http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/articl...ID=1476850
Check it out, they studied abraham, moses, jesus and paul.

Applies more to the people who invented them rather than the fictional characters themselves.

Might as well apply this study to other fictional characters, such as Gandalf, who I believe was bipolar.

(September 2, 2013 at 7:25 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Might as well apply this study to other fictional characters, such as Gandalf, who I believe was bipolar.

Kind of, there is good reason to think paul was real

(September 2, 2013 at 7:32 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:

(September 2, 2013 at 7:25 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Might as well apply this study to other fictional characters, such as Gandalf, who I believe was bipolar.

Kind of, there is good reason to think paul was real

Paul never existed

Quote:Kind of, there is good reason to think paul was real

What might that be?

---

(September 2, 2013 at 7:38 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote:

(September 2, 2013 at 7:32 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Kind of, there is good reason to think paul was real

Paul never existed

Quote:And just who was Paul escaping from? According to Paul's "own" testimony (2 Corinthians 11.32,33) it was "the governor under Aretas the king". Aretas IV was the Nabataean monarch who ruled a vast area from his capital of Petra, though Paul gives no explanation as to why Aretas was out to get him.

Oddly, though, Aretas III ruled Damascus between 84 and 64 BC. Pompey the Great overran the city and other than the jesus freak horseshit of "Paul" there is no hint that the Romans ever ceded control of that particularly valuable piece of real estate to anyone...certainly not the King of Nabatea which was a long fucking way from Damascus.



Damascus was traditionally part of the Decapolis - a collection of Greco-Roman towns which differed from their semitic-based neighbors and were granted a degree of autonomy under the governorship of Syria.

Well what do you mean by Jesus? It's kind of like the debate about whether or not Jesus was real. Lets say there was a person that Jesus was based on. However that person didn't walk on water, didn't rise from the dead, didn't do all the supernatural things that are accredited to Jesus. This is the Jesus that Bart Erhman and many Atheists, Agnostics and other secularists think existed. Is it really fair to even say that person was Jesus? They share so few characteristics with the supernatural God/Man of the bible that even if such person existed it's impossible to call that they were the same person described in the bible. That's why the debate about whether or not Jesus existed is irrelevant.

I think all the same can be said about your hypothetical schizophrenic Jesus (which is a sketchy diagnosis even today, much less to give to someone that we have no primary sources about.) If such a person existed (and I don't think you've sufficiently made the case) then they don't resemble the character represented in the bible enough to be called Jesus.

(September 3, 2013 at 12:10 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: Well what do you mean by Jesus? It's kind of like the debate about whether or not Jesus was real. Lets say there was a person that Jesus was based on. However that person didn't walk on water, didn't rise from the dead, didn't do all the supernatural things that are accredited to Jesus. This is the Jesus that Bart Erhman and many Atheists, Agnostics and other secularists think existed. Is it really fair to even say that person was Jesus? They share so few characteristics with the supernatural God/Man of the bible that even if such person existed it's impossible to call that they were the same person described in the bible. That's why the debate about whether or not Jesus existed is irrelevant.

I think all the same can be said about your hypothetical schizophrenic Jesus (which is a sketchy diagnosis even today, much less to give to someone that we have no primary sources about.) If such a person existed (and I don't think you've sufficiently made the case) then they don't resemble the character represented in the bible enough to be called Jesus.

Scholars who publish on the topic tend to differentiate between 'the historic Jesus' and 'the Jesus of the Gospels', the former being a 1st century rabbi who caused a packet of local trouble and the latter being the water-walking, fig-cursing, leper healing divine. I find that it equates to the historic Arthur of Britain and the Romantic Arthur.

In both cases, it makes some sense to assume a historic figure (the rabbi and the warlord who went round bashing Saxons) who grew into the legendary figure (the son of God and the King of chivalry).

But I take your point. When people hear 'Jesus', then tend to think exclusively about the the Saviour born in a manger, the apostles and all the rest.

Maybe we should refer to the historic one as Jebus, to avoid confusion.

But on the original topic, I tend to agree with the notion that the author of Revelation suffered from ergot poisoning.

Boru

(September 3, 2013 at 7:45 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(September 3, 2013 at 12:10 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: Well what do you mean by Jesus? It's kind of like the debate about whether or not Jesus was real. Lets say there was a person that Jesus was based on. However that person didn't walk on water, didn't rise from the dead, didn't do all the supernatural things that are accredited to Jesus. This is the Jesus that Bart Erhman and many Atheists, Agnostics and other secularists think existed. Is it really fair to even say that person was Jesus? They share so few characteristics with the supernatural God/Man of the bible that even if such person existed it's impossible to call that they were the same person described in the bible. That's why the debate about whether or not Jesus existed is irrelevant.

I think all the same can be said about your hypothetical schizophrenic Jesus (which is a sketchy diagnosis even today, much less to give to someone that we have no primary sources about.) If such a person existed (and I don't think you've sufficiently made the case) then they don't resemble the character represented in the bible enough to be called Jesus.

Scholars who publish on the topic tend to differentiate between 'the historic Jesus' and 'the Jesus of the Gospels', the former being a 1st century rabbi who caused a packet of local trouble and the latter being the water-walking, fig-cursing, leper healing divine. I find that it equates to the historic Arthur of Britain and the Romantic Arthur.

In both cases, it makes some sense to assume a historic figure (the rabbi and the warlord who went round bashing Saxons) who grew into the legendary figure (the son of God and the King of chivalry).

But I take your point. When people hear 'Jesus', then tend to think exclusively about the the Saviour born in a manger, the apostles and all the rest.

Maybe we should refer to the historic one as Jebus, to avoid confusion.

But on the original topic, I tend to agree with the notion that the author of Revelation suffered from ergot poisoning.

Boru

I do agree with the shakiness of the diagnosis given his questionable exsistance. However the idea of a historical jesus suffering from mental illness is not all that far fetched. Even today there are people that are deluded in thinking they are the son of god and they attain following despite the obvouis signs of mental instability. Imagine how much easier it would be in the desperate and ignorant and desperately religious first century palestine.

(September 3, 2013 at 9:07 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Imagine how much easier it would be in the desperate and ignorant and desperately religious first century palestine.

I would contend this point that the people in Palestine during the first century CE were desperate for religion. In fact, it wasn't for another 4 centuries that the Roman Empire force-fed Christianity to the masses, with other empires down the road doing the same.