Dutch_labrat

By the way, isn't it a bit rich the catholic church has a problem a writer of fictional history?

aa5874

It is blatantly obvious that you don't know what you are saying.

I have NOT argued the Canon must be either entirely true or entirely false and you know such is the case.

You are COMPLETELY propagating propaganda about me. You persist in making deliberate mis-leading statements about my position.

Please stop immediately.

I only have produced the DATA that I have found in the Canon.

The DATA in the NT about the character called Jesus, the disciples and the Pauline writers are OBVIOUS fiction.

Please tell me what other possibilities are there for the DATA found in Matthew 1.18-20, Luke 1.34-35, John 1.1-4, Acts 1.9 and Galatians 1.1?

Now, a lawyer does not argue that his client is both possibly guilty and possibly innocent simultaneously, he must chose one of the possibilities and then provide DATA or EVIDENCE to support his position.

It is highly IRRELEVANT that people think there are other possibilities than FICTION about Jesus, his disciples and Paul if they are NOT prepared to produce the DATA or EVIDENCE to support their position.

What is the DATA or EVIDENCE that can show it is extremely likely or possibly very likely that the story of Jesus, the disciples and Paul were not FICTION as found in the NT?

Solo

I hope the book is - as promised - well researched. There is no basis on which to claim that Paul was "the disciple" of Jesus. Paul was an apostle of Christ, a heavenly figure it appears he himself created as both, a pre-existent attribute of God, and a post-mortem spirit of of a faithful man Jesus. Paul claimed Christ communicated to him rules of conduct securing individual salvation for the impending judgment and the end of the world.

Jiri

Zaphod

You make it sound as if Paul is not primarily a construction of at least one camp himself!

Toto

or how Abe can't decide whether Pullman is close to being a mythicist because he is so anti-religion, or has researched the question fully and is therefore not a mythicist.

The Catholic Church only opposes theologically incorrect fiction.

ApostateAbe

I never considered the option that he researched the question fully.

Doug Shaver

No, I do not know that. I have never, as best I can remember, seen you admit the possibility that the New Testament could be a mix of fact and fiction.

Are you admitting it now? Will you say here in this thread that, in your opinion, it is possible that New Testament contains some historical fact even if other parts of it are obviously false?

aa5874

Now, you admit that you really don't know what you are talking about. You seem to be promoting propaganda.

I have posted over 5000 times. Just read some and you will find out my position.

I don't have time to waste.

ApostateAbe

You could have saved yourself a lot of time just by writing "yes" or "no."

aa5874

But, in the Pauline writings the Pauline writer stated that he was an apostle of JESUS CHRIST.

Not just Jesus, Not just Christ but JESUS CHRIST.

These are samples

Ro 1:1 - 1Co 1:1 - 2Co 1:1 - Ga 1:1 - It is not what we want Paul to write but what Paul wrote. In the Canon, Paul met Jesus Christ or was converted by a bright light from Jesus Christ after he was ascended to heaven.

The Pauline biography cannot be altered.

The story is cast in stone unless some other story from antiquity can be found.