Originally Posted by outhouse

yet you completely ignore romans have a history. of deifying mortal known men

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

aa is not the one that is ignoring known valid history. He is every day pointing out the flaws and the holes in that bunkum that has long been foisted off as being valid history.
It is quite clear to anyone that familiarizes themselves with the claims contained within in church writings, that the latter church fabricated a fictional church history, via means of fictional attestations from fabricated witnesses of early Christianity..





.

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

I addressed this earlier. Price (whose expertise is not textual criticism) not only seems to stand alone here, even Walker, who reperesents the more "extreme" skeptical approaches to textual criticism (Price actually quotes Walker to support his rejection of the approach advocated by those like Munro) doesn't just reject Price's view. He is so convinced that these verses are part of the original text that he uses them to argue that later verses are interpolations. From Walker, W. O. Jr. (2007). 1 Corinthians 15:29-34 as a Non-Pauline Interpolation. CQB 69(1): pp. 84-103 (emphasis added)

Originally Posted by KJV

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Originally Posted by Toto

outhuse: Carrier does not think that there was a historical Jesus behind the myth.

Legion is your name:

Originally Posted by Agnostic75

Here is the passage from the KJV:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Of course we have evidence to support a historical NT Paul. we have his letters and we have acts. Both are problematic sources (opinions as to how problematic they are vary in the academic literature, from quite "radical" skepticism to overly uncritical acceptance, but even in the sensationalist literature I haven't come across the view that Paul didn't exist). We have a series of letters written by an author claiming to be named Paul. It's true that (for various reasons) authors would write works (like letters) using another's name (e.g., some or all of Plato's letters). What do these pseudepigraphical texts have in common? There is a great deal of literature on the subject, ranging from works which deal with the topic on a general level (e.g., the edited volume Der griechische Briefroman: Gattungstypologie und Textanalyse) to those which deal with specific letters (e.g., Foucart's "La VI^e lettre attribuée à Démosthène"). There are also nice collections of these letters (e.g., Costa's Greek Fictional Letters which includes the original greek and translations as well as commentary). Searching through this literature we find a few interesting things:

1) Pseudepigraphical letters were almost always attributed to well-known historical individuals like Socrates, Plato, Euripides, etc. In other words, nobody would bother to write under Paul's name unless he was a well-known figure (at least in early "christian" circles).
2) Those which are not are part of a literary tradition (e.g., the work of Aelian) which dates not just after Paul, but after our earliest actual papyri of Paul's letters (e.g., p46), and are not seperate creations but parts of novels.
3) Unlike with, say, the letters of Cicero, where our manuscripts date (as is typical) from the 9th or 10th centuries CE, we have extant textual attestation for Paul's letters a mere ~150 years after they were written. We also have an incredibly large number of copies to compare. Thus we are in an excellent position from a textual critical point of view, and this allows us to determine which letters are almost certainly those of Paul, which are questionable, and which are almost certainly not written by Paul.

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, the Existing Codices have tremendous historical value and they DOCUMENT what people of antiquity were forced to believe.

There are numerous Existing Codices all with a similar Mythological character.

Jesus of the Existing Codices is MULTIPLE ATTESTED and in PRISTINE condition.

The history of the Myth called Jesus will NOT ever be lost.

It is well-documented in multiple Codices of antiquity.

Everybody will be able to see Matthew 1.18-20 from now till eternity .

Jesus was the Child of a Ghost and people of antiquity did BELIEVE IT.

Codices after Codices--it is the same Myth fable.

The history of MYTH Jesus is virtually cast in stone. O Theophilus!!!

Originally Posted by maryhelena

And the answer to that is - why not?