Jesus had schizophrenia and paul had temporal lobe seizures

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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