biased source sympathetic to you of which I googled "on the fly". you could too if you had bothered.

"Probably Pierotti’s estimate is very near the truth, --20,330; of whom 5068 are Christians, 7556 Mohammedans (Arabs and Turks), and 7706 Jews. --ED.)

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Bibliography Information
Smith, William, Dr. "Entry for 'Jeru’salem'". "Smith's Bible Dictionary". 1901.
"


of course feel free to challenge my infererence that it took 1900 years to work its way up to 25%.

brian_g said...

Lee says:
and brian g seems
to say that more visions went on about Jesus than you would statistically expect. Reasoning from writings from unknown sources that are two thousand years old that make claims that only have precedent in folklore should be dismissed on its face. That can only be defended by special pleading, appeal to tradition, authority and the band wagon fallacy.


This seems to be a backpedaling from the original argument. My post was a response to the claim that a mental disorder including religious hallucination account for the origin of the belief in the resurrection of Jesus. I listed several reasons I did not think this was the case. Instead of responding to my reasons you simple dismissed the data out of hand. It's too old and strange to believe.

I think this is one of the major problems of atheism. Atheists claim that there is no evidence for God. There are three ways that they can reject evidence for God:
1) Dismiss it. It didn't happen. People are lying or mistaken. This is the case for most miracles. No evidence for this is required.

2) Alternative explanation. This is what they do when the evidence is to clear to say it didn't happen. This is how they deal with design arguments. The alternative explanation need not have any positive evidence for support, a mere possibility will suffice. Multiple universes, for example.

They justify the rejection of the evidence by reasserting the claim that there is no evidence for God.

3) Future evidence. When there is no alternative explanation and the evidence cannot be dismissed, the atheist turns to future evidence. We see this with the origin of life. No one can deny that life exists. No one has found an alternative explanation. The atheist then tell us not to worry, that scientists of the future will figure out how life did not come from God. This is the most remarkable argument of all, because it is an appeal to not of the evidence of today, but the evidence of tomorrow.

As far as I can tell, there's not a single belief (at least not one based on imperial support) that cannot be denied using the same principles. A person could deny anything with atheist principles. Of course, the only time these arguments are valid is when God is the subject. In all other cases we must have reasons to believe someone is lying, we must have reasons to support alternative theories, and of course future evidence is never allowed.

Philip R Kreyche said...

Rev Brown:

The original Christians had nothing to gain from belief in the resurrection if it didn't definitely happen?

What about the preservation of their most deeply felt beliefs? What about the idea that their beloved Messiah washy really dead, but still alive somewhere in the spiritual realm, and that they could join him in the afterlife? How about the idea that they weren't wrong and foolish to follow the man they called Messiah and gave so much of their lives to, that it wasn't a total waste of time?

They had everything to gain by believing Jesus had come back to life again somehow, because it meant that, perhaps, all the promises he made them could still come true.

So don't be naive and assume that your explanation is the only possible one.

JenniferAnchor said...

As far as I can tell, there is virtually no difference in the mind-sets of people from 2000 years ago and of those of today. I find that by applying today's standards and mores to the occupants and residents of ancient Israel, I understand them perfectly. I think what confuses today's people is that they look at, for example, a hundred year section of history from 2000 years ago and then forget to compare it to a 100 year section of today. When you compare the newer religions, like those in Utah and elsewhere, you see an evolution and sprouting just like there was in the past. This all points to man, a pack oriented social animal, who is vulnerable to hoodwinking by someone posing as having the inside track to a supreme deity.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Hey Lee,

I have no Idea?

@ Philip

You said.

The original Christians had nothing to gain from belief in the resurrection if it didn't definitely happen?

What about the preservation of their most deeply felt beliefs?

A dying messiah was not part of there deeply felt beliefs? The very fact Jesus died was initially a hugh blow?

You said.

What about the idea that their beloved Messiah washy [sic] really dead, but still alive somewhere in the spiritual realm, and that they could join him in the afterlife?

Sure good possibility but why is the emphasis on a "physical resurrection of Jesus?" Paul and the gospel writes go to pains to make this point accurate.

You said

How about the idea that they weren't wrong and foolish to follow the man they called Messiah and gave so much of their lives to, that it wasn't a total waste of time?

Sure but initially he was dead so all those things would have been going through their minds.

You said.

They had everything to gain by believing Jesus had come back to life again somehow, because it meant that, perhaps, all the promises he made them could still come true.

That's right, that is the christian message. Only if its true. They could not be liars, or the delusion was so new and grand and powerful that even the physical evidence was ignored which is highley unlikely.

You said.

So don't be naive and assume that your explanation is the only possible one.

Sorry if I came across otherwise but I am yet to be convinced of the alternatives. In my opinion the best possible explanation is the resurrection in a factual sense.

Regards, Rev. Phil.

Anonymous said...

Hi Rev,
and I'll take the hit for the paul conversion example. It wasn't a good representative sample after all, but it was relevant and handy at the time. Good call.

I encourage you to keep me on my toes!

I have no Idea?
Thanks for admitting I'm right again. You should explore that.

it seems that some of your presumptions don't hold up to scrutiny. There's more where that came from.

I look forward to interacting with you in my coming articles on using rational principles to assess the quality of information in the bible.

Anonymous said...

Brian G., aren't you forgetting a few methods. Like:

Showing that the evidence for god is nothing more that blind assertions.

Showing that the conclusions are based on logical fallacies.

Providing hard evidence that contradicts the bible.

Pointing out where good evidence for the bible should be found and yet isn't.

Gosh, I could go on all day.


Rev. Phil, what about the apostle's need for food, clothing and shelter?

One of the first things a new convert had to do back then was give away everything they owned. (Not too different from cults we see today.) Maybe they needed to keep JC alive to keep the cash rolling in.

Who's to say that the apostles weren't like Tony Alamo or Benny Hinn or Ray Comfort or Kent Hovind; nothing but a band of lying, cheating scum willing to say anything to "save more souls"?

brian_g said...

tigg13 said:
"Brian G., aren't you forgetting a few methods. Like:

Showing that the evidence for god is nothing more that blind assertions.

Showing that the conclusions are based on logical fallacies.

Providing hard evidence that contradicts the bible.

Pointing out where good evidence for the bible should be found and yet isn't.

Gosh, I could go on all day."

I hope you live up to your promises. I look forward to the challenge.

Anonymous said...

Promise?

Did I make a promise?

No, I made an observation.

Right?

Anonymous said...

Hi tigg,
nasa keeps an online database of eclipses, if he claims that it went dark during the crucifixion, make him back it up with that database.

he won't be able too. I already know what it says and used it in a comment defending one of my first articles. I'll look it up and post it here later.

Anonymous said...

Hi Tigg
As far as eclipses go, none were even close. It had to be Folklore or divine intervention.
Here's the info so you can look for yourself.
Jerusalem is 31.46N 35.13E according to google earth. Nasa's catalog of solar eclipses

all he can say about that is "god did it" and then all we can say about that is "how do you know?"
and then all he can do is chase his tail with a circular argument.

Thats one of those datums that don't map to a real world event.
;-)

brian_g said...

Lee,

My reading of the synoptics says that "darkness covered the land"

What basis is there for concluding that it must have been an eclipse? I've personally witnessed very bad storms that make the day dark. Of course if this were the case, it would not be verifiable by anyone today (at least not in the way eclipses are). But so what? What does it have to do with any thing? Why should every line of the Bible be verifiable?

It could be historically verifiable. I believe that there is an ancient historian who is preserved by Julius Africanus who also mentioned the darkness.

In any case, I'm not sure what the big deal is if this passage can be proved. Would you really start believing in God just because the new testament noticed it was dark out side, and it turned out to actually be dark outside?

Anonymous said...

Brian g
you should look a little deeper into that Julius africanus, before you go basing your arguments on him/her/it/them whatever.

and the question is not what lee wants, the questions is
"does that story represent real world events or not? Is it an accurate report or not? "

accurate reports are fundamental to how the world works in all categories of life, business, education, science, the shopping list, the news, reports from your boss, reports from your company.

It is incumbent on the creator of the data to ensure it is accurate and complete, so that the consumer can use it to gain knowledge and base decisions on.

That is the point. The bible is a poor information source about the abrahamic god, period, and I'm working the articles to show that.

In principle any conclusions drawn from a poor information source are weak.

Anonymous said...

oh yea brian g
don't fall back on put too much weight on that "cloudy day" darkness, If it were just a cloudy day do you think it would be noteworthy?

If yes, then other than Julius, who else noticed it? jerusalem was a busy place even in those days, the levant was historically important for thousands of years most notably for the cedars of lebanon.

coulda, shoulda, woulda, there woulda been more people noticing, especially since it was caused by god on earth in the counter-intuitive form of a carpenter being crucified in the busiest town in the area.

for gods sakes! Get some perspective man!
;-)

JenniferAnchor said...

"Darkness" in ancient Aramaic not only meant absence of light, but was more popularly used in the sense of a "pall" or "emotional foreboding." Don't forget,those folks did not have lights to switch on after sunset, just a wick burning in a plate of oil. They were also highly supersticious as evidenced by contemporary writings.

brian_g said...

Here's the relevant passage:

On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Saviour fails on the day before the passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time but in the interval between the first day of the new moon and the last of the old, that is, at their junction: how then should an eclipse be supposed to happen when the moon is almost diametrically opposite the sun? Let that opinion pass however; let it carry the majority with it; and let this portent of the world be deemed an eclipse of the sun, like others a portent only to the eye. Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth— manifestly that one of which we speak. But what has an eclipse in common with an earthquake, the rending rocks, and the resurrection of the dead, and so great a perturbation throughout the universe?

Here's my brief historical analsis of the text. Julius Africanus was a Christian historian writing in the 3rd century. The two sources he quotes are from the second century. He disagrees with his sources as to the cause of the darkness. Africanus believed it was a miracle; his sources believed it was from natural causes. This strongly suggests that Africanus was accuratly qouting his sources. If he were inventing them out of whole cloth, he would not have had them disagree. Phlegon's wrote a history of the Olympiads. That Africanus was familiar with this work is suggested by Africanus' historical discussion of the Olympiads in his other writing. This suggests that Africanus was quoting Phlegon directly and not getting his information from another source. It seems unlikely to me that these two roman historians were getting there information from the Gospel accounts.

Astronomically, Africanus is correct. An eclipse can only happen during a new moon. (see: http://www.mreclipse.com/Special/SEprimer.html). I think it's interesting that even way back then they knew when eclipses could and could not happen. (I didn't know this.) So it sounds like Lee's correct, the darkness was not an eclipse.

brian_g said...

One more note. Passover does fall on the full moon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover