RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 24, 2015 at 6:09 am
(This post was last modified: May 24, 2015 at 8:08 am by Mudhammam.)
Wyrd hasn't yet learned how arguments or rebuttals work, nor does he strike me as a person capable of processing evidence and rational thought, so I'll just address Min.
What's the point of engaging with you? You, like all conspiracy theorists, operate as follows:
1. I could offer the seven epistles of Paul that ALL scholars (including your beloved Richard Carrier) accept as genuine as evidence of the historical Paul, to which you would reject it by saying that "your fucking Bible is bullshit" (or some other moronic reply).
2. I might then make a remark about Clement's epistle to the Romans, dated to 90-95, or early second century "church fathers," or Luke's clearly mythological history of Paul's missions in Acts as (in the latter case, less reliable) testimony of a historical man named Paul, to which your reply would again be to just dismiss them.
3. The late first century/early second century pseudographa, such as Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, the Pastorals, etc., which by their very appeals presume that Paul was a name that carried authority to the early Christians---again, you would attempt nothing in reply but simply dismiss them.
4. The lack of a better explanation for who "Paul" in all of the above circumstances refers, to which you would then likely make up some absurd ad hoc theory about Marcion or an unnamed shadowy figure behind a curtain inventing everything that we think we know about Paul, or everyone else related to first century Christianity for that matter, for which you would provide zero evidence or logical reasoning but present your claims as dogmatic truth anyway.
There would just be no point in pursuing such a debate with you further than this. Instead I think I'll just sit back and enjoy you and Wyrd enlighten the atheist community with your combined vast store of "historical knowledge."
But to anyone actually interested in the historical information we have about Paul, and not simply some simple-minded apologetic argument that seeks to dismiss any mention of Jesus or the first Christian converts, this is a decent place to start: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily...ical-paul/
What's the point of engaging with you? You, like all conspiracy theorists, operate as follows:
1. I could offer the seven epistles of Paul that ALL scholars (including your beloved Richard Carrier) accept as genuine as evidence of the historical Paul, to which you would reject it by saying that "your fucking Bible is bullshit" (or some other moronic reply).
2. I might then make a remark about Clement's epistle to the Romans, dated to 90-95, or early second century "church fathers," or Luke's clearly mythological history of Paul's missions in Acts as (in the latter case, less reliable) testimony of a historical man named Paul, to which your reply would again be to just dismiss them.
3. The late first century/early second century pseudographa, such as Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, the Pastorals, etc., which by their very appeals presume that Paul was a name that carried authority to the early Christians---again, you would attempt nothing in reply but simply dismiss them.
4. The lack of a better explanation for who "Paul" in all of the above circumstances refers, to which you would then likely make up some absurd ad hoc theory about Marcion or an unnamed shadowy figure behind a curtain inventing everything that we think we know about Paul, or everyone else related to first century Christianity for that matter, for which you would provide zero evidence or logical reasoning but present your claims as dogmatic truth anyway.
There would just be no point in pursuing such a debate with you further than this. Instead I think I'll just sit back and enjoy you and Wyrd enlighten the atheist community with your combined vast store of "historical knowledge."
But to anyone actually interested in the historical information we have about Paul, and not simply some simple-minded apologetic argument that seeks to dismiss any mention of Jesus or the first Christian converts, this is a decent place to start: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily...ical-paul/
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
