• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why Saint Paul might have had an unhealthy soul

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Opposing the Messiah was getting things wrong.
Where did I say that I was "opposing the Messiah"?

BTW, as Aquinas noted in his studies, if one takes a literalistic approach to the messianic prophecies, then Jesus cannot be the Messiah as he never fulfilled them. OTOH, if one looks at these prophecies in regards to their basic essence, then Jesus can be the Messiah.

As for me, I really don't get much into that. See "My Faith Statement" at the bottom of my posts for clarification if need be.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Where did I say that I was "opposing the Messiah"?

BTW, as Aquinas noted in his studies, if one takes a literalistic approach to the messianic prophecies, then Jesus cannot be the Messiah as he never fulfilled them. OTOH, if one looks at these prophecies in regards to their basic essence, then Jesus can be the Messiah.

As for me, I really don't get much into that. See "My Faith Statement" at the bottom of my posts for clarification if need be.

What possible motive would Paul have for making up being blind by Jesus and knocked off his horse and then having to escape the city by threat of death in a basket? then go on through 3 shipwrecks, stoned and left for dead and eventually beheaded by the Romans?

There are about 10 miracles and things Peter does in the beginning chapters of Acts and they are repeated in Paul in the second half od Acts confirming Paul's ministry.

In the end Paul's writings are supported by him raising the dead, healing, casting out demons, recovering from a parson snake bite and the like. And of course when he was knocked off his horse with the voice and the bright light his companions also experienced something happening as well.... what of that?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
What possible motive would Paul have for making up being blind by Jesus and knocked off his horse and then having to escape the city by threat of death in a basket? then go on through 3 shipwrecks, stoned and left for dead and eventually beheaded by the Romans?

There are about 10 miracles and things Peter does in the beginning chapters of Acts and they are repeated in Paul in the second half od Acts confirming Paul's ministry.

In the end Paul's writings are supported by him raising the dead, healing, casting out demons, recovering from a parson snake bite and the like. And of course when he was knocked off his horse with the voice and the bright light his companions also experienced something happening as well.... what of that?
Based on my last post, you should be aware that I am very far from being a literalist, so such claims I don't blindly accept. However, neither do I deny their possibility. As a scientist, I'm very used to not making judgments when there's a lack of convincing evidence.

Secondly, in an earlier post I stated that Paul was very smart, imo, but that it is possible that his imagination might have gotten carried away at times. IOW, unlike some here at RF [not you btw], I don't throw Paul under the bus. I think Paul most likely did have a vision of sorts and that this really changed him, otherwise his actions wouldn't make much sense.

Again, since our approach to the scriptures appears to be quite different, we're simply not going to agree on some things, but I don't view that as somehow me being right and you being wrong-- I'm just far less certain of things than you are.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
When you wotk out the motives of Joseph Smith,
Jim Jones, Mohammed and the thousands of other
prophets of greater and lesser succeess, maybe
you will underdtand "Paul" a bit better.

Little of his story can be matched to anything but
"Miracke" but his snake story is a ver obvious fake.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Based on my last post, you should be aware that I am very far from being a literalist, so such claims I don't blindly accept. However, neither do I deny their possibility. As a scientist, I'm very used to not making judgments when there's a lack of convincing evidence.

Secondly, in an earlier post I stated that Paul was very smart, imo, but that it is possible that his imagination might have gotten carried away at times. IOW, unlike some here at RF [not you btw], I don't throw Paul under the bus. I think Paul most likely did have a vision of sorts and that this really changed him, otherwise his actions wouldn't make much sense.

Again, since our approach to the scriptures appears to be quite different, we're simply not going to agree on some things, but I don't view that as somehow me being right and you being wrong-- I'm just far less certain of things than you are.

I am not a wooden literalist but I do take scripture as true in the intended sense which can be literal
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
When you wotk out the motives of Joseph Smith,
Jim Jones, Mohammed and the thousands of other
prophets of greater and lesser succeess, maybe
you will underdtand "Paul" a bit better.

Little of his story can be matched to anything but
"Miracke" but his snake story is a ver obvious fake.

Obvious perhaps has to do with assumptions taken before hand.
If seems obvious to you since you rejected things in the Bible leading up to it and rejected God and the miraculous out of hand.

Much of what people feel obvious relates to their closely held axioms.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I am not a wooden literalist but I do take scripture as true in the intended sense which can be literal
I don't take scripture as being either "true" or "false" but more as a mixture of the two. Instead, my approach is to take all scripture as if it was allegorical, learn from what it does teach, and then use what can be learned as a guide to life.

For example, Jesus' Sermon On the Mount very much resonates with me even if it weren't to be the exact words Jesus used, because it's basic teachings on the "law of love" seem to very much bear out positive results. If everyone on the planet lived their life with "agape", wouldn't this world be a wonderful place? With agape, so many of the world's ills would at least be ameliorated. Obviously, there are other teachings that also come to heart for me.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Obvious perhaps has to do with assumptions taken before hand.
If seems obvious to you since you rejected things in the Bible leading up to it and rejected God and the miraculous out of hand.

Much of what people feel obvious relates to their closely held axioms.

Skipping right past what I pointed out about other
"Prophets".

And then you go into false and insulting claims
about me.

FACT IS, I have no trouble-why should I-
in seeing some bible stories as reasonably
correct.

The problem with the snake story has zero to
do with being in the bible.

If a person told me the story as his own experience
I would call bs.

Just two of the reasons it is not true-

There are no vipers on that island.
May as well say a tiger attacked.

Vipers do not "cling". The bite is too fast
to see more than a flicker of movement.

Two bs details. There are more.

Of course you will refuse to avknowledge
anything.
 
Last edited:
While the culture might have been different and thinking had been different , the human condition is still the same, weither in ancient times or today. They were just as smart and capable as modern day people with all vices as well as assets intact.

It wouldn't be hard to apply modern psychoanalysis to the various ancient characters we come across.

It wouldn't be hard as armchair psychology is always easy, hence the dozens of news articles pathologising Trump with a whole raft of mental and cognitive disorders.

Enough people on RF have 'successfully' diagnosed him too :D

These people have exponentially more information on which to base their judgements and it is still pure BS speculation without a hint of merit.

The only things we have about Paul are a handful of rhetorical texts. A work of rhetoric is not a literal representation of a person's thoughts to be taken purely at face value, just like you wouldn't take Trump's tweets purely at face value.

Imagine some cod psychologist in the year 4000 who had nothing but a handful of Trump's tweets to go on without any background or context:

"Greatest witch hunt EVER!" - Wow he's suffering from paranoid delusions,! This is a clear sign of schizophrenia
"Covefe" - He's rambling incoherently! He probably is experiencing a mental breakdown
"Mission to Mars (of which the moon is a part)" - He's getting confused with basic information, that's dementia!
"Very stable genius!" - clear signs of narcissistic personality disorder!
 
Two types of making it up

It's not 'making it up' if you actually believe it though, and his actions, and ultimately execution, seem to strongly suggest he believed it. People didn't have a modern scientific-rationalist worldview back then and the human mind is very suggestible. Where I live most people believe in ghosts, and I know many people who claim to have seen ghosts. I don't believe ghosts exist, but I don't believe they are making it up either. It's just a side effect of the way our minds work.

Given that basically every culture in the world has had prophets/holy men/shamen/whatever, it's far more plausible that most of them actually believed in what they said/experienced rather than that they are all cynically making stuff up.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
Romans, 7....the all of it.
A rant from a poor bipolar person, any psychiatrist can confirm you that.

In order to establish the truth of your claim you would need to first specify what exactly in that chapter you think proves your claim and then give specific reasons why that verse(s) prove your claim to be true.

As the one making the claim, the onus is on you to establish why your claim is true by presenting both facts and logical reasons that establish the truth of your claim.

Your claim that Romans 7 proves Paul was a sociopath is itself another unproven and baseless assertion on your part because you have given us no facts or reasons why we should believe your claim that Romans 7 proves Paul was a sociopath.

Your original claim that Paul was a sociopath was also an unproven and baseless assertion, and you don't solve that problem by going on to make a second unproven and baseless assertion that you think Romans 7 proves Paul was a sociopath. In both cases you are missing actual reasons for why you think your belief is true.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
It's not 'making it up' if you actually believe it though, and his actions, and ultimately execution, seem to strongly suggest he believed it. People didn't have a modern scientific-rationalist worldview back then and the human mind is very suggestible. Where I live most people believe in ghosts, and I know many people who claim to have seen ghosts. I don't believe ghosts exist, but I don't believe they are making it up either. It's just a side effect of the way our minds work.

Given that basically every culture in the world has had prophets/holy men/shamen/whatever, it's far more plausible that most of them actually believed in what they said/experienced rather than that they are all cynically making stuff up.

Some do some dont and many shades beteeen.
For other people to take any of it seriously, as "real",
is bonkers.
 
Last edited:

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
You don't have any evidence for any of your claims about Paul. Anyone can sling accusations around without proof, but if you want your belief to be taken seriously as being true you need to provide some evidence from Scripture that backs up your claim. Being quite familiar with Paul's writings, I can tell you now that you won't be able to prove it because it's not true.

Why only evidence from Scripture? What makes Scripture the final authority on reality?
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
Why only evidence from Scripture? What makes Scripture the final authority on reality?

I can answer your question by asking you this: What other sources exist that you could use to establish what is true about the psychological state of Paul?

As a practical matter, Scripture represents our best and most complete historical record of Paul and has the benefit of most of it being from his first person perspective . So that is why I assume he must be drawing upon Scripture as the basis for his claims about what Paul's psychological state was.
 
Last edited:

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
I can answer your question by asking you this: What other sources exist that you could use to establish what is true about the psychological state of Paul?

As a practical matter, Scripture represents our best and most complete historical record of Paul and has the benefit of most of it being from his first person perspective . So that is why I assume he must be drawing upon Scripture as the basis for his claims about what Paul's psychological state was.

I think a person's psychological state can be inferred by their behavior and what they are supposed to have said or written or what others have observed and said or written about him.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
I think a person's psychological state can be inferred by their behavior and what they are supposed to have said or written or what others have observed and said or written about him.

What you just described is the New Testament.

So that brings us back to the question I already asked you: What other credible and authoritative source would you try to use for drawing conclusions about the character of Paul? Do they even exist? Your question implies they do exist, but you haven't listed what they are. And why do you seem to think the Bible isn't good enough as a source for answering questions about Paul's character? The New Testament is our best and most complete historical written record of Paul's words and actions.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
This is what I found. The opinion of an expert.


St. Paul lived during the first century CE. It has been speculated that his religious experiences resulted from temporal lobe epilepsy.43 We would argue that it is not necessary to invoke epilepsy as an explanation for these experiences. St Paul’s mood in his letters ranged from ecstatic to tears of sorrow, suggesting marked mood swings.44,45 He endorsed an abundance of sublime auditory and visual perceptual experiences (2 Corinthians 12:2–9) that resemble grandiose hallucinations with delusional thought content. He manifested increased religiosity and fears of evil spirits, which resembles paranoia. These features may occur together, in association with associated psychotic conditions.
In 2 Corinthians 12:7, St Paul relates “a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger from Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated.” This thorn has been speculated to be a reference to epilepsy.43 Other theories have proposed that the thorn was a physical infirmity, the opposition of his fellow Jews,46 or a harassing demon.47 We propose that he perceived an apparition or voice that he understood to be a harassing demonic messenger from Satan. This perception might have afflicted him with some amount of negative commentary of the type characteristic for psychotic conditions, resulting in psychological distress. The complexity of Paul’s interactions in his perceptual experiences weighs against a seizure ictus as a cause, as does the lack of evidence for more common epileptic accompaniments, such as repetitive stereotyped behavioral changes and cognitive symptoms, as previously discussed. Paul does, however, manifest a number of personality characteristics similar to the interictal personality traits described by Geshwind,48–50 such as deepened emotions; possibly circumstantial thought; increased concern with philosophical, moral and religious issues; increased writing, often on religious or philosophical themes; and, possibly, hyposexuality (1 Corinthians 7:8– 9). These characteristics are controversial as to their specificity for epilepsy,51,52 with a preponderance of larger studies not confirming a specific personality type associated with seizure disorders.51–57 Similar features may also be present in bipolar disorder5,35,36 and schizophrenia.35,36 Aspreviouslymentioned,productivewritingtends to be more strongly associated with mood disorders than psychosisorepilepsy.ThisispersuasivetowardPaulhavingamooddisorder,ratherthanschizophreniaorepilepsy. Paul’s religious conversion on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1–19, 22:6–13, 26:9–16) is an event understood as marked by the acute onset of blindness. This blindness has been hypothesized to have been postictal in nature43 or psychogenic.58 There appears to be a lack of clarity as to whether this was literal visual blindness or metaphorical, since Paul refers to persons outside his immediate beliefsystem asspiritually blind or having their eyes closed to spiritual truth (Acts 28:26; Romans 11:8, 11:10; 2 Corinthians 4: 3–5; Ephesians 1:18). Differences in the three most detailed conversion-experience accountscontributetothisambiguity.Acts26:12–18relates his conversion, during which a vision of Jesus tasks him to spiritually open the eyes of the people to whom he will be sent (see Figure 4). In this account, there is no mention of acute-onset visual loss followed by its restoration. The application of the blindness metaphor in Acts 26:12–18maysuggestthatPaul’sownlossof vision was equally metaphorical and served as a descriptor of his profound realization of feeling suddenly bereft of spiritual understanding; that is, realizing his eyes to be spiritually closed, before the completion of his conversiontothenewreligioussect.Insuchanemotionalstate, it is speculated that he might have required encouragement and emotional assistance to reach Damascus. Another possibility would be that of blindness due to conversion disorder. The absence of other episodes of visual loss (i.e., lack of event stereotypy), the absence of features often seen with postictal blindness (a generalized seizure, anosognosia for deficit, or a gradual return of vision),59 the presence of complex, mood-congruent auditory–visual experiences resembling hallucinations, and the possible sudden return of his eyesight with a
compassionate touch does not fit well into a readily discernable neurological pattern of vision loss. His perceptual experiences, mood variability, grandiose-like symptoms, increased concerns about religious purity, and paranoia-like symptoms could be viewed as resembling psychotic spectrum illness (see Table 1). Psychiatric diagnoses that might encompass his constellation of experiences and manifestations could include paranoid schizophrenia, psychosis NOS, mood disorder associated psychosis, or schizoaffective disorder. Paul’s preserved ability to write and organize his thoughts would favor a mood disorder-associated explanation for his religious experiences.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
This is what I found. The opinion of an expert.


St. Paul lived during the first century CE. It has been speculated that his religious experiences resulted from temporal lobe epilepsy.43 We would argue that it is not necessary to invoke epilepsy as an explanation for these experiences. St Paul’s mood in his letters ranged from ecstatic to tears of sorrow, suggesting marked mood swings.44,45 He endorsed an abundance of sublime auditory and visual perceptual experiences (2 Corinthians 12:2–9) that resemble grandiose hallucinations with delusional thought content. He manifested increased religiosity and fears of evil spirits, which resembles paranoia. These features may occur together, in association with associated psychotic conditions.
In 2 Corinthians 12:7, St Paul relates “a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger from Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated.” This thorn has been speculated to be a reference to epilepsy.43 Other theories have proposed that the thorn was a physical infirmity, the opposition of his fellow Jews,46 or a harassing demon.47 We propose that he perceived an apparition or voice that he understood to be a harassing demonic messenger from Satan. This perception might have afflicted him with some amount of negative commentary of the type characteristic for psychotic conditions, resulting in psychological distress. The complexity of Paul’s interactions in his perceptual experiences weighs against a seizure ictus as a cause, as does the lack of evidence for more common epileptic accompaniments, such as repetitive stereotyped behavioral changes and cognitive symptoms, as previously discussed. Paul does, however, manifest a number of personality characteristics similar to the interictal personality traits described by Geshwind,48–50 such as deepened emotions; possibly circumstantial thought; increased concern with philosophical, moral and religious issues; increased writing, often on religious or philosophical themes; and, possibly, hyposexuality (1 Corinthians 7:8– 9). These characteristics are controversial as to their specificity for epilepsy,51,52 with a preponderance of larger studies not confirming a specific personality type associated with seizure disorders.51–57 Similar features may also be present in bipolar disorder5,35,36 and schizophrenia.35,36 Aspreviouslymentioned,productivewritingtends to be more strongly associated with mood disorders than psychosisorepilepsy.ThisispersuasivetowardPaulhavingamooddisorder,ratherthanschizophreniaorepilepsy. Paul’s religious conversion on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1–19, 22:6–13, 26:9–16) is an event understood as marked by the acute onset of blindness. This blindness has been hypothesized to have been postictal in nature43 or psychogenic.58 There appears to be a lack of clarity as to whether this was literal visual blindness or metaphorical, since Paul refers to persons outside his immediate beliefsystem asspiritually blind or having their eyes closed to spiritual truth (Acts 28:26; Romans 11:8, 11:10; 2 Corinthians 4: 3–5; Ephesians 1:18). Differences in the three most detailed conversion-experience accountscontributetothisambiguity.Acts26:12–18relates his conversion, during which a vision of Jesus tasks him to spiritually open the eyes of the people to whom he will be sent (see Figure 4). In this account, there is no mention of acute-onset visual loss followed by its restoration. The application of the blindness metaphor in Acts 26:12–18maysuggestthatPaul’sownlossof vision was equally metaphorical and served as a descriptor of his profound realization of feeling suddenly bereft of spiritual understanding; that is, realizing his eyes to be spiritually closed, before the completion of his conversiontothenewreligioussect.Insuchanemotionalstate, it is speculated that he might have required encouragement and emotional assistance to reach Damascus. Another possibility would be that of blindness due to conversion disorder. The absence of other episodes of visual loss (i.e., lack of event stereotypy), the absence of features often seen with postictal blindness (a generalized seizure, anosognosia for deficit, or a gradual return of vision),59 the presence of complex, mood-congruent auditory–visual experiences resembling hallucinations, and the possible sudden return of his eyesight with a
compassionate touch does not fit well into a readily discernable neurological pattern of vision loss. His perceptual experiences, mood variability, grandiose-like symptoms, increased concerns about religious purity, and paranoia-like symptoms could be viewed as resembling psychotic spectrum illness (see Table 1). Psychiatric diagnoses that might encompass his constellation of experiences and manifestations could include paranoid schizophrenia, psychosis NOS, mood disorder associated psychosis, or schizoaffective disorder. Paul’s preserved ability to write and organize his thoughts would favor a mood disorder-associated explanation for his religious experiences.
OK, that's one opinion, but because it's that it doesn't make this the reality.

Again, to return to an important question, namely if Paul was some sort of freaky charlatan, why would the Apostles and their disciples have anything to do with him? And just a reminder that his letters were in circulation before any of the Gospels were.

Now, is Paul right about what he wrote? I have no clue, nor do I lose any sleep over it.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
OK, that's one opinion, but because it's that it doesn't make this the reality.

Again, to return to an important question, namely if Paul was some sort of freaky charlatan, why would the Apostles and their disciples have anything to do with him? And just a reminder that his letters were in circulation before any of the Gospels were.

Now, is Paul right about what he wrote? I have no clue, nor do I lose any sleep over it.
As far as I know, Peter quarrelled with Paul. And it turns out they even fought, according to scholars' interpretation.
 
Top