Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

outhouse wrote:As it stands those are all poor guesses considering we have Pauls accounts and the gospel accounts we can use to figure out much of what was happening in the first century.

This is just circular logic which starts and ends with the UNEVIDENCED claim that Pauls accounts and the gospel accounts are genuine products of the 1st century.

What if they are from the 2nd century or even later? Oh, they are from the 1st century? One could easily train a parrot (or even a graduate from a Theological Institute) to say that.


LC

Leucius Charinus wrote:
So Thomas Brodie, Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier and other mythicists are hobby horse conspiracy theorists?


LC

How honest is your statement in context.

Do they fight for a second century Paul ?

Fight all you want. Only ignorance and imagination stands against a first century origin.

outhouse wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:
So Thomas Brodie, Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier and other mythicists are hobby horse conspiracy theorists?


LC

How honest is your statement in context.

Do they fight for a second century Paul ?

Doherty and Carrier believe in an historical Paul. Brodie does not. None of them believe in an historical Jesus.


LC

Leucius Charinus wrote:they are from the 1st century?

Who with credibility claims Paul did no write in the first century??? No one!


Your just dragging down good credible research into your own personal hand dug septic pool.

Leucius Charinus wrote:

outhouse wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:
So Thomas Brodie, Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier and other mythicists are hobby horse conspiracy theorists?


LC

How honest is your statement in context.

Do they fight for a second century Paul ?

Doherty and Carrier believe in an historical Paul. Brodie does not. None of them believe in an historical Jesus.


LC

That is not what we were debating. Move goal post much out of desperation?


And who cares about brodies lack of credibility here?

outhouse wrote:Fight all you want. Only ignorance and imagination stands against a first century origin.

What about the absolute lack of any corroborating ancient historical evidence?

And by corroborating evidence I mean evidence preserved outside the domain of the church organisation.


LC

Leucius Charinus wrote:

outhouse wrote:Fight all you want. Only ignorance and imagination stands against a first century origin.

What about the absolute lack of any corroborating ancient historical evidence?

And by corroborating evidence I mean evidence preserved outside the domain of the church organisation.


LC

Provide sources that Brodie follows a mythical Paul written later then the first century.

Leucius Charinus wrote: What about the absolute lack of any corroborating ancient historical evidence?

You do not get to dictate how things or people hold historicity.

We have plenty, because you discount it from a point of personal opinion and nothing more, means nothing.


Pauls first century historicity is not up for debate at all.

outhouse wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote: What about the absolute lack of any corroborating ancient historical evidence?

You do not get to dictate how things or people hold historicity.

We have plenty, because you discount it from a point of personal opinion and nothing more, means nothing.


Pauls first century historicity is not up for debate at all.

I hold to a first century Paul, while acknowledging that the position, in the absence of undeniable evidence, is tenuous. So, I don't have much of a horse in this game. A lot of what I think about the evolution of Christianity is based on my readings of Paul. I would have to rethink that position if the evidence of a post-Temple or later (or never was) Paul came to light.

There isn't "plenty" of evidence. Asserting it does not make it so. Why don't you list your main arguments for placing Paul in the first century? You are very sure of it and I, myself, would like to be equally as sure of this proposition. So enlighten me, outhouse.

cienfuegos wrote: You are very sure of it and I, myself, would like to be equally as sure of this proposition. So enlighten me, outhouse.


.

Most of my position is based on context of the history of this time. His writings speak for themselves of a specific time period in early Christianity in which differences in the movement are popping up and he is addressing.


To deviate from traditional Pauline scholarships and their dating, requires mental gymnastics and imagination. It requires conspiracy minded mentality and methodology that carries no credibility. There is no reason for anyone to create such a character and theology.

There is nothing to cover up here. If you have ever read Paul, the temple is still standing.

I hold to a first century Paul, while acknowledging that the position, in the absence of undeniable evidence, is tenuous

It is not tenuous. The man has historicity.