Toto

If you want to talk about a consensus, please identify the consensus and describe how it was arrived at.

There is more or less a consensus that certain Pauline letters were not written by the same person who wrote others, but beyond that :huh:

MrMacSon

there is only theological consensus; despite significant mixed messages

Paul's writings are about an established gospel; an established religion -

yetand 'Paul' this Pauline narrator or writer lived in la-la land
.

outhouse

I have posted those for certain epistles already, per Kirby


How about if someone claims Paul has no historicity, they could back it with more then scholarships from the 1800's with methodology shown to be in error as described in the same link from the OP I have already quoted?

MrMacSon

I did!! on the previous page in this tread!

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....17#post7517817

outhouse

No

Isnt there almost a complete consensus within scholarships/historians that Paul existed beyo0nd apologetic scholarships?




I agree, whole hearted.


I just attempt to not let my bias towrads Paul, get in my view of early history.

These were primitive barbaric people, but do you think you could start writing 100% fiction and come up with the depth of theology Paul did?

I took a try at writing and could never equal Pauls literature with decades of training. They believed in mythology, they believed certain things would come true, and that a god really did play a part in their lives. People still do today. That doesnt mean the man doesnt exist because he manipulated the system or Pirce questions it, and some 1800's dutch radicals, out of almost a near consensus out of thousands of scholars and professors that he did exist?

I appluad those who question his historicty responsibly. But to willy nilly say he didnt exist, you will need more then Van Manen's work to change Pauls undeniable historicity.

MrMacSon

How about you critique the article, rather than merely ask if the author is a scholar, or not?

outhouse

do you think 2 out of thousands of scholars changes anything regarding Pauls historicty

MrMacSon

As I have just said, the scholarship around the Pauline documents is almost all theological.

We know nothing about the alleged Paul and his life - there is no historical Paul.

Only documents under the umbrella of a single name, of which at least half are agreed to have been written by others.

I also posted this, but you seem to have ignored it -

Please, check the credentials of Edgar_Goodspeed and Norman Perrin

moreover,
I urge u to read the posts by aa5874 showing there'is no reference to the Pauline documents b4 the mid-late 2nd C!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your ongoing superficial special pleading to biased theological 'scholarship' is becoming tedious.

It would be appropriate for you provide some nuanced critique & commentary rather than superficial one-liners.
.

MrMacSon

This is an interesting read - St Paul the Apostle – could it all be a fabrication?

add (from that web-page)

outhouse

I like this from Ehrman