The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[The Grand Nudger]

No. We don't agree because you seem to think that if there were later legendary accounts of Paul then that casts doubt on all of the earlier material we possess, all of which strongly suggests that the person who wrote at least half a dozen of the letters was a man who called himself Paul,

-the literary convention of paul, it's the strongest thing the evidence will suggest, you lead with it, we are not discussing that (and I don't dispute that).  Don't say that this has not been addressed, going forward, because it has.  We don't agree, that the legendary and mythical must be removed from paul in order to talk about a historical paul..and that there is legendary and mythical material regarding paul that must be removed?  We don't agree to that?  That's what I asked you, but I see you've flown off on a tiff...rather than answer that question.

 was intimately acquainted with his readership, 

Was he, and how did you determine this?  You've taken the word on it's word for the minds and hearts of it's "readership"?  Jesus you're a rube....-even if there were a Paul the man-..those letters aren't actually written to the churches in question...lol, they're written to you...Nestor......

lived in the first-century,

The author of the epistles or the man? 

converted from Pharisaic Judaism to becaming a Christian proselytizer, etc., eventually leading to his status as a Saint.

Do you want me to link bomb you, as you've done to me below...with information regarding this pharisaic judaism business?  The author of the epistles didn't seem to understand the claim that he was making.  Where, in the narrative, would you like to credit a reliable instance of this claim?  We can discuss this at length.  

You've presented nothing but one post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy after another (among others)

lol, you're a moron, I haven't offered a single explanation as to cause or timeline.........which would be a requirement for that comment of yours to be accurate....you are, again, referring to things which exist in your mind, not mine. 

that could be applied to many figures who gained notoriety in the ancient world. Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar were also mythologized but it would be ridiculous to assume as a result that every document or artifact containing information about their lives and exploits should be presumed a relic of fraud and fiction. Virgil was deified shortly after his death. Do you automatically presume that every work attributed to Virgil must therefore be part of a "narrative"? Epicurus? The list could go on. 

Yes, yes, again with the all or nothing gambit.  It's garbage every time someone tries it, you won't be able to prop any Paul up with it.

That discussion isn't even possible if you just assume everything presented contains nothing but a "story" presented as authentic epistles and references to an actual person but are *really* part of a single "narrative" analogous to the Screwtape Letters (lol).

Of course it is, it just isn't possible for you, personally, to demonstrate any Paul...apparently.  What you have presented is a narrative by definition, twit.  Whatever else it is, it is a narrative, understand?  I am starting there, with what we have, and trying to work towards a historical Paul.  You could help with that, you know......

Of course. You think there is a more reasonable explanation for the existence of the Pauline epistles. I've been disappointed thus far in your failure to present any reason or evidence for your silly explanation. 

Then that is where you are wrong.  I do not have to present you with an alternative, and my ability or inability to do so would not help you to establish your own position. 

Do you think any quest for a historical Paul (or Jesus or Clement) starts with the assumption that these figures did not exist? Lol... good luck with historical reconstruction if that's how you approach ancient writings.  

It cannot start with the assumption that there is.....or else we assume what we must demonstrate, numbskull.  Our conclusion will be suspect in perpetuity.  I'm open to the idea, personally (is the Paul above all the historical Paul that you would lay a bet on) but if I say, "If we assume that there is a paul, then it is possible to conclude that there is a paul"....we haven't said much, now have we?  

Seriously... I've already stated two ways... twice... let me state them a third time... historiography and higher criticism. 

-lol, I'm sorry, I didn't realize these terms were part of an incantation and that their mere used demonstrated the existence of a historical Paul...golly gee...wish I'd known that pages ago.

(I read the post directly prior to my request, you don;t seem to have even attempted to offer any evidence for Paul, or demonstrate that Paul existed...you seem mainly concerned with the position of another, as you hope to impose it. Must have been in another response? Just link the response?)