Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[TheBeardedDude]

So if Paul had never existed, the Christian church would exist?

edit to add: I am asking the questions because it is clear you don't know the history of your religion and its books as well as you think you do. I would have thought it apparent that when the questions I was asking were to you because I want to see you try to answer them and not because I want to simply make statements. I like questions that allow someone to highlight their own ignorance instead of statements outlining it

That's kind of evident in the fact that Paul was writing to pre-existing churches. Here is a secret code to keep them straight...the name of the church is in the letter's title...Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians.

LOL. You think I don't know the history of Christianity? You can't even get two sentences without messing them up! 

You're in over your head in both knowledge of the subject in and in critical thinking skills.

Paul was writing to pre-existing "churches?" Is that so? So Paul has nothing to do with the foundation of Christianity? Without Paul, Christianity would still be around?

Here, let's explore a second related piece. Which was more important to the Christian religion: Jesus or the Romans adopting Christianity?

---

I think Steve intended to say that Paul wrote the letters, not Peter. Peter wrote nothing. So how Peter established the Christian church is beyond me, or at the very least it is beyond me how one actually determines that.

There are 2 epistles by "peter" in the NT canon.  Both are forgeries.

But I don't think he was alluding to any writings by a "Peter." I think he was referencing the writings of Paul