Paul was wealthy

[Peter Kirby]

I don't think promotion of 'fundraising' would be done in such a manner

You don't know that.

[TedM]

Once again, it's something I DO know because I know people Bye.

[PhilosopherJay]

Rational Skepticism has a nice recent thread called "The Entire Pauline Corpus is a Forgery"
It is at http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... 42221.html

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

[arnoldo]

Rational Skepticism has a nice recent thread called "The Entire Pauline Corpus is a Forgery"
It is at http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... 42221.html

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Is aa5874 a good source?

Warmly,

arnoldo

[PhilosopherJay]

Is aa5874 on this thread?

Warmly,

Jay

Rational Skepticism has a nice recent thread called "The Entire Pauline Corpus is a Forgery"
It is at http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... 42221.html

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Is aa5874 a good source?

Warmly,

arnoldo

[ApostateAbe]

Rational Skepticism has a nice recent thread called "The Entire Pauline Corpus is a Forgery"
It is at http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... 42221.html

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

To some skeptics, there is no such thing as irrational skepticism, and the skepticism here is not well-argued. The arguments from silence back the conclusion poorly, like so many arguments from silence among mythicists, and the strong indications of authenticity in the relevant epistles are ignored. I don't think the author is aa5874 but his style is similar.

[arnoldo]

Rational Skepticism has a nice recent thread called "The Entire Pauline Corpus is a Forgery"
It is at http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... 42221.html

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

To some skeptics, there is no such thing as irrational skepticism, and the skepticism here is not well-argued. The arguments from silence back the conclusion poorly, like so many arguments from silence among mythicists, and the strong indications of authenticity in the relevant epistles are ignored. I don't think the author is aa5874 but his style is similar.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck then chances are it is a duck, i.e., the author of the thread is aa. If you want a good example of rational, well argued skepticism for "The Entire Pauline Corpus is a Forgery," Herman Detering fits the bill (no pun intended).


http://peterkirby.com/dialogue-concerni ... stems.html

[TedM]

I immediately thought of aa when I read the first few sentences. I didn't read beyond that.

[Bernard Muller]

From robert j

As far as distrust, I look for the human side of Paul with his strengths and weaknesses. I believe that Paul sometimes put the end above the means, and occasionally said things that were not true, in the pursuit of maintaining his authority. I think Paul becomes easier to understand if the great Saint Paul is set aside in favor of a struggling man --- trying to make his way in a competitive world.
robert j

True, I agree, but I would remove "sometimes" and "occasionally".

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

Some people can't get past the fact that 1 Cor 15 refers to 500 witnesses to the resurrected Jesus -- and, oh my gosh, how could someone write that unless there actually were! People could check up on that kind of thing. Nothing else makes sense!

Carrier firmly believes 1 Cor 15: 3-11 is authentically from Paul but they were not visions, rather hallucinations. For Richard that passage describes the true origin of Christianity.
However I think that passage is an interpolation:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p11.htm

Cordially, Bernard