"Paul" What's Bullshit and What Isn't?

[Minimalist]

https://vridar.org/2017/05/26/why-many-i...ry-likely/

Why Many Interpolations in Paul’s Letters are Very Likely

A discussion/review of William O. Walker's "Some Surprises From The Apostle Paul."

Our ignorance of the state of the letters prior to 200 CE may itself be evidence that the earlier letters differed significantly from the versions we now have. Marcion’s shorter versions, after all, no longer survives.

Oh, and before the jesus freaks lose their shit, Walker was a Professor of Religion at Trinity University so, he was or still is, one of you.

[RoadRunner79]

I think I agree with The most Scholars quotes in the article.

They see no way to identify such interpolations with any certainty, and they tend to regard arguments for interpolation as highly speculative and almost inevitably circular in nature.

There may be, but given what was in the article, there is no reason to guess that there is.

[Minimalist]

Yeah.... that's why the discussion has to come from a book written by a xhristard because otherwise people like you will simply dismiss it.... as you have apparently done, anyway.

[RoadRunner79]

i didn’t even look at who wrote it. I looked at the reasons given and agree with most scholars here.

I notice that you however often focus on who rather than what. Dismissing because of the source. Attacking the source, attacking the person, argument from ignorance and silence. Appeal to motivation. These are your favorite fallacies. Of which this fits right in.

I tell you what... you make an arguement that isn’t based on these, and I’ll promise to “lose my shit” just for you.

[vulcanlogician]

[Minimalist]

i didn’t even look at who wrote it. I looked at the reasons given and agree with most scholars here.

I notice that you however often focus on who rather than what. Dismissing because of the source. Attacking the source, attacking the person, argument from ignorance and silence. Appeal to motivation. These are your favorite fallacies. Of which this fits right in.

I tell you what... you make an arguement that isn’t based on these, and I’ll promise to “lose my shit” just for you.

Yes, because you are satisfied with anyone who will tell you that your fairy tales are real.  Usually you get that from theologians masquerading as "historians."  I'm not interested in their apologetic horseshit.  Or yours.

I don't think you are capable of making a rational argument about much of anything.

Got it now.

[RoadRunner79]

i didn’t even look at who wrote it. I looked at the reasons given and agree with most scholars here.

I notice that you however often focus on who rather than what. Dismissing because of the source. Attacking the source, attacking the person, argument from ignorance and silence. Appeal to motivation. These are your favorite fallacies. Of which this fits right in.

I tell you what... you make an arguement that isn’t based on these, and I’ll promise to “lose my shit” just for you.

Yes, because you are satisfied with anyone who will tell you that your fairy tales are real.  Usually you get that from theologians masquerading as "historians."  I'm not interested in their apologetic horseshit.  Or yours.

Got it now.

Apologetics comes from the Greek word apologia and is a legal term; which describes giving a defense or reason for something.  

I don't really care who you get your information from, or what their conclusion is, but the reasons and evidence to support the claim.  One can even acknowledge a good argument for an opposing view, and not have to jump to that side.   It is about the weight of all the evidence.  I just don't find speculation based on silence to be a very good argument.   Many would call it fallacious.

The problem with the link in the OP is that it is unfalsifiable and hence the circular accusation by "most scholars".   It is assuming that there are interpolations in Pauls letters, because everything has interpolations.  However you cannot show otherwise, because even if you don't find any reasons or evidence to conclude that there are interpolations, you are assuming that they are there anyway.

[Minimalist]

So on the one hand you have a well known Xtian professor presenting an entire book in which he acknowledges what everone since Reimarus in the 17th century has been saying about this paul shit and on the other hand we have a guy like you waving a bible and saying "I believe!!!!!"

I hope you realize how foolish you look.  None of this is news.... to everyone except fundies apparently.

[The Grand Nudger]

 It is assuming that there are interpolations in Pauls letters, because everything has interpolations. 

Everything but "paul" and his "letters"..apparently.  

[RoadRunner79]

So on the one hand you have a well known Xtian professor presenting an entire book in which he acknowledges what everone since Reimarus in the 17th century has been saying about this paul shit and on the other hand we have a guy like you waving a bible and saying "I believe!!!!!"

I hope you realize how foolish you look.  None of this is news.... to everyone except fundies apparently.

That’s not what I said (not even close). And according to the article most scholars agree.

I just checked... yep haven’t lost my shit yet! (That is a metaphor right). Now if you had actual arguments instead of making stuff up about me, thing may be different.