The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Mudhammam]

We did both agree that there are ignorant and un-serious claims attached to the character...the character -is- mythical and legendary, I thought we both agreed to that.  What we are discussing is a possible non mythical, non legendary "core" to that character, aren't we?  You are proposing that there is something in the pauline epistles that is not the usual mythological and legendary fluff we find elsewhere.    Aren't you?  I am of the opinion that the epistles -are- legendary/mythological fluff.  But my opinion doesn't matter so much, because with regards to your contention that Paul was a real boy, the contention that I joined into this discussion to pick up since you seemed unsatisfied with Min...is simply that I find the case made to be unconvincing, and I don't see how your appeals to shift that burden are going to convince me?

I was saying that the claim Paul was a mythological character is ignorant and un-serious. I think your attempts to make an argument for that claim---wait are you? because it seems like you kind of are but then I'm not seeing much of anything except for "I don't accept the abundance of testimonial evidence from the person himself or anyone else! Just 'cause!"---are thoroughly demonstrating that.

Ah, I see, so I would also have to prove that The Mad Arab from the Necronomicon  is a fictional character?  Might as well just assume he lived?  Yes, I'm sorry, the burden -is- on you on that count, because I've accepted Paul only for what I can demonstrate him to have been, a character in a book.  Any more than that will take evidence and reason, -not- the repeated claims of the narrative and the constant shifting of burden.   This is real simple, show me the evidence, and not the claim Nestor.  You can end this whole disagreement that simply....and yet you haven't.

First, I don't know who the Mad Arab is so you'll have to explain the relevancy of the reference. If he's nothing more than "a character in a book," I assume there aren't numerous letters written by the Mad Arab to his friends across Europe and Asia about issues dealing with life in same world that other historical people lived in, references to his self and others that only make sense in the context of real persons, an entire corpus of pseudographical material written under his name, and then mentions by others regarding his actual existence without any dispute to the contrary...? If that's the case, I'm interested to pursue that comparison further. If not, I repeat: ignorant and un-serious.

The all or nothing gambit, I'm unimpressed - and it still doesn't establish that there was a Paul.  Look, if you're happy to simply accept a claim and call it history be my guest.  Who's looking to discredit anything, and how would one go about that?  The narrative works regardless of whether or not there's any Paul, I'm actually rather impressed with the NT narrative, personally - and while your average christer may feel that the bible or their religion is somehow discredited by any criticism along these lines -I do not-...so you can save your breath on that angle. .That said, yeah, it just so happens that often legendary and mythological writings purporting to be historical documents from "back in the day" are not the best sources for history one might wish for - regardless of the source or subject.  The teutons couldn't -actually- turn into bears or fight with both arms hacked off for a fortnight.....and yet we are told by "historians" that they did.  I assume you approach these other claims with a grain of salt, and that this statement doesn;t surprise you with any information of which you were previously unaware. /shrugs

You can't establish anyone was a real person if you just simply dismiss their writings or all references to them as works of fiction motivated by hidden powers operating in the dark, although I have to say that sounds a bit paranoid and extremely irrational. You're basically saying that you do not accept any ancient document as evidence for the existence of real people because writers sometimes voluntarily or involuntarily contributed to fictional narratives and devices, could possibly get and pass along false information, and were oftentimes generally superstitious. That's not a very good reason to reject all writings older than 1,000 years, to me or to any historian now or in the past, but to each his own I suppose.

I didn't realize that we were discussing any "Paul" as a literary convention, but rather "Paul" as an actual human being, about whom we can draw conclusions?   If I use your method, I must also accept that there was an Odin (and a whole host of other characters who identify themselves in a vast number of narratives purportedly written by the individuals in question...some of which are known to be fiction - which is an absurd suggestion on it's very face).......you realize?

No, I did not realize that. Odin claimed to be an individual writing letters to his contemporaries, offering us details about his life, such as his nationality, his attitudes and interactions with others, and was purported to be a human being by others who lived concurrent or shortly (read: 20-60 years) after his death? And nobody ever disputed it? Wow. That's remarkable, I'll grant you that. I can't wait to see your evidence for the claim.

Again you refer to the claim as evidence of the accuracy of the claim...right after conceding that psuedography is a factor.  Staggering irony, man......

Huh? No, I refer to the evidence, which mostly consist of letters, over half a dozen considered authentic by all of his scholarship, as being written by the individual who put a (his) name (Paul) to them, as well as to others who reference that person as having written letters, and to multiple others who wrote using that person's identity. This doesn't even take into consideration the mythological narrative that later came along describing some of those same events that the person in the original letters mentioned and more. My claim is that all of this is supportive of my view that the person in question was an actual human being who lived in the first century. It seems to me that all you have in favor of your proposition are appeals to ignorance. In logic that's called an informal fallacy.

You've been giving me wonderful reasons in your posts.....haven't you?  Yes yes, Paul suffered for his labor, he had his own passion...you might say.................a prototype for christian martrydom........and a wonderful example of the idea of apostolic succession......those may be details, but I doubt that they are the details of any guy named Pauls actual life.  This is the story the author wanted to tell (and that would be true regardless of whether or not the author was writing about an actual person or not....huh?).

I see we've both made assertions but only one of us has given reasons why they are credible. I've enlisted historiography and higher criticism, which overwhelmingly agrees with me---that the existence of letters written under the name of Paul by a single individual in the first century, followed by multiple other writers referencing him and describing his life or his letters, point towards Paul having once been a human being who lived under the Roman empire---and thus far you've offered nothing except that "this is the story the author wanted to tell... just believe me because." That's not how you change a person's mind.

That you still haven't demonstrated that Paul existed.  You'll need to stop assuming what I am asking you to establish as evidence of what I am asking you to establish, and you might want to stop pretending that it's silly to ask the question..or we'll get nowhere, eh?  I thought we both agreed that studying Paul, as a man, would be relevant to a study of christainity's history..here we are.....

I've repeated myself too many times to comment more on the evidence. Try coming up with something new or interesting if you want me to continue this discussion.

-and London is a real city that was never beset by vampires or werewolves despite what you may read in Dracula.  None of those things you offered rescue acts from a classification as fiction (nor would they even be -capable- of rescuing the epistles).  I haven't asked you to prove anything, amigo, I'm simply seeking the evidence upon which you've hung your conclusion, that Paul was a real boy..lol.  Here again, you assume the item under dispute.  I also find it amusing that you feel that anything which shows that legend and myth are attached to the notion of Paul is irrelevant to the historicity of Paul........yes, lets remove all the myth and legend and then say "It';s silly to suggest this, you've given no reason".................clearly...you understand that I have.

*face palm*

Seems to me, from your posts, that we do have reason to take my suggestion seriously.  I guess that's a simple difference of opinion though? I'm simply saying no one has any reason to take your suggestion seriously.

Once again, I suppose that's why your view is represented in secular academia by... hmm... precisely no one.

I find your ability to compartmentalize impressive.

I find your simple-minded inability to think of myth as anything other than "fiction," and your overall lack of nuance when approaching the Bible shockingly unimpressive, but unfortunately all too common amongst the general populace of atheists that contribute here. 

Except that those letters -do- show "signs" of narrative devices(lol?), as already covered.  Who said anything about an elaborate scam?  Are you going to go down the conspiracy rabbit hole again?  I like the touch at the end, about needing "more faith", unfortunately it doesn't actually have anything to do with our discussion, and you've yet to move the chains an inch. This is really simple, do you have some evidence that is not contained within the claim..that leads you to believe that the narrative is factual?  If you do, lets just see -that- and skip the rest of this posturing eh?  This right here: "I call him Paul cause that's what he calls himself." -does not work for me for obvious and well established reasons.   If there isn't any more to this than that....I don't think that you and I have anything further to discuss, we simply aren't approaching the issue from reconcilable foundations.  I'll need someone who is prepared to take on more than this, in order to determine what the life of Paul may have been to any standard acceptable -by me-.

"Signs" of narrative devices? In Paul's letters? Wait, is this another assertion you've made without providing any reason or evidence for, again?! C'mon man, try harder. "I don't believe Paul or anyone else who claims to have written on or about Paul because I don't believe it" is not working for me either. If you have some reason why we should just dismiss all of the evidence I've repeatedly outlined, I'll be glad to come back to this. In the meanwhile it doesn't seem worth anyone's time to keep arguing in circles.