Paul's Writings Underpin Western Thought

[RoadRunner79]

As I said, I'm happy to look at what they have to say.   I'm not interested in playing dueling scholars however.   From what I have seen, there is not  any new evidence or reasoning which explain the shift in scholarly opinion.  It is more about a priori assumptions, or an attitude change within the academic field. 

For me, I look at history, what Paul said, what others said, how the early Church responded, and I don't see this disparity, concerning Paul and the others.  Now there where some outside groups that did differ (gnostics and such).  This also explains the early church preference for Apostolic succession.   

You haven't provided even a list of scholars and what they say.   I'm skeptical and ask why?

Just take any New Testament class at the 3,000+ 4-year colleges in the United States; here's one great resource (among many):

Religious Studies Courses (RELS)

I asked you why.  It seems that you don't know.   Appealing to authority, or popularity is fallacious, because those in authority, or even a large group of people, can believe something for bad reasons.    As I said before, if you have good reason for me to change my view, then please present it.

[Amarok]

I asked you why.  It seems that you don't know.   Appealing to authority, or popularity is fallacious, because those in authority, or even a large group of people, can believe something for bad reasons.    As I said before, if you have good reason for me to change my view, then please present it.

All bullshit you have him by the balls Jehanne he's wriggling

[Jehanne]

I asked you why.  It seems that you don't know.   Appealing to authority, or popularity is fallacious, because those in authority, or even a large group of people, can believe something for bad reasons.    As I said before, if you have good reason for me to change my view, then please present it.

All bullshit you have him by the balls Jehanne he's wriggling

Yeah, I am not his librarian, either.  I devote a little time to this board for fellowship with other like-minded atheists, and also, to help others escape their religious fantasies, if they so wish.  RR might want to start with low-level Biblical criticism -- dates, places, textual manuscripts, etc.

[RoadRunner79]

All bullshit you have him by the balls Jehanne he's wriggling

Yeah, I am not his librarian, either.  I devote a little time to this board for fellowship with other like-minded atheists, and also, to help others escape their religious fantasies, if they so wish.  RR might want to start with low-level Biblical criticism -- dates, places, textual manuscripts, etc.

I'm familiar with a number of those things.... However I'm not even sure exactly what you are claiming, let alone any support for it.   I'll stick with those who give reason for their belief.

[Jehanne]

Yeah, I am not his librarian, either.  I devote a little time to this board for fellowship with other like-minded atheists, and also, to help others escape their religious fantasies, if they so wish.  RR might want to start with low-level Biblical criticism -- dates, places, textual manuscripts, etc.

I'm familiar with a number of those things.... However I'm not even sure exactly what you are claiming, let alone any support for it.   I'll stick with those who give reason for their belief.

It's simple -- the New Testament is unreliable, unhistorical, full of myth and legend, contradictory, and was changed and embellished over time.

[Amarok]

I'm familiar with a number of those things.... However I'm not even sure exactly what you are claiming, let alone any support for it.   I'll stick with those who give reason for their belief.

1. No your not you have shown zero understanding of this subject 

2. Of course you don't know .You don't know much of anything on this subject as your comments attest .

3.You don't care about reasoned beliefs that sentence coming from you is like a horse barking 

Again  Jehanne  has you by the balls and you wriggle like a worm on a hook .

---

I'm familiar with a number of those things.... However I'm not even sure exactly what you are claiming, let alone any support for it.   I'll stick with those who give reason for their belief.

It's simple -- the New Testament is unreliable, unhistorical, full of myth and legend, contradictory, and was changed and embellished over time.

Now let the barrage of assertions, apologist tactics, denials etc commence . All while blather he cares about reasoned beliefs .

[Minimalist]

1. No your not you have shown zero understanding of this subject

He also has to want to understand.  He doesn't.  Jesus freaks have to grow up on their own.  As the saying goes, "you can lead a horse's ass to water but you can't make him think."

Or something like that.

[RoadRunner79]

I'm familiar with a number of those things.... However I'm not even sure exactly what you are claiming, let alone any support for it.   I'll stick with those who give reason for their belief.

It's simple -- the New Testament is unreliable, unhistorical, full of myth and legend, contradictory, and was changed and embellished over time.

It seems that I mistakenly assumed, that you where talking about things in context to the discussion.  However, if you would like to support any of that, feel free.   I'm particularly curious about the changed and embellished part.   It seems the evidence shows that the scripture has been remarkably well preserved, with only a few things that we know about that have crept into the later manuscripts.  However, that should probably be another thread. 

If you are still not going to answer the question of why and give reasons and evidence for you conclusions, however don't bother.

[Amarok]

It seems that I mistakenly assumed, that you where talking about things in context to the discussion.  However, if you would like to support any of that, feel free.   I'm particularly curious about the changed and embellished part.   It seems the evidence shows that the scripture has been remarkably well preserved, with only a few things that we know about that have crept into the later manuscripts.  However, that should probably be another thread.  

If you are still not going to answer the question of why and give reasons and evidence for you conclusions, however don't bother.

Right on time 

The dances on the hook

[RoadRunner79]

I asked you why.  It seems that you don't know.   Appealing to authority, or popularity is fallacious, because those in authority, or even a large group of people, can believe something for bad reasons.    As I said before, if you have good reason for me to change my view, then please present it.

All bullshit you have him by the balls Jehanne he's wriggling

LOL -  Her main argument seems to be, that you should blindly follow the scholarly consensus (although it may seem only when it agrees with her bias).    

However Carrier is far from the mainstream consensus.   Which puts yourself and Min shit out of luck as well.   I'm at least willing to listen to the reasons, and weigh them before deciding that Carrier is a bad historian.  With Jeahnne he loses out a priori.