Weekend Economists Pull the Easter Rabbit Out of the Hat April 18-20, 2014

[Tansy_Gold]

47. Vridar (the debunker) is more convincing than Zuesse

(And I will keep this relatively short, and not go into too much detail for fear of rousing certain censors)

Vridar (alias of the debunker) spends a lot of time and words but his basic point is: Why does Zuesse accept Paul's Epistle to the Galatians as (forgive me this horrible pun) gospel? What is the independent physical and/or historical evidence that says Galatians was written by some dude name Paul?

Zuesse also refers repeatedly to "the historical Jesus." Excuse me? What's the evidence? Paul's epistles? Where's the independent physical/historical evidence for Paul's existence that would lend any credence to a concept of "historical Jesus"?

I can handle a philosophical discussion that starts with "Let's suppose, just as a starting point, that Paul existed, that he wrote the letter to the Galatians, and that what's presented in that epistle is true and accurate. We'll keep in mind that we don't have any solid proof of that, so everything we base on it will be speculation. But let's, for the sake of discussion, make those speculations." But it doesn't appear Zuesse does that. He just takes Galatians as The Unvarnished Truth.

Vridar just said, "We don't know that for sure."


Zuesse may indeed have an interesting theory, but I for one would want to see much more convincing evidence than what has been posted so far.