RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
June 5, 2015 at 12:32 am
(This post was last modified: June 5, 2015 at 12:32 am by Mudhammam.)
(June 4, 2015 at 6:04 pm)Rhythm Wrote: -need I remind you that you spent the entire exchange arguing with some conspiricist -you invented- rather than responding to me, or even doing something so simple as telling us which historical paul™ you believe to be the real historical paul™?
Honestly, it sounds like you need to remind yourself that you:
1. Advocated the conspiracy that Paul was a fictional character created for a story formatted like the Screwtape Letters.... LOL... to tell Christians about how this fictitious first-century Jew gained reputation by converting to the faith and being a missionary, writing letters to (real?) churches about his (the made-up person, that is) ideas relating to how Christians should live...
2. A position that you had no reason or evidence for which to presume, but kept insisting that I respond to your incoherent thesis supported by non-reasons and absolutely no evidence...
3. All the while confusing the source material, insisting that due to the embellished features relating to Paul in Acts, all texts are discredited, and that we should assume that the multiple attestations to the existence of a historical Paul near the end of the first-century/first quarter of the second were also written into a narrative by characters who were created by unknown authors.
Like I said, you're a complete moron.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
