Toto

Wrong. There are no postulates. The possibility that Paul was fictional or ahistorical is inherent in the statement that he probably existed.

Yes. It is totally FUBAR. There is no reasoning going on.

The evidence consists of ancient documents that purport to have been written or dictated by Paul. The inference or conclusion is that there probably was someone named Paul, who either wrote those documents, or who inspired a forger to write them in his name. There is a possibility that he did not exist.

You may explore the latter possibility if you wish, but please stop posting crap that mangles the English language.

Toto

To divide this into gradations of 5% is lunacy. It implies a spurious sense of precision about the conclusion, while avoiding the real issues.

I think that it is more likely than not that someone like Paul existed, but I don't know if he was actually a Christian, or how much he wrote of the letters attributed to him. I don't think he bore any resemblance to the Saul/Paul character in Acts.

"All investigators must start somewhere from one of these options " - why on earth would you want to start with your conclusion before you investigate?

Are you serious?

aa5874

Well, talking about lunacy how can you think Paul likely existed but REJECT the biography of Paul????

It is evident you have very little or no idea who Paul was.

1. You really don't know if he was a Christian.

2. You don't what he really wrote.

3. You really don't know what he did.

The past cannot be reconstructed WITHOUT credible sources.

Why on earth would you think Paul likely existed before you investigate?

After investigation it can be shown Paul most likely did NOT exist in the 1st century Before the Fall of the Temple.

Philo, Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus cannot account for a Pharisee and a Jew called Saul/Paul that went all over the Roman and in Major Cities publicly declaring that a resurrected Jew was LORD and the Messiah , the End of Jewish Law and that every knee should BOW before the resurrected Jew even the Deified Emperors of Rome.

It is NOT likely Paul, a Pharisee and a Jew, existed and made such outrageous claims for over 17 years in Major Cities including Rome. In the Jesus stories, the assumed Jesus himself was EXECUTED within 17 hours AFTER saying he was the Son of the Blessed.

mountainman

Evidence is not discovered with labels telling us what it is.
There are always postulates.
These things are mandatory.
Where are you coming from?


The possibility that Paul was historical is ALSO inherent in the statement that he probably existed. The statement that Paul probably existed is a statement about the probable existence of Paul. It is not a statement about the probable non existence of Paul. The possibility that Paul was fictional or ahistorical is EXPLICIT in the statement that he probably DID NOT exist.



This evidence includes the known 4th century "Seneca-Paul" letter exchange.


This statement claims Paul may have existed or Paul may have not existed, and does not really tell us anything we didn't already know. If its a conclusion then its rather worthless.



Everyone is free to explore the postulatory statements of their own formulation about the evidence items.

This thread is trying to examine the nature of these postulates, especially those which appear to be antithetical to each other, and how they are shared between various proponents of various theories of the history of christian origins. I am trying to compare all possible theories by an examination of their most basic postulates, that effectively represent statements that describe the evidence, both in terms of its authenticity and its inauthenticity.

mountainman

These are not conclusions Toto they are postulates.

J-D implied a greater range of conclusions postulates was required.

Here is a cut-down version of CONCLUSIONS POSTULATES ......

(Mutually exclusive) Positive and Negative Historicity POSTULATES about "Paul"


+1 Paul is likely an authentic and genuine historical character

0 Unable to tell whether Paul is either authentic or fabricated.

-1 Paul is likely an inauthentic and fabricated historical character

Then you might use and explore postulate +1, in preference to either 0 or -1.




These are not conclusions Toto they are postulates.



We are not performing repeatable scientific experiments.

We are making historical CONCLUSIONS hypotheses about the ancient historical evidence.

J-D

No.

In no case does a probability of 0% equate to uncertainty. If we are unable to make an estimate, that is not equivalent to a probability of 0%, it is equivalent to a probability which is quantitatively indeterminate. If we don't know the probability, that means that we don't know it, not that it is 0.

If we are looking at the question of whether the relic is authentic and genuine (or not), then we might get something roughly like the following scale, as I said before:

100% The relic is definitely authentic and genuine
95% The relic is very highly likely to be authentic and genuine
75% The relic is probably authentic and genuine
55% The relic is more likely than not to be authentic and genuine
50% The chances that the relic is authentic and genuine are about even
45% It is more likely than not that the relic is not authentic and genuine
25% The relic is probably not authentic and genuine
5% There is little or no chance that the relic is authentic and genuine
0% The relic is definitely not authentic and genuine

If we are looking at the question of whether the relic is an inauthentic fabrication (or not), then we might get something roughly like the following scale:

100% The relic is definitely an inauthentic fabrication
95% The relic is very highly likely to be an inauthentic fabrication
75% The relic is probably an inauthentic fabrication
55% The relic is more likely than not to be an inauthentic fabrication
50% The chances that the relic is an inauthentic fabrication are about even
45% It is more likely than not that the relic is not an inauthentic fabrication
25% The relic is probably not an inauthentic fabrication
5% There is little or no chance that the relic is an inauthentic fabrication
0% The relic is definitely not an inauthentic fabrication

The relationship between the two scales depends on the precise way in which you have defined the two descriptions 'is authentic and genuine' and 'is an inauthentic fabrication'.

Either what you mean by 'is an inauthentic fabrication' is exactly and precisely the same as what you mean by 'is not authentic and genuine' or it is not.

If they are exactly and precisely the same, then the two scales do not combine into a single scale from 100% to -100%. Instead, what you have are two different presentations of the same scale, both running from from 0% to 100%, but reversed in relation to each other. A probability of X% for 'is authentic and genuine' corresponds to a probability of (100-X)% for 'is an inauthentic fabrication', and contrariwise.

On the other hand, if the way you define the two descriptions makes it possible for something to fall into neither category, if it is possible for something to be neither 'authentic and genuine' nor 'an inauthentic fabrication' as you have defined those terms, then the two scales still cannot be combined into a single scale running from 100% to -100%. You still have two different scales both running from 0% to 100%, but you can say that if the probability on one scale is X%, then the probability on the other cannot be more than (100-X)%, although it may be less.

Doug Shaver

Not necessarily. Different postulates can entail different conclusions without logical errors, but from the mere fact that different postulates are being used, it does not follow that no logical errors are being committed.

I have no idea, because I cannot discern your intended meaning.

J-D

We should be prepared to consider the possibility of treating any document as a forgery (on any definition of what is meant by 'forgery') if there is evidence suggesting that it is a forgery. I suppose you can call that general principle a 'postulate' if you like. However, that general principle alone does not constitute good reason to treat any specific document as a forgery in the absence of any specific evidence that it is a forgery (however that term is being defined in the relevant context).

Doug Shaver

What Toto said. You're talking nonsense.

Doug Shaver

If you were not so enamored of your own windbaggery, you wouldn't have to do so much guessing about what the rest of us think.