Is Information from the Bible historically reliable?

[StopSpamming1]

How can anyone know that Paul only writes about things that actually happened - when we don't even know whether Paul as such existed?

[AegeanKing]

@StopSpamming1 We can't be 100% sure about anything in the ancient past. Histories about Alexander the Great come literally centuries after his death. The copies of Plato's and Aristotles writings also come centuries after their death. How do we know they're 100% accurate? We don't. The historians craft is about figuring out what is most likely true, not what is 100% true.

[StopSpamming1]

@AegeanKing

Because there is corroborating evidence, other historical figures are more likely to have existed.

But even if everything is debatable, does that answer my question?

If you have a similar situation with Plato, did he start a religion requiring faith in his texts?

[AegeanKing]

@StopSpamming1 Even if you could prove that Paul existed 100%, people like you would always have a "but" response. Like "ok Paul existed, but how do we know that he actually had visions?". Then if we could prove he had visions you would say "ok he had visions, but how do we know 100% that they were accurate and from Christ himself and not a demon?". Because you lack faith you would continue this process ad nauseum until you could verify with 100% certainty every little detail. You're absurd...

[StopSpamming1]

@AegeanKing

Absolutely correct. I want to know why I believe something. If there is no reason why I believe something, why should I believe it?

What you are doing is building up a strawman argument, saying that if so and so has little supporting evidence, why should this not apply also to someone else. Well, this someone else has a totally different set of attributes. It does not help and paints you in a bad light.

Just say: I have faith, so I first obey and then ask questions.

[AegeanKing]

@StopSpamming1 Im not building up anything and what I am saying is not an argument. Your original statement was a question about how could anyone that paul writes about things that actually happened. I responded by telling you that nobody can know anything about ancient history with 100% certainty. You obviously have an a priori bias against Christianity so you are just here to troll and ask dumb questions which have obvious answers.

[StopSpamming1]

@AegeanKing

It seems the answers are not so obvious. If they were you wouldn't have to resort to Alexander, Plato and Aristotle.

And now you are getting abusive because you don't have the answers.

I have an "a priori bias"? Do you really know what you are saying?

Now either you agree that we can't know whether Paul as such existed and thus need to question everything that is written in his name or you don't. Make up your mind.

[AegeanKing]

@StopSpamming1 I have made up my mind. I am not being abusive, I am showing righteous indignation at idiots who troll videos to cause trouble. Thats you. Im not sure what problem you have with the concept of an a priori bias. Maybe google it so you can realize what it is. Paul did exist and only radical skeptics think otherwise. Even Bart Erhman does not question the existence of Paul. You are a troll, plain and simple.

[StopSpamming1]

@AegeanKing

ok.

[neoclassicism1]

@StopSpamming1 What are the two basic principles for understanding history? No. 1 Primary sources. No. 2 Multiple attestations in primary and secondary sources. So, with St Paul we have primary sources: the epistles. To deny that they were written by a man called Paul requires radical skepticism and needs to be proved. So, please prove that Paul did not write the epistles attributed to him. With multiple attestations, we have the Acts and references in the letters of Peter...

[neoclassicism1]

@StopSpamming1 ...which, though Acts is sometimes historically questionable is not simply historical fiction - Acts has its facts right concerning political figures at the time. Finally, the post-Pauline epistles, ones which are attributed to him but not by him (which can be worked out through textual analysis), only use Paul's name because it is most likely there was a figure called Paul who wrote epistles. You're on very dangerous ground denying Paul's existence.

[StopSpamming1]

@neoclassicism1

So YOU say: Paul is real and wrote some letter about a Jesus character he never met.

And if I find that hard to believe I am the one who needs to prove it?

Oh boy!

[neoclassicism1]

@StopSpamming1 Yes, I say Paul is real, because 99.99% of reputable New Testament scholars - including those who are atheists - believe he was. Go into any New Testament scholarship department in any university in the world and ask them, 'Was Paul a real person?' and 99.99% will say yes; the only reason why I don't say 100% is because there is probably a crank somewhere out there. Do your research before making ridiculous statements - perhaps at least study the subject.

[StopSpamming1]

@neoclassicism1

A person tells you something and you blindly believe it!? Well done!

I do my own research - something our Mr. High-And-Mighty does not do or think is possible.

Have you provided any proof for his existence? No.

What I find amusing is that people here get all hot under the collar and I have never made any kind of statement or claim regarding Paul. I just asked questions.

[neoclassicism1]

@StopSpamming1 Well, it must be the case that you don't do your research on Paul at a university then. I gave you the two indicators of historical verifiability earlier, of which Paul's writings make an exact match (this is standard first semester undergraduate stuff). I have not 'proved' his existence beyond doubt, but it does make his existence more than likely. This does mean that the pressure falls on you in questioning this uncontroversial hypothesis.

[neoclassicism1]

@StopSpamming1 I'm going to have a rant at people like yourself: why do you make such ridiculous, unacademic comments? It's obvious you don't have a single bit of grouding in New Testament scholarship; you probably don't read or speak Koine (and if you did, it would make your position even more astonishing, and laughable); and then you come up as being self-righteous, making statements like 'I just asked questions'. Yes, we all ask questions, but sometimes the questions we ask show our...

[neoclassicism1]

@StopSpamming1 ...make ridiculous claims concerning history, showing your utter lack of knowledge on the subject of which you question, and then proceed to have a foundationless confidence in yourself. People like you and the creationists are simply two sides of the same coin. And in a situation like this, I can be a 'Mr High-And-Mighty' - at least I've done publically recognised research rather than like you picking up a thing here and a thing there from Wikipedia and the History Channel.

[StopSpamming1]

@neoclassicism1

Oh dear! You are getting to be a bore.

Just because you have proven something a little, does not mean I now need to prove this little bit is wrong.

The rest is just plain, unnecessary stupidity and attacking my person. Jumping to conclusions and making assumptions.

Don't they teach you anything?

[neoclassicism1]

@StopSpamming1 I'm afraid you do need to prove yourself correct when you make ridiculous statements. And I indeed attack your person: the conclusions I have reached about yourself are through similar encounters with many an arrogant undergraduate making such statements. Or maybe I'm just being culturally biased - French culture posits that one should get actively involved with a conversation even if one does not know the slightest thing about it. So, if you're French, I apologise.

[StopSpamming1]

@neoclassicism1

Boring.

[neoclassicism1]

@StopSpamming1 Ah well, StopSpamming, you've just revealed your intellectual callibre... and it's not something to be proud of.