The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Mudhammam]

Do you think that it is ignorant and un-serious to conclude that the Paul who's scraps could cure by mail is legendary or mythical? 

Surely you must know what a red herring is.

 I've concluded, personally, that there are many ignorant and un-serious claims attached to the character which can be, or must be, ignored..if one is to discuss "Paul the Man" - if such a man existed, and however we might determine that.  Do I think the the Paul of the NT, even of the epistles... is a legendary/mythical Paul, rather than an autobiographical Paul, yes, of course.  ??????

Without reason or evidence... In other words, because of faith. ??????

....... Indeed there are numerous letters (this is the format of the entire book), written by the man himself, as claimed within the narrative.

Paul's epistles, and none of the NT writings, were originally composed as part of a book. You can't be such a fool that I have to literally spell out every fact relevant to the discussion prior to it taking off... so please, stop playing dumb and making fallacious comparisons, or go read up on the composition of the Bible. This is precisely why I keep reiterating that you, and people who make similar arguments, are

  ignorant and unserious.  I can't help but shake the feeling that you might forget to establish the only relevant issue in pursuit of that particular narrative.  You have alot of work to do.....if you stick to your method, eh?

 LOL. It's not my method. It's the method employed by historians for every single ancient text ever produced. 

Again you suggest conspiracy....I thought that this was ignorant and unserious?  In any case, I don't think that your claim here is true, we know much about people who were, so far as we can tell, illiterate, and we know that much that has been written -about people- is not, strictly speaking, factual.  So we know that we do not -need- to swallow the claims of narratives written by or about any particular character in order to establish particulars about the life of any historical personage.  I'm sure you wouldn't believe -everything- a king had to say about himself (or anything that any author had to say about himself or another, by fiat)...and I think that this skepticism is well-founded.  I;m applying it to "Paul".  

Surely you must have insight into this "narrative" that existed prior to the "mystery author" penning Paul's epistles... and moreover, placing them into this lost "book," such as in your suggestion of the "Mad Arab." I suggest conspiracy theory because you have no valid reasons or sound evidence to back up your narrative whatsoever, whereas mine is at least consistent with the methods of actual historians who comb through texts to determine their date of composition and information about the writer, beyond which we can only work with what the texts say. So, from the stand point of parsimony, your simple rejections are also assertions to the contrary (someone else wrote them for such and such a reason and no one was aware of the true authorship because....) for which you've provided not a single iota of evidence for.

Who said anything about rejection?  Go argue that with someone who holds the position? 

 That's your position here, after all. It seems to be the only contribution to historical analysis that you and others who think along similar lines have been able to make thus far, which of course, is an argument from ignorance---needless to say, not a good one.

I think that down this road, lay an endless list of qualifiers made by you that will terminate with a "if the story is not precisely the same then they are entirely different".  It won;t matter, because we'll still be discussing a story for which you have provided me no evidence to consider.  You have continually referred to the claim.  I don't believe the claim, like I don't believe in many claims...so pointing to the claim will not convince me -of- the claim, Nestor.  

"The story" is that a man named Paul wrote letters, at various times, from various places, to various people. The evidence is that this is what we in fact possess, along with multiple instances of attestation to this story by other writers, of various literary skills and intentions, existing in various places, at various times. This is in large part how history of the past is pieced together to form a coherent picture. If you stick to it, you might be able to piece together a coherent picture of your own that others while find insightful. 

We are not debating the literary convention of Paul, Nestor. 

We are debating if it is more likely than not that Paul is nothing but a literary convention. And not surprisingly, you haven't been able to even begin to make that argument.

The claim supports the claim....I remain unconvinced.  You are referring to narrative continuity.  I don't dispute that there is narrative continuity.  Next?

I'll ask... again... what's the narrative you believe existed at the time Paul's epistles were written that explains their pseudographical nature (in your mind) and what is your evidence for this?

appealing to what...now?

The methods and rules developed by historians to establish the authenticity of works in dispute.

The existence of those narratives is not in question......

Did they arrive out of a vacuum? Who's this Paul that caused this anonymous writer to invoke his name on countless occasions when relating his personal testimony and ecclesiastical instruction to his peers in various locations? You have offered nothing as an explanation as to what this "narrative" is or why "Paul" would be a name employed when there is no evidence for the existence of any Paul prior to the epistles. 

-yet again, you'll have to have that discussion with someone who holds that position.  I have a great appreciation for fiction.  Fiction can be -many things-.......so I;m not sure what you're bitching and moaning about, or how this applies to the community?

Your appeals to the Screwtape Letters or "The Mad Arab," whose a character in a "book" that consists of letters, speaks for itself.