The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[The Grand Nudger]

So, no matter how many times I correct you, and request that you stop imposing positions on me, you're just gonna keep doing that>? Conspiracy may be important to you, you may have alot to say about it. I don't. I don;t see why it;s required as an explanation, or why you must paint my remarks.....despite that constant correction by myself, -as a conspiracy theory waiting to express itself. That's never going to happen, you realize?

Do we not agree that there is a legendary or mythical Paul?  You're asking me to demonstrate what you seem to have already agreed to Nestor.  You have used those very words yourself........we simply have a disagreement as to how far that legendary/mythical paul extends, where he stops, and where "the real paul" begins...if there is a real paul. That's it, that's the whole disagreement between us, that is what I have continually expressed, that is what I have continually corrected you upon...and you have nothing to say about that, only constant straw manning horseshit. I asked you to isolate the most compelling piece of evidence, in your estimation, for a historical Paul.  Sure, I may not have found it convincing the first go round, try again. I asked you to pick an epistle (which is ludicrous, btw, as the claim won't prove the claim.....and so that discussion is entirely for the benefit of your own position) so we could consider whether or not those epistles -also- had those legendary and mythological aspects we have both agreed -do exist- in the character of Paul.  

-but that shit, up above, was what I got?  You seem to be under the impression that I must demonstrate some counterpoint to you, that I must provide some other compelling explanation or this "Historical Paul" business is credible. This is not the case - regardless of whether or not I have demonstrated this to you........do you understand -why- this is not the case? Why I must establish -precisely nothing- other than your inability to demonstrate what you have claimed to know...to support the criticism I've offered? Sure, sure, I think you're having difficulty doing that as you have to scramble over and around the legendary and mythical Paul...but what I think about Paul matters very little with regards to what you must demonstrate to be true. Why do you think I need an elaborate alternative explanation in order to rationally disagree? I have looked at what you offered as evidence, I'm willing to look again, and I did not see that what you offered could demonstrate that the claim made, a historical paul, was true. Not that it didn't, mind..that it -could not-.

I'm asking questions and advancing a position which has been asked and advanced for as long as people have been searching for the historical Paul...so lets stop pretending that my comments are unserious, shall we? If you would stop with the strawmanning, you might be able to see that over the mound of bullshit you've erected. I am simply asking you how you have conquered the legend, how you have overcome the myth. Knowing that legend and myth is present in the narrative...(and we both know this, right?).......how have you determined that a specific set of claims is factual, rather than legendary or mythical? Yes, Nestor, that even includes those seemingly innocuous claims as "I was born at x on the x of x"..........after all, Odin, Zues, Quetzecotal, Paul fucking Bunyan, and Jonathan Harker make similar, innocuous claims that are, regardless of their seeming innocence, fiction -part of the narrative-......and which, of any competeng, seemingly innocuous claims, are to be believed?