The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Mudhammam]

LO< Can't argue it yourself..looking for relief?  The mans clothes healed the sick, at a distance.  End of.  I find it amusing that the way a person is forced to argue aganist the mythical and legendary paul is to dismiss the mythical and legendary paul in the text as not part of the Historical Paul™. The fact remains that no one can tell me who this historical Paul was with -any- confidence whatsoever, while it is trivially easy for me to show the mythical and legendary paul anytime a person asks.

Pro-tip....rather than attack the straw you consistently imagine and then attribute to me, you should just establish who this "historical paul" was. I haven't forgotten. I'm a paul mooter, you fucking moron, not a paul mythicist......as you'll find that each and every one of my interactions with you would attest to..if you'd pulled your head out of your ass and argued your own position rather than trying to imagine what mine was without simply accepting that I mean what I say and say what I mean. The paul -of the text- is mythical, legendary - regardless of what some "paul" - named used just for shits and giggles- may have been. It;s as if you're expecting me to argue that there weren't people in the world at that time, or somesuch...lol?

I think it's patently absurd to claim "Well, there was a historical paul" if, when asked who this historical paul was...the only tenable answer is "no clue". Let's try again "Was there a historical paul?" -"no clue".

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJO5HU_7_1w

---

Lol. It's funny how butt hurt you are. But actually if your dumb ass could read, I said I ran out of patience explaining how logic works to a fucking idiot, which you once again confirmed by posting statements one could only think if a) they ignored everything I already said up to this point, or b) their brain is literally physically damaged. I think I'll opt for b.

Good luck, Tim.