Atheists being asked about the existence of Jesus

[Acrobat]

Explain why you're attempting to certify mythology by folklore, calling it a "first hand account"..lol...the first assertion you made, or I'm just going to leave you here to say more silly shit to everyone else who isn't listening.

I indicated Paul's writings of his encounters with Jesus disciples, his brother, and the various disputes he had with him, are first hand accounts of these things.

Why do I call them first hand accounts? Uhm because they fall under the definition of first hand:

"Definition of firsthand. : obtained by, coming from, or being direct personal observation or experience a firsthand account of the war … had a firsthand view of the turmoil that wracked the region.— William W. Finan, Jr."

[The Grand Nudger]

You're just doubling down on the certification of mythology by reference to folklore, then?

[Acrobat]

You're just doubling down on the certification of mythology by reference to folklore, then?

I indicated why I called it a first hand account, by referring to the definition of first hand.

Unless you feel I'm using the definition inappropriately, I'm not sure what you're over here complaining of.

[The Grand Nudger]

The well educated debater isn't sure why an attempt to certify the mythology of christ by the legend of paul, going so far as to call this a "firsthand account"... is problematic?

Odyseuss told his men many stories, too...dontchaknow? We have firsthand accounts.

---

Firstly, we'll begin with the ambiguous status of paul as a historic figure. A short primer.

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.)[/i]

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/the-quest-for-the-historical-paul/


-and heres the authors wiki..if you want to go debate him. 

James D. Tabor (born 1946 in Texas) is a Biblical scholar and Professor of Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte,[1] where he has taught since 1989 and served as Chair from 2004–14. He previously held positions at Ambassador College (1968–70 while a student at Pepperdine University), the University of Notre Dame (1979–85), and the College of William and Mary (1985–89). Tabor is the founder and director of the Original Bible Project, a non-profit organisation aimed to produce a re-ordered new translation of the Bible in English.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tabor
So, we'll be containing ourselves..and refraining from importing assumptions from acts, "legendary paul", into statements we find in "early paul".  This..sadly, cuts out most of james, who - himself..is a disputed figure with a psuedoepigraphical work attributed to him..in acts.  

Early Paul, authentic paul..knew absolutely nothing of any of this apostolic horseshit..he saw a vision of christ on the road - and his gospel came from no man...., remember?  The most that can be drawn from authentic paul is that a tent revivalist strongarmed his way into a newly organizing faith community by the creation of a more inclusive theology and the production of unsolicited "letters" -in truth, operational polemics.  How this mundane detail about the formation of a movement certifies the mythology of the new testament...even if taken to be absolutely accurate at face value..is a mystery...and we know better than to take what "paul" tells us about "paul" at face value, anyway.

[Acrobat]

The well educated debater isn't sure why an attempt to certify the mythology of christ by the legend of paul, going so far as to call this a "firsthand account"... is problematic?

Odyseuss told his men many stories, too...dontchaknow?  We have firsthand accounts.

---

Firstly, we'll begin with the ambiguous status of paul as a historic figure. A short primer.

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.)[/i]

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/the-quest-for-the-historical-paul/


-and heres the authors wiki..if you want to go debate him. 

James D. Tabor (born 1946 in Texas) is a Biblical scholar and Professor of Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte,[1] where he has taught since 1989 and served as Chair from 2004–14. He previously held positions at Ambassador College (1968–70 while a student at Pepperdine University), the University of Notre Dame (1979–85), and the College of William and Mary (1985–89). Tabor is the founder and director of the Original Bible Project, a non-profit organisation aimed to produce a re-ordered new translation of the Bible in English.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tabor
So, we'll be containing ourselves..and refraining from importing assumptions from acts, "legendary paul", into statements we find in "early paul".  This..sadly, cuts out most of james, who - himself..is a disputed figure with a psuedoepigraphical work attributed to him..in acts.  

Early Paul, authentic paul..knew absolutely nothing of any of this apostolic horseshit..he saw a vision of christ on the road - and his gospel came from no man...., remember?  The most that can be drawn from authentic paul is that a tent revivalist strongarmed his way into a newly organizing faith community by the creation of a more inclusive theology and the production of unsolicited "letters" -in truth, operational polemics.  How this mundane detail about the formation of a movement certifies the mythology of the new testament...even if taken to be absolutely accurate at face value..is a mystery...and we know better than to take what "paul" tells us about "paul" tat face value, anyway.

Oh wow, what an embarrassing false assumption on your part, I'm referring to what's written in authentic-early Paul, not Acts or the other texts, the fact that you're oblivious that early-authentic Paul's letters contains his first hand accounts of his interactions and meetings with the disciples, and Jesus's brother, seems to be more the result of your own ignorance, not mine, lol.

[The Grand Nudger]

I gave a short summary of what could be said about any meeting with james (whoever that was) from authentic paul (whoever that was).  Is there something in it you take issue with, or... have you found a way to use that to certify the mythology of the new testament....?

A mythology not found in authentic paul, in the first place.

I've got a question for you. If I inserted that wiki link to james tabor in the middle of game of thrones..would you have stumbled your way onto these boards to babble at no one about the historicity of dragons? You seem like the type, lol.

Do you have any thoughts on the matter I posted previously, in thread..regarding our observations of establishment legends and their nature or historicity?

[Acrobat]

I gave a short summary of what could be said about any meeting with james (whoever that was) from authentic paul (whoever that was).  Is there something in it you take issue with, or... have you found a way to use that to certify the mythology of the new testament....?

Im not finding this summary? Can you link to it? Or tell me a page or something.

I've got a question for you.  If I inserted that wiki link to james tabor in the middle of game of thrones..would you have stumbled your way onto these boards to babble at no one about the historicity of dragons?  You seem like the type, lol.

Do you have any thoughts on the matter I posted previously, in thread..regarding our observations of establishment legends and their nature or historicity?

I don't know much about James tabor or the historicity of dragons, so I have no opinions on this question. Secondly i'm not establishing any legendary or supernatural attribute or event, just the historical existence of person, not that every aspects attributed to that person is historical. No belief in magic required.

[The Grand Nudger]

Then you aren't certifying the mythology of the new testament by reference to folklore..and since you're looking to certify the mythology of the new testament..this entire diversion into "pauls" "first hand accounts" in folklore is entirely useless to us, as I've already indicated.

If you want to defer to the account of early paul..there was no man jesus, only christ. Magic book isn't about Some Guy named Jesus. It's the legend of paul as he spread the myth of christ. Buddhism has a similar figure.

Next.

[Acrobat]

Then you aren't certifying the mythology of the new testament by reference to folklore..and since you're looking to certify the mythology of the new testament..this entire diversion into "pauls" "first hand accounts" in folklore is entirely useless to us, as I've already indicated.

If you want to defer to the account of early paul..there was no man jesus, only christ. Magic book isn't about Some Guy named Jesus.  It's the legend of paul as he spread the myth of christ.  Buddhism has a similar figure.

Next.

I'm still not sure what you're going on about here. I was merely referring to Paul encounters with the disciples and Jesus's brother James, which he wrote about himself.

[The Grand Nudger]

You did not have the goods you claimed to possess, and possession of those goods....which you don't have, would not speak to the article of contention to which they were leveraged.

You have folklore.  Not firsthand accounts.  The specific bit of folklore you're referring to concerns the formation of a movement - not the historic status of life of any jesus or christ (or even the historical status of the narrative participants.."paul"..and "james"...).