Paul's Writings Underpin Western Thought

[Amarok]

The only claim I made I made about Carrier was that his historical peers, don't have much respect for him.  I thought that this was fairly well known (it seems that Ehrman wants nothing to do with him).  But if you would like to dispute that, be my guest.    However I think the more important issue is the bad logic.  We have been over the argument from silence a number of times.   It can be valid, but usually from mythicists, it is not.  Then there is the assumption that Paul wrote to tell the Romans the Gospel.   This is not a Gospel, hence it is normally found in the section labeled as "Epistles".   There was already a church in Rome, who knew the Gospel, and where believers.  There is a lot of bad logic in this though.   There is also the argument from silence, where just because someone does not say something, it doesn't follow that mythiciists can make up whatever they want to fill the gap. 

I'm happy to discuss, if you have some particular point that you think makes a logical case from this argument though.

There were many churches in rome..that believed many things.  Again, this is the point of a polemic...though "paul" never managed to solve the issue of christian plurality.  That would persist well into the 400s (and thats ignoring that it still exists, ofc).  

As to an argument from silence, it's not necessary to the mythicist position.  I guess I'll have to remind people, every time..that the best evidence for the mythicist position..is the contents of the gospels themselves.

This is true but the objection of  argument for silence is a tried apologist trope that's long lost it's justification .