The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[The Grand Nudger]

How would we establish that there was a Paul if not for the writings that the person claiming to be Paul and offering various details about his life provide? Clement, btw, tells us Paul wrote epistles. But moreover, the internal consistency in his choice of words and the style of his letters, along with the descriptions he gives of his past and present circumstances and that of the early church make it very clear that this is a knowledgeable Jewish convert to Christianity who is traveling throughout the empire to spread the new faith. What criteria or standard are using to cast doubt on this information?

How indeed, but this is a question that you must answer, not me.  Yes, "Clement"...while I wouldn't lean on Clement..if I were you, isn't it starting to seem a bit odd that we are shoring up one legendary/mythical personage with another?  In any case, the author wrote in the authors style (and of course the author of dracula was similarly reliable-on that count).....you keep calling him Paul, but I don't know why, given our discussion.  You ended this segment by appealing to the claims of the narrative as evidence of the claims of the narrative, I find this unconvincing.  That's the only metric I'm applying, at present.  Do you think I need more?

Yes, of course. The man Paul is extraordinarily important to the book of Acts. The whole point of the majority of the book is to chronicle his life's work in the early church throughout the world and to establish the deity's involvement. One doesn't have to view Acts as historically reliable to understand the author's purpose in mythologizing Paul and to compare the information he gives with Paul's own testimony (which often do conflict). Take the miracles out of Acts and you still have an interesting perspective of the Christian missionary, though one that remains suspect on numerous accounts. It doesn't even remotely suggest that Paul was a fictional character though.

Then we both agree that with any given attribute of Paul, it is -possible- that the item in question is mythological, or legendary, correct?  Myth and legend are what I, personally, would call works of fiction.  You?

I've read the Screwtape Letters and no, there is no logically valid or factually sound argument for suggesting that Paul's epistles are comparable to that genre of work. You'd have a better chance arguing that all of Plato's epistles are fraudulent, and even most scholars accept a few of those (namely the 7th and 8th). Paul was no Plato to the average mind in the ancient world. He was just a Pharisee, educated under the law, and notorious to the church for having been one of their most vehement persecutors. It's easy to understand why they would find his conversion significant.

-and yet above, you accepted that there -was- a myth, or legend..even if there was a man?  I'm simply suggesting that the epistles -are- part of that myth, that legend..and yes...part of that genre - that they are non factual, or..if you prefer..fiction. Which shouldn't be surprising....because that's precisely what CS Lewis -intended- to do when he wrote the damn story man......

I don't understand the first paragraph; regarding the second, it's not his supposed miracles (per Luke) that establish his authority. It's his personal experience of Jesus following his relentless attacks on the church, whatever that amounted to (not uncommon for mystic-types btw), and his knowledge and fluency of both Jewish text and Greek language. That's his appeal. Nothing extraordinary in the sense that one should presume that without the later miracles there is nothing left of Paul to be known or to be relevant to a study of early church history. That's just insanely ignorant to even suggest.

His personal experience with jesus.......?  A vision of the risen christ on the road to Damascus?  Is that his personal experience of jesus?  You;re assuming, in this "relentless attacks on the church" business that the narrative is true, is factual...which is precisely what -you- must  demonstrate.  

You're losing me bud..............you've done nothing but assume your conclusion in support of your conclusion for the entirety of our interaction on this subject.  What do you hope to achieve with this?  I know what the story says as well as you, you aren't going to surprise me with the narrative -itself-....so we can skip all of that.....

-if you want to surprise me, show me the evidence, not the claim. We are not discussing whether a study of Paul is relevant to the history of the church, and no one suggested that it wouldn't be. If you'd like to have that conversation have it with someone else who holds that position or would advance that opinion? It does seem insanely ignorant to suggest...so why did you suggest it?