Duvduv

What do folks think about the idea of "Paulus" not as a proper name of someone, but as a pseudonym for multiple authors known generically as "The Small One"??

Doug Shaver

I think it needs more evidence that what I've seen so far. Up to this point in my research, everyone who has suggested it has offered nothing more than "it's possible" as a justification. That is typically how inerrantists justify their solutions to what they call "apparent contradictions."

I have never quite understood the compulsion of some skeptics to question Paul's existence. Considering just the seven letters that the mainstream regards as authentic, they are so full of interpolations and redactions as to be worthless for defending anything important that Christianity has to say about anything, including even the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Given that, nothing remains of a historical Paul that is prima facie the least bit improbable.

We are not doing the cause of rationalism any favors by presupposing that every document that any Christian ever wrote prior to Nicea had to be a pack of lies.

Duvduv

"Paul" existed because THE CHURCH SAYS HE EXISTED.
If what the church claims is not the "gospel truth" than other equally empirically unprovable claims can be considered.

aa5874

You are just making SELF-SERVING statements. It has been pointed out to you that your reasoning is FLAWED when you claimed Paul probably wrote the so-called "authentic" epistles.

It is completely and wholly erroneous and deliberately mis-leading to claim those who reject Paul's historicity in the 1st century are like inerrantists.

You very well know that inerrantists do NOT ever claim there are contradictions in the Bible.

Non-inerrantists show the ACTUAL contradictions.

I don't believe you for a second.

What!!! Why must other people ACCEPT what you believe when you have ZERO evidence that Paul did exist.

1. Inerrantists accept the claim that Paul did exist as stated in the NT WITHOUT any credible external non-apologetic corroboration.

2. You accept the claim that Paul did exist as stated in the NT WITHOUT any credible external non-apologetic corroboration.

3. I do NOT accept the claim that Paul did exist as stated in the NT while there is NO credible external non-apologetic corroboration.

You position on Paul's existence is remarkable SIMILAR to inerrantists.

Again, you are presenting erroneous information to cover your own FLAWED reasoning about Paul.

You are making unwarranted BROAD accusations when it is your own RATIONAL that has been questioned and found to be flawed.

It is ILLOGICAL to assert Paul probably existed because there are letters with the name Paul when Scholars have ALREADY deduced that there were most likely more than one person who used the name Paul and that there is ZERO external corroboration for any Pauline characters. NONE.

You are doing INERRANTISTS a favour by pre-supposing Paul did exist WITHOUT any credible external non-apologetc sources of antiquity.

Duvduv

What makes it a half-human person in physical form is that there was an embryo that grew within the mother's womb for 9 months and departed that location at birth. Thus it received DNA from the mother, making it "half-human" in a physical body, regardless of what caused fertilization of the embryo, i.e. a divine "miracle."

aa5874

Do you have some kind of "BSc degree" in "DIVINE BIOLOGY"?

Please, I live in the 21 st century.

Now, according to Justin Martyr it was 12 ILLITERATES from Jerusalem that preached the Jesus story to ALL RACE of men.

Would you NOT say that Justin Martyr appears to be correct?

Is NOT the story that Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost something that ILITERATES may have spread?

"First Apology" I think Justin may be right. The Jesus Phantom story was spread initially by the ILLITERATE but in the 2nd century.

Doug Shaver

As I said: We are not doing the cause of rationalism any favors by presupposing that every document that any Christian ever wrote prior to Nicea had to be a pack of lies.

Doug Shaver

You have said that my reasoning is flawed. Your say-so counts as much as the say-so of every Christian who assures me that I'll burn in hell for my skepticism.

aa5874

Duh!!!!

aa5874

Again, your claim appears to be DELIBERATELY mis-leading. People are arguing that there are SPECIFIC writings that are historically inaccurate.

Even Experts, whether HJ, MJ or agnostics have IDENTIFIED or deduced that the Gospels are historically UNRELIABLE.

You should know that there were EVEN Christians of antiquity that did NOT believe the Jesus story.

Since the 2nd century, it appears the CHRISTIAN Marcion believed the Jesus story was fundamentally a PACK of LIES.

According to Marcion, the Son of God was a Phantom and had ZERO BIRTH and ZERO HUMAN FLESH and was NOT of the God of the Jews.

You should know that if Marcion was correct that there are Specific Christian writings that would be Identified or deduced to be a PACK of Lies.