J-D

No, it doesn't. What it shows is that I used a form of words which conveyed an impression to you which was never in my mind. That's why I rephrased my position in an attempt not to convey that erroneous impression. If you would rather discuss what you incorrectly imagined I meant than what I actually did mean, I think you'll have to discuss it with yourself instead of with me, and you don't need to post to this board for that purpose. If you want to discuss what I actually do mean, I think you have to accept that I have a clearer idea of my own meaning than you do.

If you want to discuss a position which you incorrectly understood to be mine and to do so on the basis that it really is my position, then you'd be lying about me and I'd resent it.

aa5874

You cannot be sure of Paul's Belief when the character is NOT corroborated to have LIVED in the 1st century Before the Fall of the Temple.

You ACTUALLY have ZERO reason, ONLY FAITH, to PRESUME Paul's sincerity when the Pauline writings contain FICTION.

Paul made claims that are SURELY Fiction so it is virtually impossible to be sure if Paul was DECEIVED or if he INTENDED to DECEIVE.

In Galatians Paul claimed he persecuted the FAITH that he now preached.

There is NO credible evidence, NONE, that can show the Pauline Faith was preached before the 2nd century and Paul persecuted any Christians.

In 1 Corinthians Paul claimed it was revealed to him that Jesus was betrayed in the NIGHT after he had supped.

There is ZERO credible evidence that there was a Jewish Messiah known as Jesus BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

Even the Church claimed Paul was AWARE of the Jesus story in gLuke.

No external non-apologetic source accounted for Paul.

Please CUT the PROPAGANDA. You are NOT even sure what Paul wrote.

You must know that there are several factors that tend to show that the Pauline writings were written to DECEIVE.

Paul claimed he TESTIFIED that Jesus was ACTUALLY raised from the dead and that he would be a LIAR if the dead rise NOT.

Well, the dead rise NOT.

I am SURE Paul was a DECEIVER based on 1 Cor.15.

1Corinthians 15:15 - I have REASON to say that PAUL was a DECEIVER because the dead rise NOT on the THIRD day.

jakejonesiv

Let's try a simple question.

Did Jesus Christ as described in the gospels exist?

The answer to that question is simply, no. To get any other answer, you have to start slicing and dicing, and that involves almost as many assumptions and biases as there are authors.

Is that too simple?

Jake

gurugeorge

I don't see how you can change that sentence above to have any other meaning than the one I'm giving it. You may have been thinking something else, and you may have misrepresented what you were thinking, but what you wrote has the meaning it has, and it's a blatant example of taking for granted what has yet to to be demonstrated.

If all you meant was "some statements in the gospels may or may not be historically true", why didn't you just say it? It's a fairly bland proposition, but at least it doesn't commit the fallacy of petitio principii.

J-D

Because there are many statements in the gospels in which the word 'Jesus' is not used, as well as statements in which the word 'Jesus' is used, and I wanted it to be clear that I was saying not only that some of the statements in which the word 'Jesus' is not used might or might not be historically true, but also that some of the statements in which the word 'Jesus' is used might or might not be historically true.

It seemed to me then, and indeed it still seems to me now, that using the expression 'statements about Jesus' to mean 'statements in which the word "Jesus" is used' is natural and unproblematic, and it did not occur to me that it could be taken as carrying the additional implications you attribute. But since I have seen that to you it is different, I have made an effort to restate and clarify my position.

J-D

Yes, it's too simple.

archibald

George, this whole time you've been reading something which wasn't there, and you're not listening to the other party when they're telling you that. There never was such a fallacy, except in your perceptions, because you appear to have this ingrained notion that considering a possible HJ necessarily implies assuming something, which of course it doesn't.

archibald

Had you? I didn't recall.

But, I have to say, what is the comparison? That appears to be a prize winning play about a dim and distant mythical figure, not a recent figure, by Euphrides, someone we have every reason to believe was a playwright? I understand that some, for their own subjective reasons, wish to view the gospel authors as playwrights, but there does not seem to be the objective basis for doing so. The actual evidence suggests that they appear to fit an entirely different category, that of religious believers, which is quite a different kettle of fish.

archibald

Yes.

Toto

Why is it too simple? It is Bart Ehrman's position. The gospels are not historically reliable. They describe a divine figure who does supernatural deeds and rises from the dead. But he thinks that he can slice and dice with his criteria of authenticity to recover the historical core.