The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[The Grand Nudger]

I was saying that the claim Paul was a mythological character is ignorant and un-serious. I think your attempts to make an argument for that claim---wait are you? because it seems like you kind of are but then I'm not seeing much of anything except for "I don't accept the abundance of testimonial evidence from the person himself or anyone else! Just 'cause!"---are thoroughly demonstrating that.

Do you think that it is ignorant and un-serious to conclude that the Paul who's scraps could cure by mail is legendary or mythical?   I've concluded, personally, that there are many ignorant and un-serious claims attached to the character which can be, or must be, ignored..if one is to discuss "Paul the Man" - if such a man existed, and however we might determine that.  Do I think the the Paul of the NT, even of the epistles... is a legendary/mythical Paul, rather than an autobiographical Paul, yes, of course.  ??????

First, I don't know who the Mad Arab is so you'll have to explain the relevancy of the reference.

Your level of knowledge is irrelevant, I'm following the method you seem to have proposed, I;m assigning burden as you seem to see fit.  You must now educate yourself and prove precisely this:

 If he's nothing more than "a character in a book,"

.......

 I assume there aren't numerous letters written by the Mad Arab to his friends across Europe and Asia about issues dealing with life in same world that other historical people lived in, references to his self and others that only make sense in the context of real persons, an entire corpus of work written under his name, and then mentions by others regarding his actual existence without any dispute to the contrary...? If that's the case, I'm interested to pursue that comparison further. If not, I repeat: ignorant and un-serious.

Indeed there are numerous letters (this is the format of the entire book), written by the man himself, as claimed within the narrative.  The narrative does, in fact, the author claims..happen in "the real world" and many references are made to this world which I;m sure we'll both agree happen to be true.  I don;t know whether or not any of it makes any sense at all...but I can certainly say that it could -only- make sense in the context of real persons...and yes, the entire corpus, The Necronomicon, is attributed to him..again, in the narrative.  I think that you'll find that there are perople who both agree and disagree as to the existence of The Mad Arab...just as you find people who agree and disagree as to the existence of "Paul".   Is this your whole spiel though, if I disagree, the disagreement is ignorant and unserious?  I can't help but shake the feeling that you might forget to establish the only relevant issue in pursuit of that particular narrative.  You have alot of work to do.....if you stick to your method, eh?

You can't establish anyone was a real person if you just simply dismiss their writings or all references to them as works of fiction motivated by hidden powers operating in the dark, although I have to say that sounds a bit paranoid and extremely irrational.

Again you suggest conspiracy....I thought that this was ignorant and unserious?  In any case, I don't think that your claim here is true, we know much about people who were, so far as we can tell, illiterate, and we know that much that has been written -about people- is not, strictly speaking, factual.  So we know that we do not -need- to swallow the claims of narratives written by or about any particular character in order to establish particulars about the life of any historical personage. I'm sure you wouldn't believe -everything- a king had to say about himself (or anything that any author had to say about himself or another, by fiat)...and I think that this skepticism is well-founded. I;m applying it to "Paul".

 You're basically saying that you do not accept any ancient document as evidence for the existence of real people because writers sometimes voluntarily or involuntarily contributed to fictional narratives and devices, could possibly get and pass along false information, and were oftentimes generally superstitious. That's not a very good reason to reject all writings older than 1,000 years, to me or to any historian now or in the past, but to each his own I suppose.

Who said anything about rejection?  Go argue that with someone who holds the position?  

No, I did not realize that. Odin claimed to be an individual, offering us details about his life, such as his nationality, and wrote letters to his contemporaries and was purported to be a human being by others who lived shortly (read: 20-60 years) after his death? And nobody ever disputed it? Wow. That's remarkable, I'll grant you that. I can't wait to see your evidence for the claim.

I think that down this road, lay an endless list of qualifiers made by you that will terminate with a "if the story is not precisely the same then they are entirely different".  It won;t matter, because we'll still be discussing a story for which you have provided me no evidence to consider.  You have continually referred to the claim.  I don't believe the claim, like I don't believe in many claims...so pointing to the claim will not convince me -of- the claim, Nestor.  

Huh? No, I refer to the evidence, which mostly consist of letters,

yes, you refer to the claim...... 

over half a dozen considered authentic by all of his scholarship, as being written by the individual who put a (his) name (Paul) to them, as well as to others who reference that person as having written letters, and to multiple others who wrote using that person's identity. 

establishing a literary convention of Paul...which I am perfectly happy to concede the existence of.  We are not debating the literary convention of Paul, Nestor. 

This doesn't even take into consideration the mythological narrative that later came along describing some of those same events that the person in the original letters mentioned and more. My claim is that all of this is supportive of my view that the person in question was an actual human being who lived in the first century. It seems to me that all you have in favor of your proposition are appeals to ignorance. In logic that's called an informal fallacy.

The claim supports the claim....I remain unconvinced.  You are referring to narrative continuity.  I don't dispute that there is narrative continuity.  Next?

I see we've both made assertions but only one of us has given reasons why they are credible. I've enlisted historiography and higher criticism, which overwhelmingly agrees with me---

appealing to what...now?

that the existence of letters written under the name of Paul by a single individual in the first century,

already covered above, why are we debating things we don't disagree upon?

 followed by multiple other writers referencing him and describing his life or his letters,

The existence of those narratives is not in question......

 point towards Paul having once been a human being who lived under the Roman empire---

do they?...wow......

and thus far you've offered nothing except that "this is the story the author wanted to tell... just believe me because." That's not how you change a person's mind.

Sure....but I think I'll just let the text between us determine whats been said.  I'm not trying to change your mind, and my opinion - well justified or not, will not establish that your claim is true...so.....  

Once again, I suppose that's why your view is represented in secular academia by... hmm... precisely no one.

I'd like to see their evidence, of course these sorts of appeals don't mean much, and you know why...

I find your inability to think of myth as anything other than "fiction," and your overall lack of nuance when approaching the Bible shockingly unimpressive, but unfortunately all too common amongst the general populace of atheists that contribute here. 

-yet again, you'll have to have that discussion with someone who holds that position.  I have a great appreciation for fiction.  Fiction can be -many things-.......so I;m not sure what you're bitching and moaning about, or how this applies to the community?

"Signs" of narrative devices? In Paul's letters? Wait, is this another assertion you've made without providing any reason or evidence for, again?! C'mon man, try harder. "I don't believe Paul or anyone else who claims to have written on or about Paul because I don't believe it" is not working for me either. If you have some reason why we should just dismiss all of the evidence I've repeatedly outlined, I'll be glad to come back to this. In the meanwhile it doesn't seem worth anyone's time to keep arguing in circles.

Sure, you and I could debate this, and I offered it as a courtesy...but we've reached a point where I find myself reminding you, constantly, that no amount of me being wrong would establish that you are right.  No consensus can establish that.  It cannot simply be assumed.  We are not discussing literary convention, we are not discussing the existence of the narrative or other narratives, we are not discussing conspiracies, we are not discussing un-nuanced interpretations of the text or the motives of the authors.  We can skip, all of that.....if you'd like. 


You, have not established -that-. ....and that, ultimately, is why I do not believe that there is a "Paul the Man" in the text.  We don't -have- to argue in circles, I'm simply asking you for something more than "the text says so" as an explanation.  Those texts say many things Nestor. I don't think that either of us believes them all to be true. The only disagreement you and I have is what set to put any given thing in. You feel that the epistles cut to some truth about "Paul the Man". I do not, I feel that they are an expression of christian doctrine. I wonder, drawing from the epistles, what we are even discussing /w regards to some "Paul the Man" - as though we could tease the details of this life from the pages of this, particular, text? You are providing evidence of narrative continuity and literary convention. I am not arguing against either (I think that the epistles fit well enough and am satisfied with the evidence and scrutiny that has lead to the conclusion that at least seven share an author), only suggesting that evidence for those things does not establish an -actual- personage of "Paul the Man" any more than it would in any other narrative (Like Screwtape, Dracula, or the Necronomicon) - and stating that the claims made in the text, such as "the narrator calls himself paul" do not actually argue what you seek to establish.... though they are equally true in reference to those three stories just mentioned.

[Randy Carson]

This is irrelevant.  The question was, if you don't believe these other gods in the same way that the atheist doesn't believe in your god, if you are arguing that the atheist has a burden of proof for their disbelief in your god, you have a burden of proof in relation to these other gods.  That you do not apportion the same type of burden of proof for the same type of disbelief is inconsistent.  Either the atheist doesn't have a burden of proof, or you have one which you don't acknowledge.


This is contrary to the majority of cases.  The fact that most conversions happen in childhood, and the greatest predictor of the content of their belief is geography and the majority beliefs of parents and culture is strong evidence that the choice of which god or religion one follows is not such an open and rational choice.  The more likely story is that the god of one's belief is chosen first, and reasons come later.  Otherwise one is left explaining the correlations of geography and culture.


This is an attempt to shift the burden of proof illicitly.  We are not responsible for disproving your claim in advance of your having met the burden of proof for your claim.  Do you not apply the same skepticism to these other gods as we apply to your god?  You won't believe them until someone provides evidence of their existence.  We won't believe you until you provide appropriate evidence.  This is how the burden of proof is properly apportioned in relation to disbelief in your god, just as in disbelief in other gods.  Your explicit dismissal of a burden of proof in denying these other gods is implicit acceptance that the atheist doesn't have a burden of proof in denying the existence of your god.  The question is not who is making the 'positive' claim, whatever that means.  The burden of proof falls on him who is making an existential claim, a claim that something exists or is.  In denying the claims of a god whose burden of proof hasn't been met, any reciprocal burden is easily met by noting that the claim has not been adequately proved.

Jorm-

I'll just say this and let it drop because you seem like a nice person whose time has not yet come.

When a police officer or an FBI agent wants to learn how to spot counterfeit currency, does he or she spend a lot of time looking at fake bills? Nope.  They study real bills carefully, and this enables the to spot the fake ones quickly.

Now, by sheer grace of God, I was born into a Protestant Christian family. Later, moved by God, I converted to Catholicism. So, overall, I've spent nearly half a century studying the real deal. Did I do some minor comparative study along the way. Yeah, some. And from an apologetics point of view, I've read a LOT about Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses and Protestantism, some on Orthodoxy, and a bit on Islam.

From all of this, I can assure you that I don't need to spend a lot of time studying the Baha'i faith to know that Baha'u'llah was NOT a manifestation of God.

Part of the reason that I'm online doing what I do is so that you don't have to spend 50 years figuring that out.

[The Grand Nudger]

Good luck with your ministry.

[Cyberman]

With money, we already know that there is one true standard of currency, per each country and economic union. Thus, it is possible to measure units of that currency against the standard and determine its legitimacy. You cannot do that for religions, simply because each of them regards themselves as the one true faith. First you have to establish that there is a true faith, and then that it's yours, before you can pass such judgement on other religions. You haven't done anything like that.

[vorlon13]

The One True Faith:

The Congregation of Jehovah's Presbytery of Zion !!!!

Praise Baneemy !!!!!!!!!!

[Cyberman]

See how easy it is just to assert it?

[Pyrrho]

Actually, something very much like that has turned up. It's called the Shroud of Turin,

Thanks.  You have now confirmed that you are as big a fucking idiot as I initially pegged you for.  Like all catholics, you are easily conned by bullshit stories!

It is interesting how people cling to such obvious bullshit, even when it isn't necessary for their basic story.  Indeed, it does not fit with the strips of cloth mentioned in the Bible, so one would expect that anyone who takes the Bible seriously would reject that Shroud of Turin.  So it is quite bizarre that anyone would be trying to push that as evidence of anything.

There are many Christians who are smart enough to reject such bullshit as the Shroud of Turin.  So it is really telling when someone is ready to accept a proven fake to be supporting evidence.

This seems an appropriate time to bring up Thomas Paine:

[Esquilax]

It's Never Too Soon For Urban Legends
Urban legends can spring up in no time and persist despite their outrageous claims and evidence to the contrary. 

"But the early believers saw Jesus days after he died on the cross", you object.

One word: Elvis.

Well, I have to admit something...I didn't see this the first time around. I got so caught up in the whole "David Koresh proves the apostles were nuts" thing, that I complete missed this even GREATER stupidity.

Elvis?

Just out of curiosity, did Priscilla claim to see him? Or his manager? How about any of the boys in the band? No?

Jesus was seen by the Eleven he had chosen along with his own mother, Mary Magdalene and others who had traveled with him, eaten with him, listened to him...for THREE YEARS. Did I mention his mother?

So, you actually want to compare the credibility of these witnesses of Jesus with those who claim to have seen Elvis, eh?

<looooooong slow whistle>

Well, I'll say this: the King was sighted after his death alright, and there's a lotta grace in His promised land, but He sure as heck ain't Elvis.

(Man, this kinda stuff gives atheists a bad name.)

See you next time.

Thankya, ma'am...thankya vera much. LOL!

I love it: you're so engaged in grandstanding and telling everyone else how stupid this argument is, that you completely ignored the point of it. It's amazing. Maybe if you toned down the ego a little you might understand the things you talk about before you open your mouth.

When you make a direct comparison between Jesus and Elvis, and then conclude that the two situations are nothing alike and therefore the argument is wrong, you miss the fact that the argument was not about the similarities between the content of the two narratives. The point was that legends like the two of them can form very quickly independent of whether or not they are factual. It is, in fact, somewhat common, less so now that we have better ways of capturing and recording every moment of the day, but that's not an issue for Jesus or Elvis, now is it? The claim that X, Y, and Z persons saw a certain character after their death is not, in itself, amazing that it exists, nor is it verifiable just because it does exist. They're both mere second hand claims that an event was witnessed, the Elvis claims even have better evidence for them since we can at least verify who some of the claimants were, maybe even speak to them, and yet you privilege the claim with worse evidence over the other.

Moreover, it's kinda funny that you think Jesus comes out better than Elvis just in terms of the narrative itself, phrasing the fact that Elivs was seen by people without the overriding ulterior motive that Jesus' witnesses had as a weakness rather than a strength. Wow, golly gee, you mean the people who had already committed and staked their reputations on the idea that Jesus was the son of god just so happened to see the one thing that would confirm what they already believed in such a way that nobody else could confirm it? Wow, how utterly and totally convenient for them!

Well, I mean, maybe. Can't forget that the claim itself is second hand, despite your baseless protestations to the contrary, and written by equally biased christian authors decades after the fact. That feels like it's kinda important, and another area where the Elvis story is stronger, since that one was at least covered at the time that it happened, by first hand witnesses.

But hey, maybe if you keep rambling on about how dumb the argument is, nobody will stop to think about it, and you can slip another completely unsupported assertion by us all!

[robvalue]

Would it be fair to say, Randy, that if you hold a pre-existing belief that the bible is the innerant word of God, that you're not in a position to view it objectively? I mean, you can literally never allow yourself to come to a conclusion that finds any sort of fault with it at all, let alone something as important as Jesus.

Why would you hold such a belief, when to us, before we've opened it, it's just a book like any other? I won't press you further if you're uncomfortable divulging this. I can be pretty sure this belief does not solely come from the bible, as you'd have to admit that would be entirely circular reasoning.

I think this would make for a much more interesting discussion. But I won't ask again, as you may simply not want to tell us, and I respect that.

[Minimalist]

They study real bills carefully,

Too bad you have no "real bills." 

You're a fool.