Toto

In post 60, I replied to your post and asked you some clarifying questions. You have not answered them, although you seemed to be responding to the first sentence of the post.

Communication can be difficult on the internet, without the usual social signals that we rely on.

maryhelena

Yes, evidence to establish historicity.

Scotsguy44

But that would be the fallacy of special pleading? Why only in theological literature whatever that is supposed to be.

Matt

JonA

No; that wasn't your question. Your question was whether or not we should believe 'that persons and events depicted in a text which is full of supernatural occurrences' existed absent of being 'corroborated from sources other than said texts'.

So not only have you clearly not read any of the letters of Paul, but it also appears that you've never read any of the posts of smeat75.

Too bad, really.

Jon

MrMacSon

I don't think it is special pleading; just a statement - bare assertion. More simply ....

My view is that every character named in theological literature is fictional .

Scotsguy44

It is indeed special pleading if you have that view only to one kind of literature and not to others and with no persuasive reasons. And of course it is an absurd view leading to you considering Pontius Pilate as fictional.

Matt

sotto voce

Because?

If this question is not answered satisfactorily, it will be assumed that the statement is not worth attention.

Doug Shaver

It is a criterion applied arbitrarily and exclusively to a certain kind of evidence. That makes it special pleading.

aa5874

Your reply is just so pathetic. You very well know that it has been deduced by Scholars that more than one person wrote under the name of Paul.

Once this is so, it is virtually impossible to know who was the real Paul or if there ever was a Paul who lived before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE WITHOUT any credible historical source.

You very well know that Apologetic sources claimed Paul was ALIVE after gLuke was written and that Scholars also place gLuke AFTER 70 CE.

You very well know that letters attempting to place Paul BEFORE the Fall of the Temple have turned out to be Forgeries.

This is so basic.

If we find forged letters attempting to historicise Paul then it must be likely that Paul was invented.

It is just mind-boggling how people here can make such illogical statements just to defend their flawed position.

There is NO corroboration for a single Pauline letter BEFORE the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

It has been deduced that Acts of the Apostles was written AFTER the Fall of the Temple and the author did NOT mention that Paul wrote letters to churches.

The author of gMark did NOT show any awareness or influence by the Pauline letters. The Markan Jesus was NOT a Savior to the Jews and did NOT want anyone to know he was Christ which Contradicts the Pauline writings.

The Pauline Jesus was the End of the Law.

It would appear Paul was INVENTED to historicise the non-existing apostles.

Duvduv

Well, how about using a method such as Paul-G for the writer of Galatians, Paul-C for the writer of Corinthians (who may have been the same as the writer of Galatians), Paul-T when referring to the writer of the Thessalonians, Paul-E for Ephesians, etc.???