Chili

Here is the solution: Jesus was the pupa stage in metamorphosis . . . and eyewitnesses would not know what to look for when they saw it.

Doug Shaver

Sorry about that. Pete asked a question and I answered it. I don't have time to present a detailed defense of my objections to his rambling repetitious gibberish, because I've already done that plenty often during my time in this forum. If his writings make sense to you, go ahead and enjoy them.

mountainman

Then it should be very easy for you to demonstrate your claim.

Why not indeed.

tanya

wow. what power....what authority...what determination...what decisiveness!!

what skill....what omniscience...

I am very impressed. You certainly are a brilliant, and a great, leader.

Thank you very much for sparing us any further obligation to engage in dialogue.

:notworthy:

mountainman

I have mentioned the "Paul-Seneca" letter exchange a few times. Someone was forging letters in the name of Paul and Seneca in the 4th century - is this not additional evidence that undermines the default? Or are you just going to sweep this inconvenient additional evidence under the carpet of your mind?

Detering considers the hypothesis of a "phantom paul" quite openly. Do you think Detering's arguments are cogent? What's Detering doing wrong Doug?


If you cannot deny that Paul could have been a figment of early Christian imagination then you cannot deny that the hypothesis that Paul was not an historical figure may in fact be true, irrespective of any arguments. In case you missed bits of this thread it is about what is POSSIBLE, not probable. I am not interested in rating the hypotheses, and am only interested in identifying them. How many times must I repeat myself? Who has comprehension problems with this?
.


Historical Method / Source Criticism / Core principle # 2

QED.

Chili

Coriolanus and Macbeth is such an exchange between Comedy and Tragedy that someone may have forged again to show that "phantom paul" is still alive, and really should pull every copy of Macbeth off the shelf world-wide, and so proves it's worth as the frock of Paul.

Toto

If there were dialogue here, I wouldn't want to close the thread. Instead there is primarily an exchange of insults and a variety of incoherent noises.

It might be better to start over with a new thread if there is in fact an issue to discuss.

Toto

It is evidence against your proposition. The letters in Seneca's name are forged, but his name was chosen because he was a prominent historical person.

Farbicated Paul

When Detering uses the term "phantom" he seems to reference the shadows in Plato's cave, who are insubstantial but are reflections of some sort of reality.

Just as every shadow makes reference to that which throws the shadow, however, so also those figures in early Christian history, which until now we assumed we saw before us in full reality, and which we now understand to be mere images, make reference to the real forces and leading figures who determined the history of early Christianity. The disappointment that so much was not the way we thought, and the way it had been presented to us, becomes outweighed by the fact that our insight into early Christian history gains depth and plasticity, that we perceive with fewer illusions, but so also more clearly and distinctly, the real historical forces in their battle for the truth, as well as for power and dominion. The loss is compensated for by the fact that we come to know other figures in early Christianity, unknown until now, in whom it becomes clear to us what immense spiritual forces, still entirely free and unhampered by any orthodoxy, were present in the cradle of Christianity, in comparison with which present-day Christianity seems like an extinct volcano.

Stop repeating yourself. If you have to repeat yourself so often, consider that there is some sort of communications failure, and it is possible that you are at least partly at fault.

No one here, including Doug, has denied that there is a possibility that Paul's letters were forged in the name of a fictional person. But that is not the most likely explanation.

You can waste a lot of time identifying all of the mere possibilities. And you are not saying anything worth discussion if you just identify a case as a possibility without discussing how you would establish it.

tanya

1. we would profit how, from voting on "worst thread..."?
2. Which criteria would we apply to undertake such a vote?
3. Why is this notion superior to voting, instead, for the BEST thread of the year?
4. Upon arranging all the threads from the past year in rank, according to the votes received, then what would we gain:
disallow those at the bottom of the list from submitting new threads, until one calendar year has elapsed?

In my opinion, your threads would occupy BOTH the very top of the list, and the bottom. You are one of the most brilliant schizophrenics around....

Here are two quotes from yesterday, which, in my view, represent a completely contrary view of the merit of this thread:

Yes, some folks get a little carried away, now and then, insulting some members, but most folks understand that we are not robots, always submitting flawless rejoinders.

I guess, if a vote were taken, this thread would lie somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.
criteria for voting:

age of thread;
number of views;
number of submissions;
bandwidth;
quantity of forum participants engaged in discussion;
resolution of a specific problem, to the satisfaction of at least some thread participants;

tanya

yes, SENECA was a prominent historical person, but that doesn't mean that Paul was a "prominent historical person".

Paul could just as easily be a pseudonym, and the forged letters employed Seneca's name to boost Paul's credibility within the Christian community.

Do we know the date of the forgeries?

I don't follow the argument that this forgery disproves Pete's point....maybe I am just too slender (mentally).