Sheshbazzar

And who gets to choose which statements are true? which statements are original ? and which statements are forgeries or interpolated ?
There is not a single verse in the entire Pauline corpus that can be trusted to have been the product of any original 'Paul'.
And bare assertions made by 'authority figures' will never change that fact.

What the 'Pauline Epistles' are, is evidence of wholesale forgery and dishonest deception.
Not trustworthy witnesses to anything other than the fact that they are the dishonest and corrupt productions of dishonest and corrupt men.

EarlDoherty

Without a sense of humor, Joe, I'd never have survived this snake-pit and others like it.

Only one point in your post really needs addressing. Have I "contradicted" myself in the translation of the genitive phrase in Galatians 1:12? In one respect, I have, since in two different places I use two different prepositions, though in a third I make it clear that it could be either. So I guess it's a case of what mood the Judge is in on any given day.

Jeffrey can't just retort, well I was just talking about page 31! If the defense and the prosecution have two different witnesses, the latter placing the accused at the scene of the crime, the former a hundred miles away, the prosecution can hardly fail to address the contradiction for the jury, or just ignore the defense's witness as though it didn't exist. Jeffrey, in presenting his witness on page 31, made a declaration about its meaning and my 'deception' in making it, without the slightest nod to my later acknowledgement that the phrase could have either meaning. The Court failed to take that into account.

Naturally, I regret being that sloppy regarding alternate translations. On page 31 I was concerned with presenting the general idea of direct communication from Jesus himself, and so chose the "from" option, as do some official translations. Should I have noted the alternative understanding? Apparently yes. Should I have humbly acquiesced to Jeffrey's accusation? If he himself had done the same thing on the other side of the coin and allowed that in other places I had made the reader aware of the ambiguity in meaning, maybe I would have been more disposed to allow for a mea culpa. But Jeffrey isn't like that, as we all know. So no, I was not so disposed.

Have I ever accepted a correction from Jeffrey Gibson? Offhand, I can't recall anything dramatic. Usually, his 'corrections' are not straightforward, and involve distortions or evasions of some kind; insinuations rather than clear disputations supported by his own arguments. That's his schtick, and it hasn't enamored me to him. Most times I'm forced to deal with the schtick, rather than the point being addressed (when it can even be dug out and clarified).

Anyway, my Counsel has advised not to carry the issue to the Supreme Court, so I'm leaving the case where it stands.

Jeffrey has already declared "I'm outta here!" and maybe I should follow him. I think you've all had enough of both of us this time round. (Unless, of course, I am forced to defend myself in some egregiously unfair context.)

Earl Doherty

aa5874

That is precisely your problem. Once the Pauline writings are contradictory and are INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT then they cannot be PRESUMED to represent the Jesus cult and do so WITHOUT corroboration.

I have already shown and provided the evidence from antiquity that the Pauline Corpus is EXTREMELY valuable as the flagship of fraud, forgeries and false attribution.

It is most disturbing that you continue to make claims about Paul and the Pauline writings without presenting the necessary corroboration.

Please, it is already known that the very Canon of the Church does not corroborate the Pauline writings or your claim that Jesus was not crucified on earth.