spin

Toto beat me to the draw.

This is reflective of the problem:

As Galatians is such a thorn in the side for mythicism we must show that Pauls letters are fraudulent. We don't even need any specific theory of who made them or when they did or how they convinced everyone.
The best strategy is not to argue rationally about them but to insinuate that anyone who thinks they are genuine must be a dupes of apologists. We dare not concede anything to religionists.

Duvduv

By these phrases I mean things like "through Christ Jesus," "and even......" or "with......." or "except...... and he....."
where the text adds parenthetical information without which the rest of the sentence would still be comprehensible.
See my posting #7148491 - #50

James The Least

I don't think we should take it for granted that the NT describes historical persons and events. I don't know where that leaves Doherty's theories. The epistles do exist and somebody wrote them, so I don't know if swapping "Paul" for "anonymous church elder" would have much of an effect on his ideas.

aa5874

People should NOT become emotionally linked to Experts' opinions.

Experts are known to be wrong.

In fact, if you go to any court trial you will see that Experts can use the very same IDENTICAL evidence and give the complete OPPOSITE opinion.

Doherty's error, like virtually ALL Scholars, is that he PRESUMED the Pauline writings were written before c 70 CE.

There is NO corroborative evidence whatsoever to support the PRESUMPTION that the Pauline writings were composed before c 70 CE.

But, an early Paul DESTROYS the HJ argument.

Ehrman claims that the historical Jesus was a SCARCELY KNOWN ITINERANT preacher. See Page 1 of the introduction of Did Jesus Exist?

An Early Paul makes Ehrman's claim UTTER RUBBISH.

The Pauline Jesus was NOT a Scarcely known itinerant preacher.

The Pauline Jesus was the Son of God, the Christ who was RAISED from the dead who had a name ABOVE every name in the Roman Empire---a name ABOVE the Deified Emperors of Rome and every one should BOW to the NAME of the Pauline Jesus.

The Pauline JESUS WAS LORD.

An early Paul DESTROYS Ehrman's Scarcely known preacher.

An early Paul was supposedly in many cities of the Roman Empire including Rome and Corinth since the time of King Aretas c 37-41 CE and preached and SENT letters DIRECTLY to churches that Jesus was the Son of God, the Christ and LORD and SAVIOR who was raised from the dead.

The problem is that there is NO record of the Pauline Christ or Paul in the 1st century--both of them are FAKES as the records show.

All documents attempting to place Paul and his Christ in the 1st century are FORGERIES or fake and ALL DATED Jesus stories and Pauline letters are FROM no earlier than about the mid 2nd century or later.

thief of fire

This becomes quite problematic,if you want to keep the dating though. If Pauls letters are still very early in the movement you have the unlikely scenario of an invented person very early as the/a key player. It's difficult to imagine the early movement not seeing through this.

If you want the letters to be much later in the movement then again its difficult to see how they would have gained traction by just inventing siomeone from thin air.

Anything is possible but some explanations are more parsimonious than others.
Ultimately reconstructions should rely on parsimony, though this doesn't make them true, just more parsimonious.
And, ultimately we can never know for sure much about the details of ancient individuals, all we can do is have some method we apply to make a best guess.

thief of fire

You are being too sensitive. Lighten up.

aa5874

Well, if you are just guessing then it does NOT make sense for you to be arguing with Doherty or for you to support the HJ argument.

Guessing is worthless. It does NOT require knowledge.

Toto

I am sensitive to violations of the rules. If you can't take the rules seriously, you don't have to post here.

thief of fire

As is Doherty is not guessing.

And where did I do that



Like you guessing about what I support

spin

You know where it is, but that information as is won't help anyone find it. For those interested, the numbers in the upper right corner are 1) unique number of post and 2) position in the thread. If we don't know which thread, it's useless. The first number though can be made useful by using the button above the edit box when writing your message which is part of a group, "F T P". You want the "P" for "post". Supply the number and you get a link to the post. In your case we can find it here. If you look at the information in the edit box it looks thus:

[POST="7148491"]here[/POST]