William Paul Lazarus reacted to part 1

The Gospel Truth, by William P. Lazarus : part 1 · part 2 · part 3
William Paul Lazarus reacted to: part 1 of above · [Meme on Eucharist, so] Willam P. Lazarus Pretended the Eucharist was known in BC times · Same William P. Lazarus on "Any Competent Researcher"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

to [William Paul Lazarus]

Hello, book arrived, hope dog is better and house drier now!

Chapter 1 was read, here is therefore part 1 of my review:

[link to my article]

[William Paul Lazarus]

You don't have to read any further. You obviously have done no research in religious history. I certainly don't want to challenge your beliefs or your imagination. By the way, just so you'll feel better, I know fully well when Paul may have died. However, since his death was never recorded historically, conjecture regarding the date and place has extended from Spain to Rome. But don't let actual facts get in your way.

N. O.

Friend of [William Paul Lazarus]

Oh, you are the master with words. Love everything you have written.

[William Paul Lazarus]

Thank you. It's very hard trying to explain anything to people with closed minds. Hans, for example, believes Matthew wrote the book with his name on it. He is wrong. The texts were all anonymous and assigned names in the next century. Then he claims Matthew was a scribe, a "fact" unknown in any source material. Extensive research on Christian history has been conducted by reputable scholars for centuries. The information is documented and recognized as accurate. Unfortunately, not everyone is happy with the results, so they come up with conjectures as if that replaces facts. I wrote the book to provide interested readers with the latest research. Those who prefer to ignore scholarship probably shouldn't read it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You don't have to read any further."

I intend to. Part 1 means parts are upcoming. Your money shall not be wasted.

"You obviously have done no research in religious history."

I am challenging you to provide some references.

"I certainly don't want to challenge your beliefs or your imagination."

Don't worry.

"By the way, just so you'll feel better, I know fully well when Paul may have died."

If you wrote anything about it and against the traditional view, he died 64, I missed it.

I also don't think I wrote any line to which this is a very adequate reply.

If I am wrong, copy it from my essay.

"However, since his death was never recorded historically,"

That is a rich one. A record in the martyrology is not a historic record to you on what exact ground?

"conjecture regarding the date and place has extended from Spain to Rome. But don't let actual facts get in your way."

Yes, you said "conjecture". You are very dandily placing such on each item, or quasi, in the place of traditional accounts of the facts - even when we have no alternative accounts from non-Christians at the time, which hence did not become Christian tradition.

"It's very hard trying to explain anything to people with closed minds."

It is very easy to delude people with so open minds there is nothing in it.

"Hans, for example, believes Matthew wrote the book with his name on it."

Yes, along with exactly EVERY early source we have on the topic.

"He is wrong."

Because William Paul Lazarus says so, or do you have an argument?

"The texts were all anonymous and assigned names in the next century."

Because William Paul Lazarus says so, or do you have an argument?

"Then he claims Matthew was a scribe, a "fact" unknown in any source material."

Except his Gospel and the fact he is traditionally identified as tax collector Levi?

"Extensive research on Christian history has been conducted by reputable scholars for centuries."

Reputable to whom?

"The information is documented and recognized as accurate."

That is rather what I claim for the traditional Catholic account.

As to "recognised", obviously not by all, not by the group to which certain scholars seem reputable.

"Unfortunately, not everyone is happy with the results, so they come up with conjectures as if that replaces facts."

This is unfortunately the exact reverse of the facts of the case. The Catholic Church recorded its early as well as later history. Some are for diverse reasons not happy with it, first Protestants who dislike very early references to Holy Mass or Veneration of Saints (which you find in Martyrdom of St Polycarp and in St Ignatius of Antioch), then Prussians (the idea of Markan priority came during the so called Kulturkampf).

"I wrote the book to provide interested readers with the latest research."

Except the references to the facts as per source material are lacking. For instance, "16 Church Fathers" and you don't name one of them.

"Those who prefer to ignore scholarship probably shouldn't read it."

Because William Paul Lazarus says so, or do you have an argument?

For my part, I don't prefer to ignore your admired scholars, but to refute them.

Oh, by the way, why is N. O. told what I wrote, as if she could not look up my online article herself?