How Often Do Grieving Loved Ones “See” the Dead? A lot!

Image result for image of demi moore and patrick swayze in ghost

Up to six in ten grieving people have “seen” or “heard” their dead loved one, but many never mention it out of fear people will think they’re mentally ill. Among widowed people, 30 to 60 per cent have experienced things like seeing their dead spouse sitting in their old chair or hearing them call out their name, according to scientists. The University of Milan researchers said there is a “very high prevalence” of these “post-bereavement hallucinatory experiences” (PBHEs) in those with no history of mental disorders.

“Evidence suggests a strikingly high prevalence of PBHEs – ranging from 30 per cent to 60 per cent – among widowed subjects” Researchers, University of Milan

They came to their conclusions after looking at all previous peer-reviewed research carried out on the issue in the English language. “Overall, evidence suggests a strikingly high prevalence of PBHEs – ranging from 30 per cent to 60 per cent – among widowed subjects, giving consistence and legitimacy to these phenomena,” they wrote in their report, published in the Journal of Affective DisordersSince there is a relatively small amount of research on the topic, they said, “more research is needed to ascertain the physiological/pathological nature of PBHEs”. It’s thought the hallucinations could be similar to the flashbacks experienced by people suffering from post traumatic stress disorder.

Jacqueline Hayes, an academic at the University of Roehampton, has studied the phenomenon, interviewing people from across the UK who have lost spouses, parents, children, siblings and friends. She told the Daily Mail: “People report visions, voices, tactile sensations, smells, and something that we call a sense of presence that is not necessarily related to any of the five senses.”

She added: “I found that these experiences could at times be healing and transformative, for example hearing your loved one apologise to you for something that happened – and at other times foreground the loss and grief in a painful way.”

The report follows research from the University of Southampton, which suggested there might be such thing as life after death.

That study, published in 2014, found evidence that awareness can continue for at least several minutes after clinical death, which was previously thought impossible.

 

 

 

End of post.

Advertisements

78 thoughts on “How Often Do Grieving Loved Ones “See” the Dead? A lot!

  1. I experienced dreaming of my dad, mom and brother all after they had passed… My twin brother even before I knew it. (About 5mins before I answered the phone from the er doctor)
    I can’t explain that one, but the other two are understandable.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. My spouse was certain that the ghost of his recently deceased father had visited him. Until he learned about sleep paralysis, and realized that what he had experienced was nothing more than an odd sort of half-dream.

    I’ve occasionally thought I heard somebody call my name, when there was nobody in the room and it was just my brain glitching up. If I had recently lost someone, it would be pretty easy to convince myself that it was them I heard, if that’s what I wanted to think.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Ubi, I’ve been perplexed by the same sort of experience, but have chalked it up to “To Be Determined Later.” My brain, my sensory-perceptions, my peripheral vision especially, have definitely played tricks on me for sure, particularly as I age—dementia, Alzheimer’s, and other neurological issues do run in my family, mother’s side. :/

      Liked by 2 people

  3. Of course, the real question should be: “How many people after seeing dead loved ones are convinced they are alive.”

    That drastically reduces the number. Like, drastically. Like, even the ancients believed that their loved ones were dead when they had post-death experiences. The post-death experience confirmed that the deceased were deceased.

    THEN: How many post-death experiences have gone on for a period of several weeks? Very few.
    THEN: How many post-death experiences are shared by groups of people, convincing them that the loved one has bodily resurrected from the grave?

    Just one, as far as I know. Just one.

    What made those post-death appearances so special to convince 120 – 500 people that the publicly dead person was now alive?

    Your proposed explanation doesn’t account for it, in light of the evidence or the article cited above.

    Like

  4. I guess the correct conclusion is that the resurrection of Jesus wasn’t the one off event we’ve been led to believe it was. Like virgin births, resurrections are a dime a dozen.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hahahahahaha!!!! There are a million different ways to interpret, extrapolate, interpolate, and exonerate (one’s public image 😉 ) a mystifying, baffling event or personal experience isn’t there Koseighty? I mean, simply tally the hundreds of THOUSANDS of groups, crowds, congregations afflicted by Mass Psychogenic Hysteria or Illness all throughout human history! Peer-pressure, the Placebo-effect, and Hyper-sensitized theatrical performances have astonishing effects on gullible and/or irrational people. 😉

      Liked by 1 person

  5. “People report visions, voices, tactile sensations, smells, and something that we call a sense of presence that is not necessarily related to any of the five senses.”

    How many of these people report seeing a body that has left the grave?

    I would suggest that NONE of them do. Otherwise, we should have heard thousands of “resurrection stories” from grieving people over all these centuries. But, we don’t.

    Like

    1. Luckily, stories NEVER grow with time and retellings. We know for a fact that the stories contained in the gospels are exactly as they were originally told and haven’t been embellished EVER. Not one tiny bit.

      We also know that adding one or more salesmen to a product only adds to the integrity of the claims being made about the product. No used car salesman has ever exaggerated the reliability of a clunker. No one stuck with a garage full of essential oils has ever made unsupported claims regarding the usefulness of such oils. And a cult founded by a prophet who told the people that no signs would be given to his wicked generation would sell that prophet to the people with a book full of miracles, signs, and wonders.

      It’s just not in people’s nature to exaggerate claims this way — especially religious claims.

      The New Testament contains only one allegedly first hand account of someone seeing the resurrected Jesus — Paul’s. And Paul makes no claim about a physical resurrection. He does make claims about different kinds of bodies — implying resurrection is into new, divine bodies rather than restoration of rotting corpses.

      The stories of a bodily resurrection are a generation or two later and not presented by witnesses, but story tellers. And they are mingled with stories that indicate a spiritual resurrection rather than a bodily one. In one Jesus doesn’t need to eat and in another he does eat. In some he appears without need to go through doors and in some the stone is rolled away allowing his body to physically leave the tomb.

      Simply put, even the stories by the non witnesses are not clear on a bodily resurrection. The reader tends to read it into the stories because the was the conclusion decided to be doctrine even later.

      I recommend Apparitions of Jesus: The Resurrection as Ghost Story by Robert Conner. ( https://www.amazon.com/Apparitions-Jesus-Resurrection-Ghost-Story/dp/1942897162/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8 )

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Well said, Kos.

        Christians roll their eyes and snicker about the supernatural tall tales of other religions, but goddamnit, the the ancient tale of the reanimation, transformation, and levitation of the dead corpse of their dearly departed first century prophet is 100% historically factual!!!

        Liked by 2 people

        1. “… the the ancient tale of the reanimation, transformation, and levitation of the dead corpse of their dearly departed first century prophet is 100% historically factual!!!”

          Oh, goodness, no. There’s another explanation: Peter, John, James (the brother of John), James (the brother of Jesus) – in fact all the “Twelve” (unless the 1 Cor 15 creed is just lying) – were all psychotic, like, maybe, schizophrenic.

          You could always argue that was the case.

          But, my Grandma claimed she saw my Grandpa a couple of times after he died. She never EVER thought it meant he left his grave, bodily, to show up on her doorstep. And guess what? That story has never gotten “blown up” over time. In fact, out of our family, I might well be the only one that remembers she said it.

          Heck, there are millions of those kinds of stories, but, they (very evidently) didn’t get “blown up” over time, either.

          So, that idea is a pretty stoopid one.

          I’d say you need to just stick with the argument that every disciple that claimed to have seen Jesus bodily resurrected was a lunatic.

          Like

          1. Your grandmother did not believe that your grandfather was the Jewish Messiah, the new King of Israel, who had promised her a crown and a throne in the new kingdom. Your grandfather did not have an empty tomb. The empty tomb gave a handful of first century Jewish peasants a sliver of hope that their fantastical messianic pipe dreams were still possible.

            The appearance of the Messiah was the sign of the general resurrection of the dead. If Jesus was the Messiah, then the resurrection was about to happen. His empty tomb and cognitive dissonance eventually led to the resurrection belief.

            It really is that simple, ft and Liam!

            Liked by 1 person

            1. well, now, wait a minute…

              I appreciate your attempt to explain how Jesus was different from my Grandpa (or, from lost loved-ones of millions of people).

              But, there is not one thing in Pharisaic beliefs nor in the broader, more generalized Jewish cultural belief that ever suggest anything but a general resurrection “at the last day”.

              There’s no way on earth that simple Galilean peasants were going to jump to a conclusion that Jesus had been resurrected, of all things.

              I mean, heck, there have been empty tombs (and / or graves) found before. But, those didn’t turn into resurrection stories either. They turned into stolen body stories. Like the girl in San Antonio a few years ago, who’s body went missing from the funeral home. That didn’t turn into a resurrection story. And, it’s still being investigated by the FBI as a stolen body story.

              So, how does an empty tomb and some hallucinations turn into a resurrection story?

              It doesn’t. It is a stolen body story, and some certifiable lunatics who claim – unlike my Grandma (and millions of others) – that they saw a corporeal body.

              Nope. I don’t think you can get past the necessity that they were all psychotics, Gary. Empty tombs don’t change that.

              It’s either they were psychotic, something like schizophrenics, or, they actually saw a corporeal body.

              But, if they weren’t psychotic, then, there’s absolutely no reason whatsoever that they should have thought their “visions” were any different that Peter’s Aunt LaTrina, who claimed she saw her decease husband Mordecai – and who never claimed it was “Mordecai in the flesh”…

              Like

            2. Though I would add much, MUCH MORE authentic historical context of Second Temple Judaism/Messianism, Gary you are still on the correct path. Christian apologists and Christian laypeople REFUSE to allow Yeshua bar Yosef’s hardline, deep-seeded Judaism to take center stage, YET… they want to hijack the Jewish Messiah, twist it, deface it, distort it, and turn it into a completely NON-JEWISH doctrine!!!! Hahahahahahaha!!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣

              Like

          2. “ Oh, goodness, no. There’s another explanation: Peter, John, James (the brother of John), James (the brother of Jesus) – in fact all the “Twelve” (unless the 1 Cor 15 creed is just lying) – were all psychotic, like, maybe, schizophrenic. ”

            We don’t have a single account by any of these mentioned ‘witnesses’ — not of the resurrection, not of a single teaching of Jesus, not his favorite kind of fish.

            All we have is stories of these people written generations later.

            It’s entirely possible that all these were simply disciples of a wise teacher passing along his wisdom after his death.

            Then along comes Paul with a tenuous grasp of reality. He ‘sees’ the resurrected Jesus in vision (not in person, not in body) and starts teaching a resurrected Jesus. The Jewish revolt comes along, Rome crushes Palestine and along with it the Jerusalem church.

            The Roman (Pauline) church wins! The stories are rewritten to include the resurrected Jesus of Paul’s, not James’, church. Remember, the gospels aren’t written until after Paul, after the destruction of the Jerusalem church. ‘History’ is written by the victors.

            For the resurrection story to take hold, we only need one delusional disciple. The stories of the others are irrelevant — unless and until you can give me copies of their testimonies that can be reliably dated to before Paul.

            Liked by 2 people

            1. re: “All we have is stories of these people written generations later.”

              I’m not sure what stories you’re referring to, but, I’m guessing it’s the Gospels.

              But, I don’t do Gospels.

              What we DO have is a creed, cited by Paul in 1 Cor 15, in which the creed – which the vast majority of scholars agree was already in use between 1 to 5 years after the crucifixion (and thus, long predates the Gospels) – says that Jesus appeared first to Peter, then to the Twelve, then to James, etc.

              And, Paul clearly taught a bodily resurrection of Jesus. And, Paul’s own message got the “OK” from Peter, John, James, etc, who agreed with what he was teaching. In other words, they agreed Jesus was bodily resurrected, and they agreed with that creed.

              So, you might want to broaden your reading to something besides the Gospels.

              Like

                1. wow. Now there’s a really solid, well-thought-through and well-expressed argument.

                  wow. just. wow.

                  gosh, what can I say? You win. I mean, how can such an intelligently-worded argument be refuted?

                  gee. I wish I’d seen that before.

                  Like

                  1. “ wow. Now there’s a really solid, well-thought-through and well-expressed argument. ”

                    I know, right?

                    Let’s compare it to your well argued argument:

                    “ And, Paul clearly taught a bodily resurrection of Jesus. ”

                    I can only aspire to one day, some day, gods willing, to be able to demonstrate a point so well.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    1. wow again. I see your point. geez you’re good at this.

                      Well, then, I’ll let the well-known, and highly-qualified Dr Bart Ehrman explain it to you:

                      (from his blog)

                      First thing to stress: the ancient apocalyptic view of the human that Paul had is not the view of the human that WE have. This is one instance where it becomes crystal clear that we have to try to think in a way that we are decidedly not accustomed to if we want to understand Paul. For US, the body is made of flesh, so when we speak of flesh, we speak of the body. For Paul, the flesh and the body were two different things. That’s because, for him, “flesh” does not refer to what WE refer to when we refer to flesh. That is, we think of it as the meat that is hanging on our bones; but that is not what Paul is referring to. He does, of course, know that there is meat hanging on our bones, but that is what he thinks of as our body. It is not our flesh. “Flesh” is a technical term for Paul. It is the bad side of being human. It is that part of the human that has been corrupted by sin and is alienated from God. The flesh is the reason we cannot please God even by keeping the Law. Because sin, using the flesh, forces us to do things in opposition to God. The flesh needs to be destroyed. But since the flesh is not the same thing as the body, that does not mean that the body has to be destroyed. The body has to be redeemed, not destroyed. (See how Paul talks about “flesh” in Romans 6-8)

                      Second point. In ancient ways of thinking, the body was not the ONLY material part of a human. Humans also have souls and spirits. And for ancient people, souls and spirits were MATERIAL entities, not IMMATERIAL entities (as they are for us). For us the difference between soul and body is visible/invisible or material/immaterial or substantial/insubstantial. That’s not how the ancients saw it. For the ancients, soul and spirit were made up of stuff. They were material entities. But their material was much finer, more refined, than the clunky shell of our body.

                      And so, if an ancient apocalypticist like Paul talked about a spiritual body, he meant a body that is no longer made up of just this clunky meat, it is a body of a more refined substance; it is still matter, but it is a different kind of matter. When Paul thought Jesus was physically raised from the dead, that was NOT a contradiction to his claim that Jesus had a spiritual body at the resurrection. Spiritual bodies were physical. We too will be raised (for Paul) into spiritual bodies. At that time we will not have “flesh,” because sin will no longer have any role to play in our existence. But when he says this, he means it in the ancient, not the modern, sense.

                      If you want to read up on ancient understandings of body, flesh, spirit, soul (especially as these are physical entities, not immaterial), I’d suggest you read the book by my friend Dale Martin, professor of NT at Yale, The Corinthian Body.

                      Like

              1. “ Paul’s own message got the “OK” from Peter, John, James, etc, who agreed with what he was teaching. In other words, they agreed Jesus was bodily resurrected, and they agreed with that creed. ”

                Okay. So I’ll need a copy of their approval of Paul, his message, and the idea of a bodily resurrection. Something notarized and dateable to Paul’s supposed lifetime.

                Liked by 1 person

                  1. “ just read pauls writing. You’ll find the meeting describe in there. ”

                    Yes. And only from Paul. That’s was my point. As I said:

                    “ Okay. So I’ll need a copy of their approval of Paul, his message, and the idea of a bodily resurrection. Something notarized and dateable to Paul’s supposed lifetime. ”

                    Because we have to take Paul’s word for it. We have nothing from Peter, James, John, the other James, George or Ringo that this meeting ever took place or that the Jerusalem leaders agreed with Paul.

                    Just like Joseph Smith’s meeting with the same people, we don’t have any corroboration.

                    Like

                    1. again, go argue with guys like Ehrman, Ludemann, et al…

                      this has all – ALL – been discussed by real scholars and historians.

                      here’s an interesting blurb from Ehrman, in regards to Galatians:

                      “When Paul makes off the cuff historical claims in Galatians he appears to be detailing information that his readers either already know or could know by consulting with others. He’s not telling stories, the way, say, the book of Acts or the Gospels do. He’s simply indicating things that happened to him and things that he did and people that he met. Now, to be sure, he has reasons for doing so, and so you always have to ask if his reasons for saying something are leading him to alter a historical fact. But in most cases, after carefully examining that option, almost all scholars of Paul think that he hasn’t done that much, if at all, in this letter. When he says that he met up with James the brother of Jesus, Peter, and John in Jerusalem, he is not trying to make the point “SEE! There really was a James!” He’s making a point about coming to an agreement with someone that everyone – both he and his readers – knows was an important figure in the Jerusalem church. Paul may have distorted (slightly?) the nature of their meeting, and its outcome, because those are the points he’s trying to make and stress. But he’s not trying to make and stress the point that James the brother of Jesus existed. That’s simply something he knows, takes for granted, and states off the cuff. And so it is almost certainly accurate. We may not know that with complete 100% certainty, , since ancient history almost never is 100% certain. But it’s pretty darn close, up there around 99% in my judgment.”

                      Look at the last three sentences: “And so it is almost certainly accurate. We may not know that with complete 100% certainty, , since ancient history almost never is 100% certain. But it’s pretty darn close, up there around 99% in my judgment.”

                      You can ask the same old questions that have been asked repeatedly by people who know nothing about textual analysis, etc.

                      But, real scholars – not guys like you, who just show off their lack of study with all the “whataboutisms” – come up with statements, based on a lot of real research, like “up there around 99%, in my judgement”.

                      So, I’m not gonna get drug into a “whataboutism” debate with you.

                      Like

              2. I’ll come back to the creed.

                The apostles Peter, James and John appeared to Joseph Smith and gave him the keys to the apostleship. Making Smith’s story true and certified by The Pillars.

                How do we know? Because Smith said so!

                I’ll need more than Paul’s account of his approval by the Jerusalem church — something from the Jerusalem church perhaps? No, nothing survives from the Jerusalem church — very convenient for the Roman church.

                Liked by 2 people

                1. Excellent point, Kos.

                  It is amazing how so many Christians take Paul’s word as “gospel” for some of the most fantastical claims known to humankind.

                  Like

                  1. re: It is amazing how so many Christians take Paul’s word as “gospel” for some of the most fantastical claims known to humankind.

                    this is where you amaze me, Gary. You’re the one that always goes on and on about accepting “expert consensus”, and yet here you say a rank amateur is making an “excellent point”.

                    do you always flip-flop between your own views?

                    Like

                    1. I know of no scholarly consensus which states that Paul literally saw the resurrected body of Jesus. This is the foundation of your belief in the resurrection: trusting Paul’s word that he saw a resurrected body. As I said before, I believe that that is the big hole in your argument. I don’t think it is rational to put so much faith in the testimony of ONE guy.

                      I was not commenting on the issue of the dating and source of the Creed. I accept expert consensus opinion on this issue. Kos does not. He trusts the majority opinion of Bible scholars just as much as he trusts the majority opinion of Mormon, Hindu, and Muslim scholars. He makes a very good point about probable bias among all of these experts.

                      However, for tactical reasons as a counter-apologist trying to “save” conservative Christians from their supernatural delusions, I choose to accept consensus expert opinion on ALL issues.

                      Liked by 1 person

              3. “ What we DO have is a creed, cited by Paul in 1 Cor 15, in which the creed – which the vast majority of scholars agree was already in use between 1 to 5 years after the crucifixion (and thus, long predates the Gospels) – says that Jesus appeared first to Peter, then to the Twelve, then to James, etc. ”

                Okay. Let’s talk about creeds.

                Who gives us creeds? When do we get them?

                Creeds come from a central authority, usually when that authority first gains a majority. At a time when it is imposing its views on the minority.

                When do we get the other creeds of Christianity? Hundreds of years latter when the Catholic Church is given control over Christendom by the emperor.

                Prior to this we have as many Christianities as there are towns with Christians in them. Paul rails against the other apostles of his day and the different Jesi (Jesuses?) that they taught. There is no unity here. No central authority to write and issue creeds. Paul appears to be the first to try to unify a group of Christians under one gospel — “my gospel.” Not Jesus’ gospel, not the Lord’s gospel — Paul wants unity under HIS gospel.

                Biblical scholars want the 1st Corinthians creed to be early. But the same textual analysis that shows that Paul didn’t write these verses, can be used to argue for a later insertion.

                Again, show me a copy of the creed that can be reliably dated to before Paul and I’ll change my mind. Currently, the earliest fragments of the creed date to the 4th century — 300 years after Paul.

                Liked by 2 people

                1. Fair warning Koseighty, ft007bond has super-silencing earplugs and deep rose-colored glasses! He’s a virtual Fort Knox when it comes to equitable, fully cumulative contextual evidence surrounding 1st century CE Jerusalem! It’s almost like he is reincarnated from that period and one of Christology’s firsthand disciples!!!! 😮 It’s better than David Copperfield!!!!

                  Liked by 1 person

                2. re: “Again, show me a copy of the creed that can be reliably dated to before Paul and I’ll change my mind”

                  Ehrman, Brown, Goulder, Ludemann, Habermas, Hoover, Crossan – REAL, actual scholars – (in other words, entirely unlike yourself) – agree the creed is dated to WELL before Paul.

                  Go argue with them.

                  Like

                  1. “ Ehrman, Brown, Goulder, Ludemann, Habermas, Hoover, Crossan – REAL, actual scholars – (in other words, entirely unlike yourself) – agree the creed is dated to WELL before Paul. ”

                    I’m really not interested in the pronouncements of Biblical scholars any more than I am of Book of Mormon scholars or Islamic scholars — they are predisposed to ‘prove’ the reliability of their subject. We have seen that as real scholars enter the debate, the old ‘known facts’ fall to genuine scholarship.

                    Whether you date the creed early or late, the fact remains that we have no testimony from anyone listed in it except Paul. We don’t have 3, 12, or 500 witnesses of the resurrection. We have one.

                    For comparison, the Book of Mormon tells us that tens of thousands of ancient American Hebrews witnessed the resurrected Jesus in the Americas. Do we then have the testimony of tens of thousands? No, we have the testimony of one: Joseph Smith.

                    Let’s say it was Paul that gave us the creed. Do we then have 3, 12, 500 witnesses? No. We have one: Paul.

                    Like

                    1. with only two exceptions, all those scholars I mentioned are atheist / agnostic.

                      [censored], then let’s chat again.

                      Like

                    2. that was a nice invitation to Kos. Granted, it was like saying “oh, let get together and chat again sometime when you’re not drunk”, but, that’s hardly an attack at all.

                      When Kos at least knows enough about who the most prominent, current scholars are, and what their opinions are – at least to the point where he knows Ehrman, Funk, Ludemann, and others in my list, are atheist or agnostic – then sure, I’d love to chat.

                      But, noting his ignorance is no more of an attack than noting someone’s drunkenness.

                      Like

                    3. Excellent points, Kos.

                      Ft’s entire worldview rises and falls on the testimony of ONE man who lived 20 centuries ago; a first century religious zealot who claimed to have taken an intergalactic space trip to a “third heaven” and who previously claimed to have received an appearance by a dead messiah pretender. In other words…a NUTJOB!

                      Liked by 1 person

                    4. yep, folks – it’s Yet Another Ad Hominem attack by Gary.

                      a man who clearly can’t argue a position, so he attacks the opponent personally.

                      No, folks – you probably didn’t learn about Ad Hominem attacks here. But, it’s guaranteed you’ll see some of the best of them done right here on this blog..

                      Like

                    5. It is worth noting we do not have any evidence of the character Paul. In fact, all we have are several texts that certain scholars agree were written by the same hand.

                      The character himself appears nowhere in the history of his day and is not attested by anyone besides a few Christian fathers, some of whom are suspect as well.
                      The Jews of his day have no knowledge of a renegade Jewish ”Christian Hunter”.
                      In fact, Saul/Paul was unknown until his epistles were collected and handed over to the church by Marcion.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    6. re: “In fact, Saul/Paul was unknown until his epistles were collected and handed over to the church by Marcion.”

                      BWAAAAAAAHHHHHAAAAAHAHAAAAAHHHHAAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                      oh, my sides are hurting now…. eyes watering…. oh, man…. seriously….

                      “IN FACT”.. oh. my, God.

                      Don’t ever ask me why I don’t take you seriously, Ark…

                      Like

                    7. I think I’m gonna leave it up to Ark to prove his “IN FACT” statement actually IS fact.

                      I mean, I’ve just never once read that there was some kind of broad consensus that stated that “Paul was unknown until his epistles were collected and handed over to the church by Marcion”.

                      This sounds like something I’d expect from a Jesus Myther… which has expanded to Paul Myther…

                      Like

                    8. Really?Instead of your usual asinine response to everything that mark you out as the consummate indoctrinated Arse, why not enhance your credibility above the status of dog turd and provide any verified historical evidence for the character Saul of Tarsus.

                      Like

                    9. nnnn no…

                      YOU said it was a FACT that “Paul was unknown until his epistles were collected and handed over to the church by Marcion.”

                      YOU need to show me how you know that’s FACT.

                      Like

                    10. The phrase I used was ”in fact….”
                      Research it.

                      That phrase not withstanding, you are playing semantics and clearly you have no interest in facts.
                      If you were truly concerned you would not be a Christian.
                      So, for the sake of clarification, because a pedant like you is worse than a severe case of hemorrhoids, there is no verifiable evidence that the character Saul of Tarsus ever existed and he only came to attention of the known world once the supposed epistles were gathered /collected – traditionally attributed to Marcion – and handed over to the church.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    11. real historians understand the difference between assertions and fact, and real historians speak in terms of plausibilities and possibilities.

                      in studies of ancient history, “fact” is almost always – (if not 100% of the time) – determined by whether an assertion has broad consensus agreement.

                      this is why you are a lightweight, Ark.

                      you spew out stuff like “In fact… Paul was unknown until his epistles were collected and handed over to the church by Marcion” — and that’s a totally bogus and entirely misleading statement.

                      It’s ASSERTED by “somebody” that Paul was unknown until his epistles were collected and handed over to the church by Marcion.

                      And, whoop de doo…

                      Like

                    12. It’s ASSERTED by “somebody” that Paul was unknown until his epistles were collected and handed over to the church by Marcion.

                      It is also ASSERTED by ‘somebody(s)’ that Saul of Tarsus/Paul was an historical character based solely on the assumption/plausibility that he is the actual author of the six or seven supposed genuine epistles.

                      And whoop de farking do too.

                      If you find my spewing misleading then rather than come back with standard apologetic fare why not really kick my arse and give us the evidence that will firmly dispel any further spewing and show the world you are more than the bumptious obfuscating little tit we have come to think of so fondly?

                      Liked by 1 person

                    13. give us the evidence that will firmly dispel any further spewing

                      In my personal experiences, NO amount of evidence will convince those who do not want to be convinced. There are always objections.

                      Like

                    14. Perhaps I should have qualified the type of evidence … ?? 😉

                      Essentially, most of us have our opinions/ideas/judgments already solidly locked in our psyche. Attempts to change these is generally fruitless. But, and I MUST add this … even more so in the case of religious (particularly Christian) beliefs.

                      Like

                    15. @Nan.
                      I never doubted that characters such as Moses, Jesus, and Paul were genuine historical characters , even if I never believed in the supernatural guff. Research and study markedly changed that perspective to the point where I now understand and acknowledge that Moses is fictional and why and also that there are real grounds to consider the same about Jesus and Paul.
                      To date, all calls for evidence from those who firmly believe in the historicity of these characters have produced zero takers.
                      In itself, this strongly suggests that those who claim there is evidence are unfortunately ignorant due largely to the power of indoctrination and show a complete absence of honest critical thinking.
                      In fact the more time passes the weaker the arguments for historical veracity.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    16. re: It is also ASSERTED by ‘somebody(s)’ that Saul of Tarsus/Paul was an historical character based solely on the assumption/plausibility that he is the actual author of the six or seven supposed genuine epistles.

                      Yes. This would be correct. Good job. You might be catching on.

                      re: If you find my spewing misleading then rather than come back with standard apologetic fare why not really kick my arse and give us the evidence that will firmly dispel any further spewing and show the world you are more than the bumptious obfuscating little tit we have come to think of so fondly?

                      You’ve already acknowledged that you don’t have any “proof” of the so-called “FACT” you stated. Why should I bother kicking your arse when you do such a good job of shoving your own boot in it? Heck, all I gotta do is sit back and watch….

                      Like

                    17. @ft
                      Again I used the term in fact … look it up You really need to learn to read as behaving like a churl does nothing for your credibility.

                      You won’t bother ever trying to kick my arse with evidence simply because you do not have any evidence.

                      Oh, and why not learn to blockquote?
                      It will make your comments easier to follow.

                      Like

                    18. how do you do blockquotes?

                      oh – and about “in fact” – It truly doesn’t mean a thing that you used the term.

                      Because, IN FACT, what you followed the term with was just somebody’s assertion that nobody knew of Paul’s letters until Marcion produced them.

                      Fortunately, we’ve got the word “assertion” into your vocabulary now.

                      Like

                    19. Everything is an assertion until it can be supported by evidence. There is NO evidence that the character known as Saul of Tarsus/Paul is the verified author of the epistles that scholars agree are written by the same hand. And that IS a fact.

                      There is no evidence of this character prior to the surfacing of the epistles supposedly written by this character.
                      That is ALSO a fact.

                      https://findingtruth.info/how-to-format-comments/

                      Like

                    20. re: “There is NO evidence that the character known as Saul of Tarsus/Paul is the verified author of the epistles that scholars agree are written by the same hand. And that IS a fact.”

                      True. Just as there is no evidence that a guy really named Josephus actually wrote “Jewish Wars”. In both cases (Josephus & Pauline epistles), the real author could have been a guy named Bob, using pen-names.

                      re: “There is no evidence of this character prior to the surfacing of the epistles supposedly written by this character.”

                      True. Just as there is no evidence of LOTS of characters in history, prior to someone either having written something about them, or they themselves having written something.

                      So, it’s a couple of great points. Neither are conclusive. Both could easily fall apart with just one relevant archaeological find. That’s all it would take.

                      But – we don’t have that. (and, as so many science affecionados like to add… “yet”)

                      So, I do my own “science”, and tend to use Occham’s Razor in such cases. What’s the simplest explanation? There was a guy named Paul who wrote letters, said to have been written by a guy named Paul.

                      Like

                    21. And beyond that, Ark … the entire Christian religion is based on the teachings of a man (if he existed) that never even met Jesus! And yet … and yet … all that he taught is followed (and argued over) far more than the recorded words of Jesus.

                      Liked by 2 people

                  2. It doesn’t matter if these guys are atheists or agnostics. They’ve received their training and work in the world of Biblical studies. I’ve seen Ehrman in particular defend some truly batshit stuff just because it’s ‘the consensus.’

                    Until the New Testament studies gets the same overhaul by real scholars in history, anthropology, archeology, etc. that is taking place in Old Testament studies, they just aren’t trustworthy.

                    Like

              4. A bit more on Paul and the creed.

                Never in all his ramblings does Paul quote another apostle or disciple of Jesus to make his point. Never in all his ranting does he quote Jesus.

                No. Paul rails against all the other apostles and all the other Jesi. Only Paul’s teachings are correct and only Paul’s Jesus is the real Jesus.

                Is this guy going to suddenly insert an old creed into “his” gospel? Not the Paul presented in the epistles. IF Paul were to insert a creed it would be a creed of his own making — revealed from Jesus to Paul and from Paul to the world.

                Remember Paul on the Lord’s Supper:

                “ 23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, … ”

                Paul take credit for revealing the Lord’s supper to Christians. It’s not from the disciples or other teachings. THIS IS FROM PAUL.

                If the creed had also been in 1 Corinthians when Paul wrote it, he would have taken credit for it.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. re: “Paul take credit for revealing the Lord’s supper to Christians.”

                  this may be the silliest thing I’ve ever read. “For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread…”

                  Evidently, you, Jesus mythicists, and magical-thinking fundamentalists must believe that this implies that Paul got the story “from the Lord”.

                  But, there are countless places in the OT, and probably some in the NT, in which some person – maybe a king, maybe a neighbor or friend, maybe even a stranger – does something good, and it is said that “the Lord brought it about…”

                  Paul could have, and probably did, hear the story of the “last supper” – but – understanding what was being taught was the “revelation” from the Lord.

                  Dang, even modern Christians do this all the time: they’ll hear some preacher give some teaching, and afterwards, they’ll say “the Lord really showed me something”.

                  So – I have to rank this comment as “pure nonsense”.

                  Like

          3. I’m going to try one last time to make my point without wondering off into the weeds (as I often do).

            1 – We have evidence that Paul believed he had seen the resurrected Jesus — in his letters.

            2 – We have evidence that early Christians believed that others had seen the resurrected Jesus — the 1st Corinthians creed.

            3 – We have NO evidence that anyone mentioned in this creed (except for Paul) believed they had seen the resurrected Jesus. We have no testimonies, no writings from any of them (again, except Paul).

            Did Peter believe he’d experienced the resurrected Jesus? We don’t know. Evidence says early Christians believed he did. But Peter himself is silent on the matter.

            By analogy: We have evidence that millions of Mormons believe that the resurrected Jesus appeared to ancient Americans. But we have NO evidence that the ancient Americans actually believed they had seen Jesus.

            There is a huge chasm between what we can show early Christians believed and what the characters they are talking about actually believed. The last bit we have no evidence for. None. Zero. Nada. Zip.

            Which brings us back to your earlier statement:

            ftbond:
            “ There’s another explanation: Peter, John, James (the brother of John), James (the brother of Jesus) – in fact all the “Twelve” (unless the 1 Cor 15 creed is just lying) – were all psychotic, like, maybe, schizophrenic. ”

            No! We have NO idea what these people believed. We don’t have to show some mass hysteria or hallucination.

            We only have evidence for one person believing they saw Jesus: Paul.

            One person could be crazy, mistaken, hallucinating, or a conman. Or a dozen other plausible, natural explanations.

            No, we don’t have to explain large numbers of people seeing Jesus. Just one. Large numbers believed that some number of others saw Jesus. But only one made the claim.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. Hahaha! Koseighty, I thoroughly enjoyed your literary tool/skill of sarcastic overstatement as if you were the Supreme Authority on obsessions of Monism and delusions of cumulative consensus of Christian grandeur, piety, and inerrantcy! Well done. 😉

        Liked by 1 person

          1. fundamentalist… OK, that explains the “magical thinking” about Paul learning of the “last supper” by some kind of divine revelation…

            I get it now…

            Like

              1. I’m not saying it’s not possible that Paul got this story by revelation.

                I’m just saying I don’t buy into that kind of magical thinking.

                Read 1 Cor 11:23-34. The first thing that has to be noted is that Paul has already, at some point before this writing, “delivered” (past tense) what he “received from the Lord”.

                In other words, he’s repeating a lesson he’s already taught.

                he then goes on saying “That on the night he was betrayed… blablabla…” (which he’s already taught them before) – followed by v 27 – the LESSON, beginning with “therefore…”.

                He then offers an admonishment starting in v 33 – “so, then, when you come together…”

                Paul is OBVIOUSLY correcting some behaviour they had. He is NOT giving some brand-new teaching here. And the teaching itself was NOT the creed about “on the night when he was betrayed…”, but rather, what follows that creed.

                But, you go ahead and believe it means Jesus magically “revealed” that story to Paul, if you wish. God knows there’s already enough Christians that believe that crap… 🙂

                Like

                1. I don’t care who invented the creed for the Lord Supper, whether it was Paul, James, Peter, or Jesus himself. One must be stark raving NUTS to believe that some guy’s blood has magical properties to appease the anger of a Bronze Age deity.

                  Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s