The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Minimalist]

I didn't want to close the book without putting Carrier's ultimate conclusion in.

In other words, in my estimation the odds Jesus existed are less than 1 in

I 2,000.6 Which to a historian is for all practical purposes a probability of
zero. For comparison, your l ifetime probability of being struck by lightning
is around I in I 0,000. That Jesus existed is even less likely than that. Consequently,
I am reasonably certain there was no historical Jesus.


Pg. 600

Now, let me say one thing.  I am not overly impressed with Carrier's math...and for a reason he himself admits.  In many cases the probability assigned to a supposed "historical" event is arbitrarily high.  I understand why he did this.  He is trying to shut up the HJ types who would otherwise accuse him of dismissing their bullshit out of hand.  But if you can't have confidence in the numbers you are using in math then what good is it?

Far more impressive are the analyses which Carrier brings to the documents themselves.

---

It was most assuredly directed right at you, Nestor.

[DeistPaladin]

The next year, I made a similar offer on YouTube to Jesus. I would convert to Christianity and spend the rest of my days preaching his Gospel as he saw fit to direct if he would only show up personally to claim me as his willing and devoted servant by the end of the day on 7/7/07 Eastern Standard Time. Once again, no takers.

No doubt this will be dismissed out of hand, as you made the offer on equal standing, and were not appropriately grovelling and submissive. In essence, you'll be discounted entirely because you didn't presuppose the truth of the bible and imbue Jesus with the authority and dominance that you're trying to get him to prove, before he did so.

The Devil is supposed to be a little more outgoing and quite happy to venture forth to get a little carry out.  

"You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself."

[The Grand Nudger]

No. We don't agree because you seem to think that if there were later legendary accounts of Paul then that casts doubt on all of the earlier material we possess, all of which strongly suggests that the person who wrote at least half a dozen of the letters was a man who called himself Paul,

-the literary convention of paul, it's the strongest thing the evidence will suggest, you lead with it, we are not discussing that (and I don't dispute that).  Don't say that this has not been addressed, going forward, because it has.  We don't agree, that the legendary and mythical must be removed from paul in order to talk about a historical paul..and that there is legendary and mythical material regarding paul that must be removed?  We don't agree to that?  That's what I asked you, but I see you've flown off on a tiff...rather than answer that question.

 was intimately acquainted with his readership, 

Was he, and how did you determine this?  You've taken the word on it's word for the minds and hearts of it's "readership"?  Jesus you're a rube....-even if there were a Paul the man-..those letters aren't actually written to the churches in question...lol, they're written to you...Nestor......

lived in the first-century,

The author of the epistles or the man? 

converted from Pharisaic Judaism to becaming a Christian proselytizer, etc., eventually leading to his status as a Saint.

Do you want me to link bomb you, as you've done to me below...with information regarding this pharisaic judaism business?  The author of the epistles didn't seem to understand the claim that he was making.  Where, in the narrative, would you like to credit a reliable instance of this claim?  We can discuss this at length.  

You've presented nothing but one post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy after another (among others)

lol, you're a moron, I haven't offered a single explanation as to cause or timeline.........which would be a requirement for that comment of yours to be accurate....you are, again, referring to things which exist in your mind, not mine. 

that could be applied to many figures who gained notoriety in the ancient world. Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar were also mythologized but it would be ridiculous to assume as a result that every document or artifact containing information about their lives and exploits should be presumed a relic of fraud and fiction. Virgil was deified shortly after his death. Do you automatically presume that every work attributed to Virgil must therefore be part of a "narrative"? Epicurus? The list could go on. 

Yes, yes, again with the all or nothing gambit.  It's garbage every time someone tries it, you won't be able to prop any Paul up with it.

That discussion isn't even possible if you just assume everything presented contains nothing but a "story" presented as authentic epistles and references to an actual person but are *really* part of a single "narrative" analogous to the Screwtape Letters (lol).

Of course it is, it just isn't possible for you, personally, to demonstrate any Paul...apparently.  What you have presented is a narrative by definition, twit.  Whatever else it is, it is a narrative, understand?  I am starting there, with what we have, and trying to work towards a historical Paul.  You could help with that, you know......

Of course. You think there is a more reasonable explanation for the existence of the Pauline epistles. I've been disappointed thus far in your failure to present any reason or evidence for your silly explanation. 

Then that is where you are wrong.  I do not have to present you with an alternative, and my ability or inability to do so would not help you to establish your own position. 

Do you think any quest for a historical Paul (or Jesus or Clement) starts with the assumption that these figures did not exist? Lol... good luck with historical reconstruction if that's how you approach ancient writings.  

It cannot start with the assumption that there is.....or else we assume what we must demonstrate, numbskull.  Our conclusion will be suspect in perpetuity.  I'm open to the idea, personally (is the Paul above all the historical Paul that you would lay a bet on) but if I say, "If we assume that there is a paul, then it is possible to conclude that there is a paul"....we haven't said much, now have we?  

Seriously... I've already stated two ways... twice... let me state them a third time... historiography and higher criticism. 

-lol, I'm sorry, I didn't realize these terms were part of an incantation and that their mere used demonstrated the existence of a historical Paul...golly gee...wish I'd known that pages ago.

(I read the post directly prior to my request, you don;t seem to have even attempted to offer any evidence for Paul, or demonstrate that Paul existed...you seem mainly concerned with the position of another, as you hope to impose it. Must have been in another response? Just link the response?)

[Mudhammam]

Jesus... You're either fucking blind or incredibly dense. I'm not wasting anymore time until you address a single point I've made thus far, or offer something substantial that you see as supportive of your "theory." I won't hold my breath.

---

This about sums up the breadth of your intelligence in this discussion:

those letters aren't actually written to the churches in question...lol, they're written to you...Nestor......

[The Grand Nudger]

You just keep harping on about my theory, despite clearly not knowing what it is (because I've never told you..lol....)..as though this constant bullshitting demonstrated the existence of Paul.  It doesn't..lol, stahp?  What, specifically, do you want addressed?  Will you simply ask me incessantly about what I think happened, for a better explanation - imposing nutty conspiracies on me..as you have been?  

Ah, there we go. You think that those letters were written for some specific church, rather than general readership? What makes you think that?
(and would it demonstrate that there was some historical Paul -even if they were-.....?)

[Mudhammam]

You just keep harping on about my theory, despite clearly not knowing what it is..as though it demonstrated the existence of Paul.  It doesn't..lol, stahp?  What, specifically, do you want addressed?  Will you simply ask me incessantly about what I think happened, for a better explanation - imposing nutty conspiracies on me..as you have been?  

Ah, there we go. You think that those letters were written for some specific church, rather than general readership? What makes you think that?
(and would it demonstrate that there was some historical Paul -even if they were-.....?)

Well, you mentioned the "Screwtape Letters" as an example of how you think the Pauline epistles were originally composed, which remains one of the dumbest things I've heard you thus far say in your multiple assertions that these letters formed a "fictional narrative" (wait, that's not your position now?) Beyond that you just keep deflecting.

As to your other question... why don't you read the fucking texts before you comment on them?

Try like... "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God... To all that be in Rome..."

Or, "Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians..."

[The Grand Nudger]

No, I mentioned The Screwtape Letters to show that the narrative format used in the epistles is not unique to non-fiction, biography, or autobiography.   Would you agree that this is true?  I have not commented upon any "original composition".  

Why don't you just demonstrate some historical Paul?  This is your baby, you don't get to say " go read the literature" and pretend that you've done that.  I will read whatever you choose to put forward, just try not to link a website as your explanation - I trust you to communicate the core yourself, and would prefer it.

Try like... "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God... To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ."


Or, "Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians..."

See the screwtape letters above......are you honestly suggesting that I should conclude that the narrative is true based upon the fact that the narrative makes claims (in this case, indirectly)?  Another "Paul says so" moment?  Surely, we aren't accepting just anything contained in the narrative be true by simple virtue of it;s being contained in the narrative, right?  We'll never be able to distinguish between paul the man and all the rest....that way.  I think you're going to need more than that...Nestor.  I cannot, on the basis of the existence of these statement alone, conclude that they are factually true, nor can I remove the comparison to known works of fiction on that very count.....

[Mudhammam]

No, I mentioned The Screwtape Letters to show that the narrative format used in the epistles is not unique to non-fiction, biography, or autobiography.   Would you agree that this is true?

Why don't you just demonstrate some historical Paul?  This is your baby, you don't get to say " go read the literature" and pretend that you've done that.  I will read whatever you choose to put forward, just try not  to link your explanation - I trust you to communicate the core yourself, and would prefer it.

Try like... "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God... To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ."


Or, "Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians..."

See the screwtape letters above......are you honestly suggesting that I should conclude that the narrative is true based upon the fact that the narrative makes claims (in this case, indirectly)?  Another "Paul says so" moment?

Cherish this pivotal moment in your educational history:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovat...-razor.htm

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't know what you think occams razor provides here......or how it might even be applied...but...do you think occams razor is the best demonstration of some historical Paul?

You really are arguing on the basis of "Paul says so" alone...aren't you.........? I don't think that this is a very useful method for determining what historical core, if any, might be contained within -any- narrative. I;m gonna need some ackowledgement, on the above, btw. Do you or do you not agree that the "letter writing" format is represented in known works of fiction (the mad arab was another example of the same, btw)? I'm not asking you if you think it''s fiction..or if this proves that it's fiction...I don't think that it does...I'm asking you only what I've written. How have you cleared that, very obvious, hurdle?

with occams fucking razor...lol, I doubt it.....here use occams razor on these statements.

"The format found in the NT, specific example of the pauline epistles, is similar to the format of the screwtape letters"
or
"A man named paul wrote letters to churches, outside of the narrative, in reality"

Which is more likely...which makes fewer assumptions......Tell me, genious..how to even apply occams razor between those two statements.......? I think it's clear that here, you are comparing your explanation to some other, unstated, explanation - rather than any comment of mine. That you are, yet again, imagining a position and ascribing it to me. As soon as you stop doing that, you might find our conversation to be entirely different. Eh? I've already told you, if you want to argue against a conspiracist, go find one.

[DeistPaladin]

Evidently, hitting the "backspace" button can cause your whole browser to go back to a previous page, causing you to lose your entire post even if you try to hit the "forward" button.



I WAS posting my cross-examination of the New Testament. 

Looks like I'll have to do it again when I have regained the patience.