(October 2, 2023 at 9:05 am)Bucky Ball Wrote:(October 2, 2023 at 2:57 am)GrandizerII Wrote: Historical Paul is the mainstream scholarly view among basically all NT scholars, Christian or atheist or otherwise. Unless you think people like Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier are Christians now? Who are the NT scholars that don't believe Paul was a historical figure?
And why the stock argument from ignorance? Should Paul/Saul have been mentioned in any secular source at the time?
Prove it.
Prove it? Really?
I can give you a small sample, but it'd be far easier and less time consuming to disprove me instead.
Here's James Tabor on the historical Paul (video hosted on channel belonging to Bart Ehrman):
https://jamestabor.com/presentation-on-t...00k-views/
Here's Bart Ehrman himself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3PnD1TScw4
And see LG's link to Richard Carrier's take on the historical Paul.
Who else do you want? Should I also prove that these guys are not Christians?
Quote:Yes he should have. Philo says nothing about him. They claimed a student of Gamaliel the Great "converted", yet no one in Judaism mentioned it. They claimed that a Jew (who had no authority to do anything to anyone in Syria) "persecuted" Christians in Damascus, (who were still Jews). At the end of the First Century the Jewish High Priest (in exile) required the recitation of the Expulsion Curses. They (the Christians were still Jews). In the year 400, John Chrysostom told HIS congregation (Istanbul) to STOP going to the synagogue, (Christmas Sermon). There is no coherent "history" of the "church" , and its separation from Judaism. I simply don't buy any of it.
This might be a fair case to make, but is this enough to cast strong doubt on a historical Paul? What's the story behind "Paul" then?