Jeffrey Gibson

What reply? You certainly haven't made one that speaks to, let alone deals directly and/or actually answers, the question I asked you.

Leaving aside what my cleverness level is, I recognize two things:

1. that the difference you pint to is trivial and without distinction;

2. that you have once again refused to be responsible for, or to answer questions about the validity of, your claim that there are reputable scholars who have done what you asserted "reputable scholars" have done -- namely, contended that many of the passages that have Paul referring to an earthly Jesus are interpolations.

Why is this?

Jeffrey

spamandham

Consult a dictionary if you need help understanding the word 'reply'.

I don't view it as trivial. I view it as a misrepresentation; and one that appears to be intentional.

Because this post came across as obnoxious, so I've blown you off since. Further, I only feel an obligation to back up a claim if it's part of an argument I'm trying to make. In this instance, it wasn't.

Jeffrey Gibson

OK. Shall I also look up how it defines "not dealing directly and/or actually answers[/I], the question asked"?

Could you please show me how my paraphrase misrepresents your claim and turns it into something you didn't claim?

OK. I get it. You presented yourself as having knowledge about NT scholarship on Paul that you really don't possess, and, despite your claim to the contrary, you really don't know of any reputable scholars who contend that many of the references in Paul to a historical Jesus are later interpolations, and you don't want to admit it. Thus the non responsive dodges such as the one above.

Noted.

Thanks.

Jeffrey

spamandham

...I can only assume you plan to support your claim that I do not possess that knowledge.

You're welcome,... again.