The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Mudhammam]

1-There you go, inventing conspiracists again.

It was your stupid idea. At least own it.

2-Evidence that both the screwtape letters and -the letters supposedly written by paul- are in the format of...letters? You don't think that's a fairly benign observation? I would think it strange if they weren't...since that was the authors intent(-at least- the second time I've had to correct you on this count alone).

A benign observation? Well, aren't you a quick learner!

3-I specifically mentioned that we could (and should) disregard acts on numerous occasions - mostly because it's full of obvious myth and legend and we're trying to find us some historical paul...whatever that means. Does that mean we're done..that once acts is gone the rest is really real (or that from that point forward we have to forget that acts exists), that there could be no further, subtler misinformation (for reasons which are, frankly..legion) within, say...these supposed letters?

"Disregard Acts"? Meaning? Should we consider the possibility that Acts has any value for historical reconstruction? If Acts places Paul in Rome, and other sources agree that Paul wound up in Rome, is it likely that somebody who was a prominent Christian convert and missionary named Paul ended up in Rome? Why or why not?

You were saying? -And speaking of what you were saying...at what point will trading barbs or calling me a moron help you to establish the historicity of paul....whichever paul you have in mind? How does that work>?

I'd rather trade barbs than repeat myself to a dolt who still refuses to acknowledge that I've precisely stated "whichever Paul" numerous times, to the point that you just keep reiterating how pathetic wasting any more effort on you really is.