Paul reshaping the church

[Aractus]

It is within the realm of possibility that Jesus and Paul were not historical people, just as it's within the realm of possibility that you aren't a historical person either Min. All you ever do here is quote from outliers. They're not even minority views, they're total outliers. I am willing to change my opinion when presented with evidence, you are not. Your views are irrespective of scholarly evidence.

Plus I'm sick to death of you trolling my threads for no good reason. Start your own thread about Paul-Myth Theory, don't bring it up in mine.

[Aractus]

[The Atheist]

That was really for the OP.

Like any fictional character, "paul" mouths whatever words the author who created him wants him to say.

Paul is regarded as an historical figure. At least seven epistles attributed to him are considered genuine.

No offense, but your ideas about Paul belong in the same trash can as creationism and ancient astronaut theory.

[Kitan Etos]

Fish is meat.

[Minimalist]

They aren't MY ideas asshole.  There is a whole school of thought dedicated to it.

You should put your fucking bible down and read the Dutch Radical critics sometime.  It might help you look like less of a schmuck.

[Minimalist]

It is within the realm of possibility that Jesus and Paul were not historical people, just as it's within the realm of possibility that you aren't a historical person either Min. All you ever do here is quote from outliers. They're not even minority views, they're total outliers. I am willing to change my opinion when presented with evidence, you are not. Your views are irrespective of scholarly evidence.

Plus I'm sick to death of you trolling my threads for no good reason. Start your own thread about Paul-Myth Theory, don't bring it up in mine.

As a matter of fact I did.  You should read it.  It's in the History section since  I regard religion as fucking bullshit.


I assure you that I am historical. 


Once again though. you cannot refute their ideas so you simply call them quacks or now "outliers."  Detering is a Doctor of Theology.  I doubt that you are.  For you to call him a "quack" is the height of arrogance but I have come to expect that from you.

Oh, and one more thing. Once you start a thread it ceases to be "yours" it belongs to the board.  Go fuck yourself.

[Kitan Etos]

If history has taught us anything, it is that nothing is ever truly learned from it.

[The Atheist]

They aren't MY ideas asshole.  There is a whole school of thought dedicated to it.

You should put your fucking bible down and read the Dutch Radical critics sometime.  It might help you look like less of a schmuck.

Well, I'm sure there are "whole school[s] of thought" devoted to many ideas, but when the mainstream rejects an idea, it's because the idea lacks evidence. It's true that I'm not a trained scholar. However, I don't think I'm an "a**hole" for deferring to the mainstream when it comes to an area outside of my expertise. If these "Dutch Radicals" had substantial insight, the mainstream would have no reason to roll its eyes.

[Aractus]

Once again though. you cannot refute their ideas so you simply call them quacks or now "outliers."  Detering is a Doctor of Theology.  I doubt that you are.  For you to call him a "quack" is the height of arrogance but I have come to expect that from you.

Dutch radical criticism was around in the 1800's when there were only a few hundred ancient Biblical manuscripts. Since then not only has the number and quality of the available manuscripts increased, but so too academic standards and methods have also advanced. This is to the detriment of traditional theists, as they can no longer hide behind their defences of literary problems in the Bible (whether contradictory or pseudepigraphic books or hard historical errors). We also know there were dozens of other gospels written in the first two centuries that have since been discarded. Overtime different churches have contradicted some of their long-held persistent beliefs. Such as the RCC's belief in the Vulgate as the authoritative form of the scripture texts. Or faith healings. Or denial of the patriarchal views of Jesus, the disciples, and Paul. Denial of other important historical events that occurred in the Levant in the first millennium BC.

I'm not talking purely about defending the majority view either as you well know. But discussing what is considered relevant within the scope of current academic thinking on the matter. There are more academically qualified Holocaust Deniers than there are Christ Mythers. For you to make us believe that it's worth considering that Jesus and Paul never had a historical existence is just as stupid as suggesting that we should think that Holocaust Denial is also worth serious consideration.

Oh, and one more thing. Once you start a thread it ceases to be "yours" it belongs to the board.  Go fuck yourself.

That's right, it becomes the forum's, it doesn't become yours. Go fuck yourself.

[Kitan Etos]

There are procedures, no doubt, which historians accurately follow in order to determine whether or not someone historically existed. I am quite certain that many biblical characters quite fail in any regard due to the fact that reason wins over bias.