(October 2, 2023 at 4:36 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:(October 2, 2023 at 4:06 pm)GrandizerII Wrote: That's all I got? Are you not reading my posts properly?
I claimed consensus, yes. Do YOU know what that consists of? Hint: It's not only going to involve a handful of scholars that may be to your liking. Again, you're rigging the game so that no matter what I say, you will not be satisfied.
Also, why don't you present your positive case for the mythicist Paul? Bring it to the table, so we can analyze it.
You claimed consensus.
I'm simply asking who that consists of, and who in it consists of those not economically obligated.
It's YOUR claim. Sopport it or STFU.
This is getting tiring. I already gave examples of a few scholars (with references) who accept a historical Paul. I can add more: Dominic Crossan, James McGrath, perhaps everyone who was a member of the Jesus Seminar? I don't have a whole list right in front of me, just as I don't have a whole list of biologists who accept that evolution is true. On the other hand, you have Robert Price on your side and?
Now STFU about this silly consensus list demand when I have gone beyond that already and made a case for the historical Paul from parsimony and addressed your other points. Work on enriching the discussion instead of dwelling way too much on something that's not that big a deal considering all the other stuff said.
What is your positive case for a mythicist Paul? What is the story that you believe about this character? Let's then compare accounts, and consider which appears to be more parsimounious, taking into account factors such as dates when the epistles were written, temporal/geometric proximity to events/occurrences mentioned in the epistles, whether the wider implication is more parsimonious, and so on.
If you don't want to do any of that, then don't waste my time.
