Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[LadyForCamus]

Paul is as fucking phony as "jesus."

Even xristards know this.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dail...ical-paul/

What can we reliably know about Paul and how can we know it? As is the case with Jesus, this is not an easy question. Historians have been involved in what has been called the “Quest for the Historical Jesus” for the past one hundred and seventy-five years, evaluating and sifting through our sources, trying to determine what we can reliably say about him.[/url] As it happens, the quest for the historical Paul began almost simultaneously, inaugurated by the German scholar Ferdinand Christian Baur.[url=https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/the-quest-for-the-historical-paul/#note02][ii] Baur put his finger squarely on the problem: There are [i]four different “Pauls” in the New Testament, not one, and each is quite distinct from the others. New Testament scholars today are generally agreed on this point.[/i]

F. C. Baur died in 1860 so this is not exactly news except to idiots who have their heads firmly shoved up their asses.

I'd like to hear thoughts on this.  ^

---

...2. For the purposes of this discussion (and not heading down any rabbit trails) I believe the basic claims in the NT surrounding the life and death of Jesus Christ. I believe Paul was who he said he was. I believe that most of the epistles are what they appear to be...

Paul is a character in the bible, he does not appear in history. Unless of course you have evidence to the contrary?

Bold mine:

Steve, what evidence lead you to these two beliefs, and why do you find that evidence persuasive?