archibald

You think? I was thinking Swiss cheese.

Doug Shaver

Maybe I'm getting hypersensitive, but the following looked to me like a dismissal:
The best fiction always looks as if it were intended as history. There is even a word for that resemblance. It's "verisimilitude."

If you are referring to claims of interpolations in the gospels themselves, I do not recall seeing such an argument made in defense of ahistoricism. What I have seen many times is the suggestion, made by historicists, that those interpolations are evidence against the historical reliability of the gospels.

I cannot parse the latter portion of that (beginning with "nor any"). As for the first part, you've been doing this long enough to know what is required of any argument from silence.

1. To my knowledge, nobody has ever claimed the gospels were written purely to entertain anybody. 2. Could I trouble you for a list of significant differences between Jesus of Nazareth and Superman?

Very well, that is what you think.

Other ahistoricists can speak for themselves, but I have never thought nor said that Paul was writing fiction. It seems to me that he sincerely believed that Jesus Christ had been crucified, buried, and raised from the dead. What I don't think is that Paul was under the impression that these events were part of the recent history of the world he inhabited.

I have yet to find a persuasive argument against Paul's historicity. I do think, though, that the authenticity of the writings attributed to him is a lot more questionable than mainstream scholarship seems to presuppose. Even regarding the so-called undisputed epistles, the most I will stipulate is that they originated as documents that he wrote. How much of his work remains in the versions we now have is, I think, a very long way from being certain.

aa5874

You are YET to provide actual persuasive evidence for Paul's historicity.

It is MOST laughable when people resort to the same absurdities and fallacies EMPLOYED by INERRANTISTS who support the historicity of Paul as stated in the NT.

ALL the PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE show that PAUL LIVED AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

1. The VERY CHURCH claimed PAUL was AWARE of gLuke.

Church History" 6.25 2. The Pauline writings P 46 are dated by Paleography to the mid 2nd-3rd century.

3. Justin Martyr wrote NOTHING of Paul and the Pauline writings.

4. Aristides wrote NOTHING of Paul and the Pauline writings.

5. The author of "Against Heresies" 2.22 was NOT aware of Paul and the Pauline writings.

6. The author of SINAITICUS Mark did NOT write about the Pauline Gospel of the Resurrection.


Please PRESENT your actual PERSUASIVE evidence for the historicity of Paul instead of repeating CHINESE WHISPERS.

ONLY INERRANTISTS will use the same Pauline writings as PERSUASIVE evidence for the historicity of Paul and do so WITHOUT any credible external corroboration.

Time to CUT the crap.

There is simply NO PERSUASIVE evidence for the historicity of Paul. NONE, ZERO, NOUGHT.

Sheshbazzar

I, perhaps as much, if not more than any other individual here, have pointed out that much of the content of 'Pauline' writings reflect a highly developed Christology, and contain interpolated and fabricated material intended to give support to arguments that would only have made any sense or have became relevant under those sectarian schisms, and theological and doctrinal concerns that arose at much latter stages in the development of Christianity than within that time frame in which any actual Apostle 'Paul' might have lived and wrote.

This is not a radical observation, and is one that is commonly accepted by most all Biblical scholars who are not of the inerrantist camp.
Some of this interpolated material is glaringly obvious, while other portions are so subtle that they usually pass unquestioned as having originated with 'Paul' and being of the authentic Pauline material.

I believe Ted, from what you have written, that you are quite mistaken in regards to my, and many others positions with regards to 'Paul' and the Pauline Epistles.
The argument is not that there never was a real 'Paul' who wrote to and traveled to the synagogues of the Diaspora, preaching to both the Jews and the believing ger-toshavim gentiles in attendance, but rather that the original sparse writings of this Jewish individual were early on co-opted by the nascent Christian church, and his 'name' became a nom de plume for multiple latter church writers, who did radically edit, interpolate, and add to 'Paul's' original writings, as well as compose entirely new 'Epistles' of 'Paul', of which said individual would never have been aware of, or living, would have never willingly allowed the giving of his name to.

Different scholars are willing to allow to the existence of differing levels of interpolation and fabrication existing within these Pauline texts, some admit as little as 2-3% and quite a few allow as much as 10-20% as being fabricated or interpolated.

My personal view is that over 80% of the content of the so called 'Letters of the Apostle Paul' did not actually originate with that individual.




.

Doug Shaver

The evidence doesn't persuade you. I don't consider your judgment a good criterion by which to assess persuasiveness.

Solo

Anyone else has had the nagging feeling that every post of aa5874 on FRDB is a heroic attempt to re-design his epitaph ? :huh:

Jiri

aa5874

Cut the CRAP. Cut the Rhetoric. I don't have time to waste.

You are YET to provide the ACTUAL PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE to show the historicity of Paul.

This an excerpt from your own post.

That is also the argument of INERRANTISTS who have NO actual evidence for the historicity of Paul.

It is completely baseless and without logics to ASSUME the historicity of Paul due to lack of persuasion.

Persuasion is NOT related to historicity.

TedM

Interesting. Since you spend endless hours on this site I must conclude that you feel like you are on an important mission here...

aa5874

My MISSION is to spend ENDLESS HOURS PRESENTING the WRITTEN EVIDENCE of antiquity.

What is you mission?

TedM

Why? What is you want to achieve--the destruction of Christianity?

To kill time discussing interesting subjects..