The early Christians read their scriptures allegorically and not as literal history as far as the higher mysteries are concerned. Their principals were encoded as a historical tale and sold that way to the lower initiates of the cult but the higher initiates knew better. As the 3rd century Church Father, Origen, put it: the gospels were literally false but allegorically true. Origen stated that “the spiritual truth was often preserved, as one might say, in a material falsehood.” He said that “simpletons” would be better off to believe literally even though the literal reading is false because they wouldn’t comprehend anything higher. Eusebius agreed with this line of reasoning wholeheartedly. But this kind of reasoning goes back at least as far as Plato who also endorsed it. In fact, Eusebius quoted Plato from Laws in support of it. The same argument is advanced in Republic.

Clement of Alexandra agree with the words of Plato in that the common people cannot handle the truth and must be told falsehoods in which the truths are veiled in allegory, myth and riddle. Augustine, some centuries later, condemned this view but defended when it came to the bible meaning that he actually supported it.

Paul stated in 1 Corinthinans 1:18-25:

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” 20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

Here, Paul states that the Christian mysteries are foolishness and a stumbling block to the uninitiated. But that this “foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom” to those who believe, i.e. initiated into the mysteries. He explains in Chapter 2:

4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power. 6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 However, as it is written:

“What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived”—
the things God has prepared for those who love him—
10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.

Here Paul explicitly mentions a message preached among “the mature” that is different from what is spoken in public and that not even the rulers know it; that, for want of this hidden wisdom, was the very thing which caused them to crucify Christ—the power and wisdom of God. Only after being prepared to receive these mysteries is the initiate developed enough to become an apostle and carry on the fight of Christ for this world.

Carrier writes:

“…the origin of Christianity can be attributed to hallucinations (actual or pretended) of the risen Jesus. The prior probability of this conclusion is already extremely high, given the background evidence just surveyed; and the consequent probabilities strongly favor it as well, given the evidence we can find in the NT. Christian fundamentalists are really the only ones who do not accept this as basically an established fact by now. But it is important to acknowledge the broader point as well, that Christianity leaders, and many congregants, were either schizotypal or normal trance-induced hallucinators (or pretended to be), and they routinely engaged in hearing voices and seeing visions from heaven (or pretended to), and moreover regarded anything their subconscious mind hit upon during an ecstatic state as an inspired communication through the holy spirit.”

I’ll go even further than Carrier on this point—the use of psychotropic drugs. There were plenty of psychotropics available to the initiates. We know the Greeks were big on them and used ergot fungus to make a drug very similar to LSD to induce a hallucinogenic state. Also, Hildegard von Bingen comes to mind. She suffered from chronic migraines and was always seeking better and better treatments for them. She was a skilled botanist and likely knew of many natural psychotropics that caused the visions she claimed to have had. The druids even used poisons or toxins that could take an initiate to death’s door. They would then revive him and question him intensely about his experiences, if he had any. Most people who have been clinically dead recall nothing about the death experience. Only a third recall what we call the NDE. Without this experience, one could not become a full-fledged druid. Drinking the poison was voluntary and most who agreed to undergo the experience ended up dying and so only a few among them volunteered, fewer still survived, fewer yet remembered having an NDE. To prevent such a person from claiming to have had one, he would be questioned very intensely by a team of full druids to determine the truth of his claim.

The manufacture of this powerful drug then would then be a closely guarded secret. I know from personal experience (and a lot of it) that the experiences while tripping cannot be conveyed to people and any attempt to do so often sounds to them as silliness and often invokes ridicule. So we can see that giving this drug to just anybody was foolhardy and dangerous. The initiate would have to be carefully vetted: “Does he have the inner strength to understand the experience? Would he act crazy or violent while tripping? Would it turn him into a druggie? Would it fuck up his mind? Quite simply, not everyone initiated could be chosen. Only a handful would ever make it that far. I also believe the experience would be “guided” in the sense that the initiate in the drugged state would be made see and hear things that were provided surreptitiously by fellow initiates wearing outrageous masks and costumes appearing materialize and dematerialize to act out the myths and allegories and be told things that he was not to repeat to outsiders and so forth.

This appears to be the case when Paul recounts the Last Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25:

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

The question is, to whom is Jesus speaking? Our conditioned response is, “The disciples,” but this is only because we filter this incident through the gospels which Paul had never heard of much less ever read. Paul makes no mention that Jesus was speaking to a group of people. Rather, Jesus appears to be speaking to Paul himself. In his drugged state, Paul likely saw someone dressed as this savior acting this out as a way of giving Paul instruction that came straight from the savior and wasn’t filtered and possibly corrupted by any human intermediaries passing the information along word-of-mouth. In this way, Paul would never have doubts about what he was telling others, he would never waver. He would know what he was to do because he believed the Lord himself had told him so. Likewise, his audience would see the confidence and certainty with which Paul acted and be inspired by that and want to follow him which brings them more converts (of which a small portion will someday become full-fledged apostles).

The remnant of Christianity that remains today—the orthodoxy—is nothing more than the low-level teachings and hence it would be powerless to accomplish much beyond screwing things up without the mature ones to guide them but since they no longer exist, we’ve had to settle for watching the Christians botch everything up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95iRvZOtUWA

Now take your acid and join me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cviL0PlJTng

“…the origin of Christianity can be attributed to hallucinations (actual or pretended) of the risen Jesus. The prior probability of this conclusion is already extremely high, given the background evidence just surveyed; and the consequent probabilities strongly favor it as well, given the evidence we can find in the NT. Christian fundamentalists are really the only ones who do not accept this as basically an established fact by now.

Just to state the fact, this is not relevant to the whole HJ question, but only to the actuality of the resurrection. Depends on who you call Christian Fundamentalists, I guess, as to whether believing in the resurrection is fundamentalist.

It might be worthwhile to read Ehrman's new book on this subject. Judging by his topics, he appears to offer other possibilities for development of belief in the resurrection. Hallucinations occurring at the time of the supposed event are only one possibility, and I would say perhaps the least likely. I think, also, that the hallucination hypothesis carries with it some considerable historicity. There would need to have been an event very like the one reported in the Bible (Jesus crucifed and entombed) in order for people to have had these particular hallucinations about what happened to Jesus.

DB Roy wrote: "…the origin of Christianity can be attributed to hallucinations (actual or pretended) of the risen Jesus. The prior probability of this conclusion is already extremely high, given the background evidence just surveyed; and the consequent probabilities strongly favor it as well, given the evidence we can find in the NT. Christian fundamentalists are really the only ones who do not accept this as basically an established fact by now. But it is important to acknowledge the broader point as well, that Christianity leaders, and many congregants, were either schizotypal or normal trance-induced hallucinators (or pretended to be), and they routinely engaged in hearing voices and seeing visions from heaven (or pretended to), and moreover regarded anything their subconscious mind hit upon during an ecstatic state as an inspired communication through the holy spirit.”

Dr. Carrier should be more careful in using terms from psychiatry. "Schizotypal" refers to a personality disorder characterized by the inability to form and sustain relationships, suspicion of others, odd mannerisms, and other traits. It is not a psychotic disease.

During this period when Jesus was exclusively a visionary concept, presumably the visions were coordinated somehow, since there did exist a community of believers. It seems more likely that, even if we accept the visionary thesis, the beliefs were spread by teaching from only a few who claimed to have had these visions.

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

It's interesting that Mark repeats this very closely. Did he know of Paul, or was there an orally-transmitted formula that the Mark writer used?

DWill wrote: Dr. Carrier should be more careful in using terms from psychiatry. "Schizotypal" refers to a personality disorder characterized by the inability to form and sustain relationships, suspicion of others, odd mannerisms, and other traits. It is not a psychotic disease.

I just pulled this off the internet:

Common signs of schizotypal personality disorder include:

• Discomfort in social situations.
  Inappropriate displays of feelings.
  No close friends.
  Odd behavior or appearance.
  Odd beliefs, fantasies, or preoccupations.
  Odd speech.

The last two items are particularly pertinent--people seeing visions of the risen Christ and people speaking in tongues. I think schizotypal can explain it. Back then, people thought that people who were crazy were divine in some way, possessed of a spirit and not necessarily an evil one. Such people were often seen to have something special about them. The German/Yiddish word "selig" is used to mean both silly and blessed. So, as Carrier points out, some leaders may have even pretended to be this way to gain converts.

During this period when Jesus was exclusively a visionary concept, presumably the visions were coordinated somehow, since there did exist a community of believers. It seems more likely that, even if we accept the visionary thesis, the beliefs were spread by teaching from only a few who claimed to have had these visions.

Isn't that how any trend starts? And why do some things catch fire among the people and some don't? We don't know other than to chalk it up to "impersonal social dynamics."

Christianity was (and, in many ways, still is) a charismatic cult. That's why evangelism exists. Large numbers of people will follow one guy with a vision (pun intended). Many Christians still speak in tongues. Ancient people saw it as communing with God but today we call it glossolalia. And many preachers excel at doing this even though you know they're just bullshitting. They can mimic this trance-state because it convinces followers. And it is clear to the writers of the NT that this stuff was extremely common in the early churches:

-People seeing floating "tongues of flame."
-Stephen seeing Jesus floating in the sky even though no one else sees it.
-Paul seeing a bright light and hearing a voice and then suffering hysterical blindness.
-Ananias hallucinating a conversation with God.
-Cornelius and Paul hallucinating about talking with an angel in different incidents.
-Many in the early churches were prophesying.

And let us not forget the use of psychotropic drugs which were certainly being used as a sacrament just as marijuana is still a sacrament in the Ethiopian church. It's even possible a candidate was initially drugged without his knowledge which made him very suggestible and would explain the need for strict secrecy among the higher initiates.

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

It's interesting that Mark repeats this very closely. Did he know of Paul, or was there an orally-transmitted formula that the Mark writer used?[/quote]

He read Paul. Probably most if not all Christian leaders of that time did. Paul wrote his beliefs down so there was no need for an oral transmission and the letters served as the basis for getting a church started. Mark didn't promote the writings of Paul because he was in disagreement with him on key points. Mark wanted a Jesus who could forgive sin at will and not one who had to die on the cross to achieve it. This was likely because their apostles remitted sin in just this fashion in public. Mark created a Jesus who did the kinds of things the apostles of their community did when they went among the people so it appeared as though they were carrying on in his tradition. The effects had to be something the people could see right away.

DB Roy wrote:

DWill wrote: Dr. Carrier should be more careful in using terms from psychiatry. "Schizotypal" refers to a personality disorder characterized by the inability to form and sustain relationships, suspicion of others, odd mannerisms, and other traits. It is not a psychotic disease.

I just pulled this off the internet:

Common signs of schizotypal personality disorder include:

• Discomfort in social situations.
  Inappropriate displays of feelings.
  No close friends.
  Odd behavior or appearance.
  Odd beliefs, fantasies, or preoccupations.
  Odd speech.

The last two items are particularly pertinent--people seeing visions of the risen Christ and people speaking in tongues. I think schizotypal can explain it. Back then, people thought that people who were crazy were divine in some way, possessed of a spirit and not necessarily an evil one. Such people were often seen to have something special about them. The German/Yiddish word "selig" is used to mean both silly and blessed. So, as Carrier points out, some leaders may have even pretended to be this way to gain converts.

He and his fact-checkers still did err here. Schizotypal is used only in combination with Personality Disorder, as your source said. It's diagnosed when the symptoms most prominent place the person well out of the mainstream in social functioning. There are not commonly hallucinations or delusions with the disorder, but if there are, they are briefer, less frequent, and less intense than with the psychosis of Schizophrenia or Bipolar 1. Fixed ideas would be common, but they are not usually bizarre. Beau Bergdahl, the soldier held by the Taliban for five years, has been diagnosed with the disorder on the basis of being "unrealistically idealistic" and being certain of seeing traits in people that others did not.

In rare cases, people with Schizotypal PD can develop Schizophrenia (though a good portion of schizophrenics don't have overt psychosis, either), so there is some relationship between the two. While for many years Schizophrenia was used as blanket term for visions and possession, in the last 75 or so it has been recognized that Bipolar Disorder, formerly manic depression, is the disease that explains the intense energies that sometimes produce visionary states that can fuel the creativity of artists and thinkers. Schizophrenia, on the other hand, is a brain disease that in almost every instance exacts big cognitive penalties and has no upside. That's why, if anyone had the choice, Bipolar would be the better way to go.

Sorry for the pedantry. I think Carrier should have used Bipolar here.

DB Roy wrote:

DWill wrote:During this period when Jesus was exclusively a visionary concept, presumably the visions were coordinated somehow, since there did exist a community of believers. It seems more likely that, even if we accept the visionary thesis, the beliefs were spread by teaching from only a few who claimed to have had these visions.

Isn't that how any trend starts? And why do some things catch fire among the people and some don't? We don't know other than to chalk it up to "impersonal social dynamics."

Christianity was (and, in many ways, still is) a charismatic cult. That's why evangelism exists. Large numbers of people will follow one guy with a vision (pun intended). Many Christians still speak in tongues. Ancient people saw it as communing with God but today we call it glossolalia. And many preachers excel at doing this even though you know they're just bullshitting. They can mimic this trance-state because it convinces followers. And it is clear to the writers of the NT that this stuff was extremely common in the early churches:

-People seeing floating "tongues of flame."
-Stephen seeing Jesus floating in the sky even though no one else sees it.
-Paul seeing a bright light and hearing a voice and then suffering hysterical blindness.
-Ananias hallucinating a conversation with God.
-Cornelius and Paul hallucinating about talking with an angel in different incidents.
-Many in the early churches were prophesying.

And let us not forget the use of psychotropic drugs which were certainly being used as a sacrament just as marijuana is still a sacrament in the Ethiopian church. It's even possible a candidate was initially drugged without his knowledge which made him very suggestible and would explain the need for strict secrecy among the higher initiates.

I'm just not too sure about the hallucinogen use, but otherwise what you say is pretty solid. Especially in social groups, people can work themselves into an ecstatic frenzy without the aid of substances. My thinking, though, is that it still isn't highly plausible that Jesus originated as a vision of a pure god. This would seem to read backwards what actually seemed to have happened, in the Gospels if not necessarily in Paul: Jesus first being viewed as anointed by God but not divine, and only later, with John's Gospel, being exalted as a god coeval with the creator. 'Man who was also, or became, a god' appears to fit the case better than 'god who never even started as a man.' I'm talking about how Jesus was viewed. Mark reflects a tradition that Jesus existed as a man. The claim that the writer of Mark was implanting the entire notion that Jesus was a man, runs into serious problems (not that you have said that yourself).

He read Paul. Probably most if not all Christian leaders of that time did. Paul wrote his beliefs down so there was no need for an oral transmission and the letters served as the basis for getting a church started. Mark didn't promote the writings of Paul because he was in disagreement with him on key points. Mark wanted a Jesus who could forgive sin at will and not one who had to die on the cross to achieve it. This was likely because their apostles remitted sin in just this fashion in public. Mark created a Jesus who did the kinds of things the apostles of their community did when they went among the people so it appeared as though they were carrying on in his tradition. The effects had to be something the people could see right away.

James D. Tabor calls Mark "heavily Pauline in its theological content," obviously agreeing that he knew Paul well and didn't disagree with him on substance. I wouldn't argue about the matter of practice you raise.

DB Roy wrote:The remnant of Christianity that remains today—the orthodoxy—is nothing more than the low-level teachings and hence it would be powerless to accomplish much beyond screwing things up without the mature ones to guide them but since they no longer exist, we’ve had to settle for watching the Christians botch everything up.

Don't worry D.B. When the anti-theists and freedom from religionists control everything you will create an harmonious and peaceful world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8brw7Ig_kHc

I could no more be anti theist than you Flann could be anti atheist, let us not confuse our ists with our isms, and let us not confuse our isms with the specific ideas that comprise them

For me I couldn't really be an anti theist as theists are human and I am human too, so in a way to be anti theist is to be anti myself.

The only thing I can really be anti toward is an idea, and even then it depends entirely on the specific idea in view.

If someone says here is my theism, I believe the order of nature speaks of a mystery and I call that mystery God, furthermore I believe that God is the one in the bible, but I hold this as a position of faith and I don't think anyone is going to hell if they see things differently, this is simply a religious way that I find works for me.

Well I would find it not particularly objectionable even though I might think them wrong.

If however someone says here is my theism, my holy book is literally true and if you don't believe in my way you are a sinner and you are going to hell. You are under the influence of a fallen angel a malevolent spiritual being, and until you repent and accept Jesus as your lord and saviour you are just a puppet of the devil.

Well this person is a loony.

But in both cases I am not anti theist

its the ideas that I can be anti not the people who hold them, the minute someone says atheist love is just as good as Christian love, atheist love is just as good as Muslim love, love is love it doesn't have a brand name well I am inclined to warm to such a person.

But when the implication is that I am somehow missing out because I don't embrace a particular faith literally I feel I must resist that idea.

Because it is offensive to my reason and my sense of the value of all people whether they have a religion or not.

So I can't really see how someone can reasonably be anti theist

I can see how they might be frustrated at some religious ideas, I can see how they might think a particular doctrine is hideous. But that is entirely different from being anti theist, that is just hating harmful or unreasonable ideas.

Bad thinking is bad thinking, makes no difference who does it, it's still bad thinking.

I'd just say that it's a fine line to walk between hating the idea yet not hating the person having it. We may think we're capable of making this separation, but I have some doubts whether our brains are equipped to do it. If we think that an idea that we abhor pervades a person, emotionally we must hate the person; person and idea become merged and that person becomes an enemy. It may be appropriate to hate someone, in extreme instances such as Nazism.

To avoid this trap, I think we should be careful about labeling ideas as the enemy.

DWill wrote: He and his fact-checkers still did err here. Schizotypal is used only in combination with Personality Disorder, as your source said.

Sorry for the pedantry. I think Carrier should have used Bipolar here.

You can take that up with Carrier. I couldn't care less. The people that started Christianity were sick in the head--I don't care if they were bi-polar or crackheads--that admission is good enough for me.

And, by the way, I disagree with you 110%. The following is a good summation of early Christian leadership:

DSM-5[edit]
In the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-5, schizotypal personality disorder is defined as a "pervasive pattern of social and interpersonal deficits marked by acute discomfort with, and reduced capacity for, close relationships as well as by cognitive or perceptual distortions and eccentricities of behavior, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts." At least five of the following symptoms must be present: ideas of reference, strange beliefs or magical thinking, abnormal perceptual experiences, strange thinking and speech, paranoia, inappropriate or constricted affect, strange behavior or appearance, lack of close friends, and excessive social anxiety that does not abate and stems from paranoia rather than negative judgments about self. These symptoms must not occur only during the course of a disorder with similar symptoms (such as schizophrenia or autism spectrum disorder).[19]

They weren't crazy. But they may as well have been.

We don't have a way to prove this, DB Roy. I'll just say that someone considered to be Schizotypal isn't a candidate to get others to line up behind him in order to start a movement. With Schizotypal you get Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. Whether we approve of these Christians or not, by any evidence the ones who created and sustained the movement didn't form a cluster of mentally ill people.