The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Mudhammam]

How long can I expect you to avoid demonstrating the veracity of your own position by criticizing that of another?  Can we skip to the part where you realize that you haven't even begun to address my comments?

You should trying repeating exactly what you just said, but this time do it in front of a mirror.

I don't believe in miracle rags curing afflictions, and I don't take the word of a frothing demagogue when "he" claims to be somebody or to have done something.....you think this takes faith?  

I think it takes faith to say that you believe someone had the motivation to write under Paul's name when there is no record of anyone with the name of Paul having any significance in the ancient world whatsoever prior to these letters, and then, without any reason but with a pretension of seriousness you add, that they were able to successfully fool everyone in their audience into believing that this fictitious character of no notoriety whatsoever somehow had credibility to them.

Ad you can keep claiming that, but it won't help you to establish any Paul, now will it?   What do you think it means, that none of the writings were composed as a book?  DSo you think that this somehow address some remark of mine?  Which, and how?

I think it means that your comparison was totally asinine and hardly deserving of the time I've spent explaining why.

-and you, here and now, are it's advocate.  I find it unconvincing.  

Yeah... I gathered that... lol. Now explain why.

You suggest conspiracy because you are both incapable of demonstrating the existence of paul -or- responding to my actual position.  If you want to talk about how ridiculous some other persons position is..be my guest, but I don't know what it has to do with me.  My narrative, is simply that the NT, including the epistles, are a part of a narrative.  I have given reasons, we've both agreed that those things (we have agreed..haven't we, about the miracles rags bit?), we -both- understand that at least some of the claims are just stories.  Yeah?

Your actual position: They're part of a narrative... which omits of any actual persons... though they were perceived by their contemporaneous readers as individuals they knew and could possibly expect see and hear again in the near future... created by writers with intentions you just can't seem to come up with, and yet---the most hilarious part---I'm supposed to respond to your non-reasons for this "theory," which you insist doesn't involve conspiracy on the part of the authors. Uh-huh.

As I see the rest of your bare assertions only seek to shift the burden of proof to me, ignoring Occam's razor and all of the data that actually exists while insisting that we play by special rules when it comes to any document found inside the Bible, I think I'm done trying to have a reasonable discussion with you here. If you have further questions, I'll be glad to proceed, but if you're going to just keep replying with, "I am happy to remain in ignorance and/or refuse to explain what I think really probably happened, with the evidence that is available, instead demanding that you provide more data that I can simply dismiss just because it's an easier game to play that doesn't involve much thought," it's not worth anyone's effort.