If theists understood "evidence"

[RoadRunner79]

Your boundless stupidity thrives by insisting that any time someone tries to bring additional evidence to an argument they are somehow "moving the goalposts" on you.  I get that. You are a guy who thinks that everything can be explained by a silly bible verse but reality is not that simple.

Just as an example, when Caesar wrote that his army surrounded Alesia with a double wall to keep Vercingetorix  and a relief force out there were historians who looked at the site and doubted that such a thing was possible.  Archaeologists swung into action and found the remains of those fortifications.  But if I bring up archaeology your little brain can't handle it and you accuse me of "moving the goalposts."  Well, fuck you.  Science involves the utilization of many disciplines and your bible is not one of them. 

We know we cannot question the authors who wrote your bullshit any more than we can question Josephus or Tacitus or Suetonius.  But we can research the works of other writers at the time and we can employ archaeology.  When we do so your bible comes out looking like fucking bullshit.  Sucks to be you but it is your choice.

It's kind of funny, how you are dodging your own questions, and seem to blame me for it.
You can beat your chest all you want and declare victory over the scores of straw men you have defeated. I'm interested in the truth, and if you have evidence or reason to present, let's look at it, and discuss. I'm guessing you won't do that though.

[purplepurpose]

[RoadRunner79]

The Romans were federalists; of course, they granted authority to the local government, in the case of Palestine, that is, the Jews!  And, that's my whole point!!

Paul was not an authority!

He could not have done what he claims to have done; either the Romans would have arrested him (and, eventually, they did just that), or, the local Jewish authorities would have done so.  Instead, Paul was doing a bit of "storytelling"; as such, he is not a reliable witness to history.

I was trying to research this some today. I couldn’t find much of anyone advocating this view; a few asking questions, but not anyone seriously trying to put this forth or even trying to refute it. I definitely couldn’t find anyone offering historical evidence to support it.

[The Grand Nudger]

What can we reliably know about Paul and how can we know it? As is the case with Jesus, this is not an easy question. Historians have been involved in what has been called the “Quest for the Historical Jesus” for the past one hundred and seventy-five years, evaluating and sifting through our sources, trying to determine what we can reliably say about him.[/url]As it happens, the quest for the historical Paul began almost simultaneously, inaugurated by the German scholar Ferdinand Christian Baur.[url=https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/the-quest-for-the-historical-paul/#note02][ii] Baur put his finger squarely on the problem: There are [i]four different “Pauls” in the New Testament, not one, and each is quite distinct from the others. New Testament scholars today are generally agreed on this point.[iii][/i]
[img=241x0]https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/wp-content/uploads/F.C.-Baur-241x300.jpg[/img]
Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792-1860)
Thirteen of the New Testament’s twenty-seven documents are letters with Paul’s name as the author, and a fourteenth, the book of Acts, is mainly devoted to the story of Paul’s life and career—making up over half the total text.[iv] The problem is, these fourteen texts fall into four distinct chronological tiers, giving us our four “Pauls”:
1) [i]Authentic or Early Paul: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, and Philemon (50s-60s A.D.)
2) Disputed Paul or Deutero-Pauline: 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians (80-100 A.D.)
3) Pseudo–Paul or the Pastorals: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (80-100 A.D.)
4) Tendentious or Legendary Paul: Acts of the Apostles (90-130 A.D.)
Though scholars differ as to what historical use one might properly make of tiers 2, 3, or 4, there is almost universal agreement that a proper historical study of Paul should begin with the seven genuine letters, restricting one’s analysis to what is most certainly coming from Paul’s own hand. This approach might sound restrictive but it is really the only proper way to begin. The Deutero-Pauline letters, and the Pastorals reflect a vocabulary, a development of ideas, and a social setting that belong to a later time.[v] We are not getting Paul as he was, but Paul’s name used to lend authority to the ideas of later authors who intend for readers to believe they come from Paul. In modern parlance we call such writings forgeries, but a more polite academic term is pseudonymous, meaning “falsely named.”[/i]

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dail...ical-paul/

[Minimalist]

It's kind of funny, how you are dodging your own questions, and seem to blame me for it.

We're long past the point where you won't answer questions.  I have written you off as a fucking bible-thumping fool.  Now I'm just playing with you.

[RoadRunner79]

It's kind of funny, how you are dodging your own questions, and seem to blame me for it.

We're long past the point where you won't answer questions.  I have written you off as a fucking bible-thumping fool.  Now I'm just playing with you.

I’m happy to answer serious questions, if you can act like an intelligent civil adult. However,  you have to show some sign of thought and understanding.

[Amarok]

It's kind of funny, how you are dodging your own questions, and seem to blame me for it.

We're long past the point where you won't answer questions.  I have written you off as a fucking bible-thumping fool.  Now I'm just playing with you.

Funny how it's the opposite ah Min

[Minimalist]

[The Grand Nudger]

The irony, is that accepting that paul was a storyteller is the easiest way to argue for an early date.

[robvalue]

Even if we were to give the bible a free pass on every mundane claim that it makes, which is giving a hell of a lot more credit than it deserves, that gets us no closer to establishing anything extraordinary. Textual accounts are not enough to establish phenomena that haven’t even been shown to be possible before.

Relying on witnesses' ability to identify and categorise these things is just being credulous. It’s not how new findings are established, and even those who accept these kind of things are very selective and will raise their walls of scepticism against any accounts which offer results they don’t like.

Remember: whether someone believes they are telling the truth is irrelevant in these matters of extraordinary nature. They can be sincere yet mistaken. Being mistaken is monumentally more likely, and paying the price of ignoring the very occasional "correct" testimony in these matters is well worth ignoring all the rest that will have amounted to nothing. If there really is something to it, and it’s of any importance whatsoever to us now, there will be the chance to study it again.

---

PS: This is one of my mantras-

Anecdotes can be used as a starting point for a scientific investigation. They just can’t be the investigation.