The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Mudhammam]

How indeed, but this is a question that you must answer, not me.  Yes, "Clement"...while I wouldn't lean on Clement..if I were you, isn't it starting to seem a bit odd that we are shoring up one legendary/mythical personage with another?

Lol... you haven't offered a single good reason to believe that either character is mythological or legendary. The burden is not on me to provide evidence that these writers who claimed themselves to be particular individuals addressing particular circumstances in their social lives were not in fact who they claimed to be. If you take that position about every document that survives from ancient history, and not simply Christians or who ever you feel inclined to discredit, you're really just creating a ridiculous and impossible standard in which you'll basically have to say that 99% of the data that we have from everything older than 1,000 years is fiction and that no history of real human beings has survived. Not credible.

In any case, the author wrote in the authors style (and of course the author of dracula was similarly reliable-on that count).....you keep calling him Paul, but I don't know why, given our discussion.  You ended this segment by appealing to the claims of the narrative as evidence of the claims of the narrative, I find this unconvincing.  That's the only metric I'm applying, at present.  Do you think I need more?

I call him Paul cause that's what he calls himself. The same reason that I call the authors of Plato's or Cicero's more credible epistles, Plato and Cicero, even though scholarship has debated some of their respective epistles and has more or less unanimously agreed that some are legitimate while some are written by later students or fans... of... guess who? Yeah, Plato and Cicero. Most ancient figures had pseudographs written in their name. This doesn't detract from their importance as evidence that the person who they're written under were real people, and often they give us a glimpse into what that person might have wrote (since someone writing about epicurean philosophy under the name of Plato obviously wouldn't have convinced many of its authenticity).

I'm still confused as to what it is you see as "the narrative" and if by it you mean that a man named Paul, who was "circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless," and became a Christian, then subsequently writing instructions to his friends and cohorts about organizing and managing churches, and including details such as that "five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent in the deep. I have been on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren; I have been in labor and hardship, through many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure," what reasons you have to think that I or anyone else should doubt that the man who says he is Paul wrote them. Historiography and higher criticism are not employed exclusively to biblical texts; academics apply the same standards to the New Testament writings as they do to any other ancient work. So, what's the problem? 

Then we both agree that with any given attribute of Paul, it is -possible- that the item in question is mythological, or legendary, correct?  Myth and legend are what I, personally, would call works of fiction.  You?

If you're just talking about Acts, no I don't think that the entirety of the work is fiction. We know that Herod Aggripa II and Bernice were actual people. So was Lucius Junius Gallio Annaeanus or Gallio, who was the brother of Seneca. These characters may have never come into contact with Paul---that's a historical question that is fair to ask---asking me to prove that any of the names enumerated above were *real* people and not the fictional devices of numerous unknown writers is not. But Acts is irrelevant to the question of the historicity of Paul, as even without Acts (written much later than the epistles in Paul's name, and clearly with a different purpose), we still have such information as already mentioned from the Pharisaic Jew himself. 

-and yet above, you accepted that there -was- a myth, or legend..even if there was a man?  I'm simply suggesting that the epistles -are- part of that myth, that legend..and yes...part of that genre - that they are non factual, or..if you prefer..fiction.   Which shouldn't be surprising....because that's precisely what CS Lewis -intended- to do when he wrote the damn story man......

I'm simply saying no one has any reason to take your suggestion seriously.

His personal experience with jesus.......?  A vision of the risen christ on the road to Damascus?  Is that his personal experience of jesus?  You;re assuming, in this "relentless attacks on the church" business that the narrative is true, is factual...which is precisely what -you- must  demonstrate.  


You're losing me bud..............you've done nothing but assume your conclusion in support of your conclusion for the entirety of our interaction on this subject.  What do you hope to achieve with this?  I know what the story says as well as you, you aren't going to surprise me with the narrative -itself-....so we can skip all of that.....

-if you want to surprise me, show me the evidence, not the claim.  We are not discussing whether a study of Paul is relevant to the history of the church, and no one suggested that it wouldn't be.  If you'd like to have that conversation have it with someone else who holds that position or would advance that opinion?  It does seem insanely ignorant to suggest...so why did you suggest it?

Paul's conversion experience is described by himself as a vision, a revelation, an appearance of Jesus, and he says that "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago-- whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows-- such a man was caught up to the third heaven. And I know how such a man-- whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows--was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak.…" I don't doubt that, though the account of his conversion on the road to Damascus, not mentioned by Paul but by Luke, may be hyperbole/embellishment/mythological. Visions, revelations, appearances, etc. are not that uncommon---writing letters that show no sign of fictional or narrative device, and convincing others that would be familiar with you that you're a person whom you are really not, and leaving no evidence to dispute your elaborate scam, would be quite extraordinary... which is why I think you must have more faith than I do to believe that latter scenario.

[robvalue]

Well, there's two answers to that. There's the amazing generous answer, from my previous challenge, and I'll just be repeating myself.

"Telling the truth" means saying what they bekieved happened.

No, telling the truth means telling the truth. Someone can believe something that is not true, but what I have said is that the authors appear to have been careful in their research, accurate in their details and thoughtful in their presentations.

You are imbuing them with not just complete and utter honesty but infalibility to not be mistaken, or fooled, to misenterpret, to oversimplify, to be confused, for memories to get distorted... or just plain not understand what's going on and filling in the gaps. There is a world of difference between what someone believes about an event, and the truth of the event. And given the unbelievably extraordinary nature of the claim, it will always be staggeringly more likely that they fell foul of one of the hundreds of ways a human can err rather than it actually happened just as they wrote.

Given that the community of believers would quickly correct any errors that appeared in a written account, I'm not at all inclined to believe that errors made it into print. (And you should take note of the fact that I am NOT appealing to the promise of the Holy Spirit whom Jesus said would remind the apostles of all that He had said to them them NOR am I relying on the infallibility of the Catholic Church which has settled this matter long ago.) These books were not written in a vacuum or simply churned out and published one day..."Hey, everybody....look what I wrote!" The authors were part of a community, and novelties would not have been received well. Contrary to the claims of Ehrman and his disciples in this forum, the Church was not interested in embellishing a legend. It was interested in preserving the truth.

In fact, actual ressurection itself is not a given. The last part of Mark is highly suspected of being a forgery, meaning even he did not actually know Jesus had risen. It's suspected to have ended at 16:8 with just some guy telling them to spread the rumour he had risen. A story was probably later added to try and cement it as fact rather than a rumour. As you hopefully know, Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark so this is really just the one account and it's not what people would like it to be.

What a mish-mash of ideas! Mark was the travelling companion of Peter and Paul. He wrote his gospel based upon the teachings of Peter. And you want to say that Mark was unaware of the resurrection? Rob, seriously, you need to read some scripture...not as a believer but just so you can avoid this kind of fuzzy thinking.

Not so generous answer: They got some things right, sure. It's not hard. If you're living at that time, you could write things down that were true. They can also make up a story based very loosely on a real character, and pepper it with actual true stuff to make it more convincing.

How would that story fly given that living eyewitnesses to Jesus' crucifixion were still alive? And if the account of feeding the five thousand was pure fiction, wouldn't more than a few people have said, "Hey, I have relatives living up that way...they never heard of any of this"?

And if you want to claim that the whole kit and kaboodle is pure fiction, then you have to explain the extra-biblical sources which point to the existence of the historical Jesus. It's one thing for forum members to be dismissive...but it's another thing to actually justify dismissing the pagan and Jewish references to Jesus and/or the Church. I have not doubt there are scholars who are willing to do just that, but I think I'm on pretty safe ground when I say that most scholars - even the skeptical ones - acknowledge that there are some 10-15 universally accepted facts about Jesus which lead us to believe that He - one man - did exist.

You're still insisting on the false dichotomy that the gospels are either completely true I'm every detail or totally false. This is simply not true, if anything. In fact, the disciples making up the story fits the facts a whole lot better than the story really happening. Far better. It requires no greater assumption than people are willing to make up stories to get what they want, which we know is true. All this "they died for this and that" is also in the bible, so could be written to make it look like they really believed it.

Would Bobby Henderson be willing to die for the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Nobody dies for something they know to be a lie.

The apostles did not believe because they heard. They knew because they saw. And they have told us what they knew and saw accurately.

Whether you believe depends on God's grace and your will.

[Edited the below about a million times. Sort it out Rob.]

OK, we're done. If you refuse to acknowledge the difference between telling what you think is the truth, and actually being correct, you're being extremely dishonest and using a massive double standard. You're saying someone who has done careful research must be correct about everything. Unless, of course, their research is about a different religion. You're happy to distinguish between belief and fact for every person ever, including your most trusted friends, but not for the authors of one particular specific book.

I didn't say it was all fiction, I was very clear to make that point. You're not addressing my points, you're strawmanning me and just using evasive fallacious reasoning. I could address all the fallacies, but it would be pointless while you hold the above stance. The general consensus is that the gospels were not written by eye witnesses, by the way. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that they were, and you still need to be dishonest to try and make the case. I acknowledged there may have been a "real Jesus" beneath the story, yet you are talking as if I said the opposite.

Your case boils down to "You should just believe it because the bible has some historical accuracy". Well, so does Spider-Man. New York exists, but it doesn't mean Spider-Man does. Whether you believe the bible depends on whether or not you've already decided it is true for other reasons, which I'm sad to see you're not willing to discuss. If you change your mind about that, I'll rejoin the discussion. Or if you admit to some of this dishonesty. If what you say is actually true, you should not need all these dishonest and fallacious arguments to try and convince me. And to convince us is the point of this, for which you are failing I'm afraid. The burden of proof is on you, as you are making the claim. Even if all the crazy stuff in the bible did happen, so what? It's clearly all finished now. No evidence of anything like that going on today. It seems god is dead or has lost interest.

Yes, people can die for things they know are false. People can do all sorts of strange things. And again, this only establishes that they thought they were correct, not that they were actually correct. You acknowledge this distinction in every person ever alive, except bible authors.

---

That last point I made, about this distinction, is what you need to think about if you take anything away from your discussion from me.

You also feel the need to misrepresent what atheism is in order to try and shift the burden of proof. I guess you didn't read my website:

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!what-is-atheism/c57k

Not all atheists are strong atheists. And to ask us to prove the bible wrong... the argument from ignorance. Here is my article about logical fallacies, in case anyone is unsure what exactly I'm talking about when I reference a particular one:

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!logical-fallacies/cwi1

One final thought. I can't speak for every atheist of course, but personally I have no agenda. I have no particular reason to want to disbelieve in gods. I just do, because I'm unconvinced. If there actually is a god, I don't care. I would carry on my life exactly the same way. I would assume a being of such power would have no interest in anything I do, nor require anything from me. So I'll continue to put those people and animals around me first because I know what I do matters to them. If christianity was true, I wouldn't care. I would carry on my life exactly the same way. It would just mean either god was an evil bastard, or the bible is misrepresenting him. So what, I don't care. Nothing I can do about it.

So you see, it makes no difference to me either way. This allows me a kind of objectivity, because I have no vested interest either way. If there is a god and he is of good moral character, he would be pleased with how I am living my life I think. If he is any other type of god, I don't particularly care what he thinks.

[Randy Carson]

The vast majority of atheists I know simply state that the god claim is unproven.

The vast majority of Christian apologists I know simply state that atheists are shirking their responsibility to make the case for what they believe.

The burden to prove the god claim rests with you.  

Agreed. And the burden to prove that God does not exist rests with you.

I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Nor am I.

[downbeatplumb]

The vast majority of atheists I know simply state that the god claim is unproven.

The vast majority of Christian apologists I know simply state that atheists are shirking their responsibility to make the case for what they believe.

Theists say there is a god, we are unconvinced by the arguments put forward to support the assertion.
That is our case.
What exactly were you expecting?

I will look into my garden.

There is a cat there.

Or is there?

I will offer no evidence to support the presence of the cat.


Now if I were to say this cat is pink with yellow spots and speaks seven languages and can fly.

Again I offer no evidence to back it up.

Do you think it is even possible that such a thing exists? 

The burden to prove the god claim rests with you.  

Agreed. And the burden to prove that God does not exist rests with you.

In order for me not to believe something all that is required is to find the positive claim unconvincing.

Look at it like this.

Someone says gorillas are naturally good at reproducing Monets.

If I find this unconvincing I will not believe it.

Why is it then up to me to prove that gorillas can't reproduce Monets?

The person making the original claim has the burden of proof.

I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Nor am I.

Well that's nice every ones all rested.

[Randy Carson]

[Edited the below about a million times. Sort it out Rob.]

I'll try.

OK, we're done.

A pity. You won't find many Christians willing to deal with as much crap as this forum churns out. So, if you want to talk, I'm your guy.

If you refuse to acknowledge the difference between telling what you think is the truth, and actually being correct, you're being extremely dishonest and using a massive double standard.

To the contrary. I'll say it again. There is a huge difference between being

1) sincere (and wrong) about something you believe to be true, and
2) sincere (and right) about something you know to be true.

People are willing to die for either of those. What I reject is the idea that eleven apostles all died for something that they knew was a lie.

You're saying someone who has done careful research must be correct about everything. Unless, of course, their research is about a different religion. You're happy to distinguish between belief and fact for every person ever, including your most trusted friends, but not for the authors of one particular specific book.

I'm not saying that at all. But it stands to reason that while the authors of the gospels may have been off on the number of women at the foot of the cross or whether it was 4,000 or 5,000 people fed with two loaves and a fish, there is not much chance that they were in error about Jesus being seen alive three days after the crucifixion. There would have been no reason to even write the gospels without that central fact, would there?

I didn't say it was all fiction, I was very clear to make that point. You're not addressing my points, you're strawmanning me and just using evasive fallacious reasoning. I could address all the fallacies, but it would be pointless while you hold the above stance.

Hopefully, I have just made it clear that I do NOT hold the "above stance", so address all you want.

The general consensus is that the gospels were not written by eye witnesses, by the way.

It depends on which gospel you are referring to. Mark and Luke, no. As for your "consensus", maybe you should read some different books.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that they were, and you still need to be dishonest to try and make the case. I acknowledged there may have been a "real Jesus" beneath the story, yet you are talking as if I said the opposite.

See above. I'm not doing anything dishonest...I don't need to.

Your case boils down to "You should just believe it because the bible has some historical accuracy". Well, so does Spider-Man. New York exists, but it doesn't mean Spider-Man does.

Your first sentence is an oversimplification (and you know it).

Whether you believe the bible depends on whether or not you've already decided it is true for other reasons,

Is that universally true for all who become Christians, Rob? If not, then your argument fails - not because it is not true is some cases but because reading the Bible is what BRINGS some people to conversion.

which I'm sad to see you're not willing to discuss. If you change your mind about that, I'll rejoin the discussion. Or if you admit to some of this dishonesty. If what you say is actually true, you should not need all these dishonest and fallacious arguments to try and convince me. And to convince us is the point of this, for which you are failing I'm afraid.

I admit no dishonest. I suspect misunderstanding. If we were at a pub having a pint or two, this probably wouldn't have happened.

The burden of proof is on you, as you are making the claim.

Granted. That's why I joined the forum. To explain and defend the Christian faith.

Even if all the crazy stuff in the bible did happen, so what? It's clearly all finished now. No evidence of anything like that going on today. It seems god is dead or has lost interest.

Ah...now that is a separate discussion. For now, I'll leave you with this thought: A silent God is better than a non-existent one.

Yes, people can die for things they know are false. People can do all sorts of strange things. And again, this only establishes that they thought they were correct, not that they were actually correct. You acknowledge this distinction in every person ever alive, except bible authors.

You've just contradicted yourself in these two phrases:

"people can die for things they know are false"
"this only establishes they they thought they were correct"

Rob, if they thought they were correct then they did not know they are false. Hello?

That last point I made, about this distinction, is what you need to think about if you take anything away from your discussion from me.

Hopefully, this posts indicates that I have.

You also feel the need to misrepresent what atheism is in order to try and shift the burden of proof. I guess you didn't read my website:

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!what-is-atheism/c57k

Not all atheists are strong atheists. And to ask us to prove the bible wrong... the argument from ignorance. Here is my article about logical fallacies, in case anyone is unsure what exactly I'm talking about when I reference a particular one:

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!logical-fallacies/cwi1

I did read your website...including all the fallacies (some of which I would rephrase, btw)...the whole thing (I think). And yes, not all atheists are strong atheists. (I'm not sure you're an atheist at all, but we'll see what the discussion reveals.)

One final thought. I can't speak for every atheist of course, but personally I have no agenda. I have no particular reason to want to disbelieve in gods. I just do, because I'm unconvinced. If there actually is a god, I don't care. I would carry on my life exactly the same way.

So, maybe it's not really a matter of being unconvinced so much as it is that you are indifferent?

I would assume a being of such power would have no interest in anything I do, nor require anything from me.

And what God has been trying to tell you is that you are wrong. On both counts. But start with the first part until you feel more at ease.

So I'll continue to put those people and animals around me first because I know what I do matters to them. If christianity was true, I wouldn't care. I would carry on my life exactly the same way. It would just mean either god was an evil bastard, or the bible is misrepresenting him. So what, I don't care. Nothing I can do about it.

Hitchens said basically the same thing.

So you see, it makes no difference to me either way. This allows me a kind of objectivity, because I have no vested interest either way. If there is a god and he is of good moral character, he would be pleased with how I am living my life I think. If he is any other type of god, I don't particularly care what he thinks.

He may very well be pleased with you, Rob. And one thing is certain: He loves you.

[robvalue]

OK, well thanks for trying to address my points. I enjoyed our discussion. I will accept that you are not being intentionally dishonest and using fallacies, where I consider it to be the case. I think your beliefs are clouding your thinking. That's just my opinion. No hard feelings

If something new turns up here, I'll comment on it. Otherwise, I've already said all of my side of things so I won't repeat myself.

[Randy Carson]

OK, well thanks for trying to address my points. I enjoyed our discussion. I will accept that you are not being intentionally dishonest and using fallacies, where I consider it to be the case. I think your beliefs are clouding your thinking. That's just my opinion. No hard feelings

If something new turns up here, I'll comment on it. Otherwise, I've already said all of my side of things so I won't repeat myself.

No problem, Rob.

Have a Guinness on me.  

[robvalue]

You may find this video interesting regarding the "die for a lie" argument.

I'm sure you're right, a forum is an odd place to have communications between two people. If we were talking face to face I agree we could sort things out much better. We're both putting forward what we think are the best arguments, and it's up to the reader to decide who made the better case. I'm not going to just claim I'm right and you are wrong. We just can't seem to reach a conclusion together at the moment. I think you're making mistakes, and you probably think the same of me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHEiBvB-Xu0

[The Grand Nudger]

Lol... you haven't offered a single good reason to believe that either character is mythological or legendary. 

We did both agree that there are ignorant and un-serious claims attached to the character...the character -is- mythical and legendary, I thought we both agreed to that.  What we are discussing is a possible non mythical, non legendary "core" to that character, aren't we?  You are proposing that there is something in the pauline epistles that is not the usual mythological and legendary fluff we find elsewhere.    Aren't you?  I am of the opinion that the epistles -are- legendary/mythological fluff.  But my opinion doesn't matter so much, because with regards to your contention that Paul was a real boy, the contention that I joined into this discussion to pick up since you seemed unsatisfied with Min...is simply that I find the case made to be unconvincing, and I don't see how your appeals to shift that burden are going to convince me?

The burden is not on me to provide evidence that these writers who claimed themselves to be particular individuals addressing particular circumstances in their social lives were not in fact who they claimed to be. 

Ah, I see, so I would also have to prove that The Mad Arab from the Necronomicon  is a fictional character?  Might as well just assume he lived?  Yes, I'm sorry, the burden -is- on you on that count, because I've accepted Paul only for what I can demonstrate him to have been, a character in a book.  Any more than that will take evidence and reason, -not- the repeated claims of the narrative and the constant shifting of burden.   This is real simple, show me the evidence, and not the claim Nestor.  You can end this whole disagreement that simply....and yet you haven't.

If you take that position about every document that survives from ancient history, and not simply Christians or who ever you feel inclined to discredit, you're really just creating a ridiculous and impossible standard in which you'll basically have to say that 99% of the data that we have from everything older than 1,000 years is fiction and that no history of real human beings has survived. Not credible.

The all or nothing gambit, I'm unimpressed - and it still doesn't establish that there was a Paul.  Look, if you're happy to simply accept a claim and call it history be my guest. Who's looking to discredit anything, and how would one go about that? The narrative works regardless of whether or not there's any Paul, I'm actually rather impressed with the NT narrative, personally - and while your average christer may feel that the bible or their religion is somehow discredited by any criticism along these lines -I do not-...so you can save your breath on that angle.

.That said, yeah, it just so happens that often legendary and mythological writings purporting to be historical documents from "back in the day" are not the best sources for history one might wish for - regardless of the source or subject. The teutons couldn't -actually- turn into bears or fight with both arms hacked off for a fortnight.....and yet we are told by "historians" that they did. I assume you approach these other claims with a grain of salt, and that this statement doesn;t surprise you with any information of which you were previously unaware. /shrugs

I call him Paul cause that's what he calls himself. The same reason that I call the authors of Plato's or Cicero's more credible epistles, Plato and Cicero, even though scholarship has debated some of their respective epistles and has more or less unanimously agreed that some are legitimate while some are written by later students or fans... of... guess who? Yeah, Plato and Cicero. Most ancient figures had pseudographs written in their name.

I didn't realize that we were discussing any "Paul" as a literary convention, but rather "Paul" as an actual human being, about whom we can draw conclusions?   If I use your method, I must also accept that there was an Odin (and a whole host of other characters who identify themselves in a vast number of narratives purportedly written by the individuals in question...some of which are known to be fiction - which is an absurd suggestion on it's very face).......you realize?

This doesn't detract from their importance as evidence that the person who they're written under were real people, and often they give us a glimpse into what that person might have wrote (since someone writing about epicurean philosophy under the name of Plato obviously wouldn't have convinced many of its authenticity).

Again you refer to the claim as evidence of the accuracy of the claim...right after conceding that psuedography is a factor.  Staggering irony, man......

I'm still confused as to what it is you see as "the narrative" and if by it you mean that a man named Paul, who was "circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless," and became a Christian, then subsequently writing instructions to his friends and cohorts about organizing and managing churches, and including details such as that "five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent in the deep. I have been on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren; I have been in labor and hardship, through many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure," what reasons you have to think that I or anyone else should doubt that the man who says he is Paul wrote them. 

You've been giving me wonderful reasons in your posts.....haven't you? Yes yes, Paul suffered for his labor, he had his own passion...you might say.................a prototype for christian martrydom........and a wonderful example of the idea of apostolic succession......those may be details, but I doubt that they are the details of any guy named Pauls actual life. This is the story the author wanted to tell (and that would be true regardless of whether or not the author was writing about an actual person or not....huh?).

Historiography and higher criticism are not employed exclusively to biblical texts; academics apply the same standards to the New Testament writings as they do to any other ancient work. So, what's the problem? 

That you still haven't demonstrated that Paul existed.  You'll need to stop assuming what I am asking you to establish as evidence of what I am asking you to establish, and you might want to stop pretending that it's silly to ask the question..or we'll get nowhere, eh? I thought we both agreed that studying Paul, as a man, would be relevant to a study of christainity's history..here we are......

If you're just talking about Acts, no I don't think that the entirety of the work is fiction. We know that Herod Aggripa II and Bernice were actual people. So was Lucius Junius Gallio Annaeanus or Gallio, who was the brother of Seneca. These characters may have never come into contact with Paul---that's a historical question that is fair to ask---asking me to prove that any of the names enumerated above were *real* people and not the fictional devices of numerous unknown writers is not. But Acts is irrelevant to the question of the historicity of Paul, as even without Acts (written much later than the epistles in Paul's name, and clearly with a different purpose), we still have such information as already mentioned from the Pharisaic Jew himself. 

-and London is a real city that was never beset by vampires or werewolves despite what you may read in Dracula.  None of those things you offered rescue acts from a classification as fiction (nor would they even be -capable- of rescuing the epistles).  I haven't asked you to prove anything, amigo, I'm simply seeking the evidence upon which you've hung your conclusion, that Paul was a real boy..lol.  Here again, you assume the item under dispute.  I also find it amusing that you feel that anything which shows that legend and myth are attached to the notion of Paul is irrelevant to the historicity of Paul........yes, lets remove all the myth and legend and then say "It';s silly to suggest this, you've given no reason".................clearly...you understand that I have.

I'm simply saying no one has any reason to take your suggestion seriously.

Seems to me, from your posts, that we do have reason to take my suggestion seriously.  I guess that's a simple difference of opinion though?

Paul's conversion experience is described by himself as a vision, a revelation, an appearance of Jesus, and he says that "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago-- whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows-- such a man was caught up to the third heaven. And I know how such a man-- whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows--was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak.…" I don't doubt that, though the account of his conversion on the road to Damascus, not mentioned by Paul but by Luke, may be hyperbole/embellishment/mythological. 

I find your ability to compartmentalize impressive.

Visions, revelations, appearances, etc. are not that uncommon---writing letters that show no sign of fictional or narrative device, and convincing others that would be familiar with you that you're a person whom you are really not, and leaving no evidence to dispute your elaborate scam, would be quite extraordinary... which is why I think you must have more faith than I do to believe that latter scenario.

Except that those letters -do- show "signs" of narrative devices(lol?), as already covered.  Who said anything about an elaborate scam?  Are you going to go down the conspiracy rabbit hole again?  I like the touch at the end, about needing "more faith", unfortunately it doesn't actually have anything to do with our discussion, and you've yet to move the chains an inch.

This is really simple, do you have some evidence that is not contained within the claim..that leads you to believe that the narrative is factual?  If you do, lets just see -that- and skip the rest of this posturing eh? This right here:

"I call him Paul cause that's what he calls himself."

-does not work for me for obvious and well established reasons. If there isn't any more to this than that....I don't think that you and I have anything further to discuss, we simply aren't approaching the issue from reconcilable foundations. I'll need someone who is prepared to take on more than this, in order to determine what the life of Paul may have been to any standard acceptable -by me-.

[Randy Carson]

If something new turns up here, I'll comment on it. Otherwise, I've already said all of my side of things so I won't repeat myself.

Rob-

On your website, you wrote:

Let's say you and I have been given a huge tub of sweets. There's so many in there, that it's impossible to count them all by just looking at the jar. I say to you that there are an even number of sweets in the jar. I am making a claim of knowledge. You have two options. You can either accept my claim, or reject it. If you accept it, you are agreeing that it is a sensible conclusion to say that there are an even number of sweets in the tub. If you reject it, you are saying that you don't think there is a good enough reason to draw that conclusion.

Since I have given you no evidence whatsoever, the sensible thing would be to reject the claim. I am clearly just guessing, so why should you believe that I know there is an even number in there? But notice by rejecting my claim, you are saying that you don't believe me when I say I know there are an even number. You are not saying that my claim is actually false. This would be ridiculous, because to reject my claim that the number of sweets is even, you'd have to make your own claim that actually the number of sweets is odd. That is a similarly absurd position. Instead, what you are saying is that you don't think my claim of knowledge is justified, and until there is more evidence, you don't accept this as true. You are maintaining the default position that we don't know if the total is even or odd, and need more evidence to decide.

Here are my thoughts.

Replace the tub of sweets with the New Testament. If I say the number is even (the NT is true), and you say you don't know, that would be fair. Don't place a bet on odd or even without more information. But what if the Catholic Church which was founded by Jesus upon Peter and has been in continuous existence since the tub was formed says, "This tub contains X number of sweets (truths)"? Does that incline you to place a wager?

And what if each of the books of the NT is actually its own tub of sweets. And what if the people who put them together say, "I know how many sweets are in the tub because I was there. I saw it. I counted."? And what if we can learn more about those authors, their character, their motivations for putting the sweets in the tubs, etc.? And what if all of that suggests that the tub-makers were honorable men, that they really were present when the sweets were made and that placed them carefully into the tub? Does that change your willingness to place a bet that there are an even number of sweets in the tub?

Sure, they could be wrong. They could have miscounted. But is that probable? If the otherwise reliable and knowledgeable tub-maker says to you, "I have carefully counted these sweets so that you may know how many are in this tub", would you really bet against him? Again, he may be mistaken. He may even be lying and having fun at your expense. But is that probable?

With the the tub of sweets, the odds are 50/50. Are you saying that it is less than 50/50 that the authors of the NT got it right regarding the resurrection? Despite having been there? Despite having interviewed witnesses?

I dunno, Rob. Maybe the whole of Christianity is just one big practical joke that got out of hand. But I wouldn't bet on it.