You do realize the historicity of Paul is pretty robust and the common consensus amongst historians is Jesus was also a real person. Him being a real person doesn’t mean he was a Messiah or had magical powers. But just deciding that anyone who was involved with the foundation of a religion didn’t exist means you are founding your views on feelings instead of actual information.
That is not what they are saying. It is perfectly valid to say that there are zero contemporary primary sources to confirm the existence of Jesus. Historians have come to the consensus that he most likely existed, on account of the influence stemming from later sources, but they all also know there are no contemporary sources, so that consensus is based on circumstantial evidence.
The historicity of Paul is not robust, it is definitely better sourced than Jesus, but that historicity stems from himself, and as we cannot take his supernatural religous experiences for fact (he can very well have believed them as fact, but we know that they cannot have happened in objective reality like that), he is not exactly the most reliable witness in the first place.
As I said, non-fictional people tied together with a fictional story.
Deciding that I said one thing, when simply looking up and seeing I didn’t say it means you are founding your reply on feelings instead of actual information.
You do realize the historicity of Paul is pretty robust and the common consensus amongst historians is Jesus was also a real person. Him being a real person doesn’t mean he was a Messiah or had magical powers. But just deciding that anyone who was involved with the foundation of a religion didn’t exist means you are founding your views on feelings instead of actual information.
That is not what they are saying. It is perfectly valid to say that there are zero contemporary primary sources to confirm the existence of Jesus. Historians have come to the consensus that he most likely existed, on account of the influence stemming from later sources, but they all also know there are no contemporary sources, so that consensus is based on circumstantial evidence.
The historicity of Paul is not robust, it is definitely better sourced than Jesus, but that historicity stems from himself, and as we cannot take his supernatural religous experiences for fact (he can very well have believed them as fact, but we know that they cannot have happened in objective reality like that), he is not exactly the most reliable witness in the first place.
As I said, non-fictional people tied together with a fictional story.
Deciding that I said one thing, when simply looking up and seeing I didn’t say it means you are founding your reply on feelings instead of actual information.