J-D

You have not given an adequate demonstration of that view. The question remains more open than you say.

aa5874

No way, Your assertion is absurd and contradictory.

In any event you have ADEQUATELY demonstrated that Doug Shaver's reasoning is FLAWED without question.

Please review your posts where the Flawed reasoning of Doug Shaver was pointed out.


I think you have adequately demonstrated that it is not necessary for Paul to have actually existed for letters to be found with the name Paul.

J-D

You have not given an adequate demonstration of that.Why? I remember what I said.I know Paul existed. He still exists. I've known him since fifth class, and I saw him again a few weeks ago. Of course, he didn't write the so-called Pauline epistles.

As well as Paul, Paul also existed, and possibly still does--I haven't seen him since sixth class. He didn't write the so-called Pauline epistles either.

Paul, on the other hand, although he did not write the so-called Pauline epistles, did write 'Hey, Jude'.

aa5874

You have adequately demonstrated the Flawed reasoning of Doug Shaver.

It is true that Paul did not have to existed as stated in the Pauline writings to have letters with the name Paul.

mountainman

History deals with relative and not absolute senses. Do we have to go back to philosophical basics for every term introduced? Elsewhere you have indicated that you understood history to be dealing with relative probabilities, and not absolutes. You are the one introducing absolutes in error above. The Isreali Police Dept does not deal in absolutes, but in a whole stack of relatives but still managed to decide to prosecute a case that the James Ossuary was fabricated evidence.

Positive and Negative Historicity Spectrum of the "James Ossuary"


+100 = The "James Ossuary" is a genuine relic associated wth Jesus's family.

+50 = The "James Ossuary" is a genuine 1st century relic of unknown provenance.

+25 = The "James Ossuary" is a genuine very early relic

+5 = The "James Ossuary" may be a genuine relic.

================================================== ===
ZERO = The fence upon which to balance .....
================================================== ===

-5 = The "James Ossuary" may not be a genuine relic.

-25 = The "James Ossuary" is possibly a recent forgery.

-50 = The "James Ossuary" is "A rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too",

-99 = The "James Ossuary" was fabricated by Oded Golan on a private rooftop

The one evidence item, in this case the James Ossuary, is seen as positive when it is substantiated by many claims, assessments and attestations of genuineness, and negative when it is substantiated by many claims, assessments and attestations of non-genuiness.

mountainman

Toto has had no difficulty in surmising that the Paul being discussed here is the Paul introduced as a result of the postulates associated with the evidence admitted as the "Pauline Letters".

The answer to aa5874's question J-D can be answered with a yes or a no. Those who answer yes already allow for a non historical "Paul", whereas those who answer no are really assuming that Paul must have existed, and are essentially therefore making the postulate that "Paul was an historical character". Why take refuge in frivolity when there is an opportunity to be logical for a change?

mountainman

So do I.


That "Paul" existed as an historical character must be ultimately postulated from the evidence by those so willing.

Ditto for "Jesus" or "Papias".

J-D

The flaw in your reasoning is that you have not established what you are referring to when you use the name 'Paul'. Are you talking about a Paul who wrote 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philemon, Philippians, Romans, and 1 Thessalonians, but did not write Colossians, Ephesians, Hebrews, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus? Or are you talking about a Paul who wrote Colossians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philemon, Philippians, Romans, and 1 Thessalonians, and 2 Thessalonians, but did not write Hebrews, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus? Or are you talking about a Paul who wrote Colossians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philemon, Philippians, Romans, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus but did not write Hebrews? Or are you talking about a Paul who wrote Colossians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Hebrews, Philemon, Philippians, Romans, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus? Or what?

J-D

I don't understand what makes you think that question is relevant at this particular point. You asked me about the standard used by the Israeli police; I said I didn't know. I didn't say anything about definitions of terms. I just said I didn't see the relevance of Israeli police standards to the point then at issue.And I have not here said anything contrary to what I said about that earlier, so again I don't see why you're making that particular point at this particular juncture.I said that I don't know what standards the Israeli police apply. I don't see how that equates to 'introducing absolutes in error'.I know they're prosecuting, but I still don't see how that's supposed to be relevant here.Are you suggesting that this is a model relevant to what the Israeli police did? I bet it isn't.No: claims, assessment and attestations that the ossuary is genuine tend to point to the conclusion that it is genuine, while claims, assessment, and attestations that it is not genuine tend to point to the conclusion that it is not, subject to the qualification that the weight as evidence of the various claims, assessments, and attestations itself needs to be evaluated. On the other hand, neither postulating that it is genuine nor postulating that it is not carries any weight as evidence.

Toto

That is only because most historical data is not absolutely reliable, especially for ancient history. If our evidence is good enough, we can be absolute.

On the contrary, the Israeli authorities felt that they had evidence that showed that Oded Golan had fabricated the James Ossuary that met the standard of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense disagreed.

This is completely unhelpful, and adds nothing to any discussion. Your numbers are arbitrary, and not even a linear progression.

If the James Ossuary were genuine, it might or might not have been associated with Jesus' family. There is nothing about the ossuary that allows you to decide.

If not genuine, it has no value as evidence for a historical Jesus: it might have been an early Christian forgery, a later forgery, a stupid forgery or a clever one. It's just irrelevant.

You might assign some probability to your certainty about the science, but it wouldn't correspond to your numbers above.