Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[Harry Nevis]

BTW, we don't have any original writings by this paul fucker, either.  It has been noted that no two manuscripts of any pauline horseshit agree with each other.   Something doesn't pass the smell test here.

We don't have original copies of most of the writings from this time.

Do you have an example of where two manuscripts disagree with each other in something significant?  From what I have been told the manuscript collection for the new testament is vast, consisting of earlier and more manuscripts than we have for most anything comparable for the time.  It is also my understanding, that the collection of manuscripts support the consistency in transmission of the text.  There are differences, but it is important to look at what those differences consist of.  They are mostly spelling errors,  transposing of words, or a missing jot or tilde (mundane errors, which are easily dismissed).  There may may be a different use of words, which don't change the meaning, but are technically different.  It is my understanding, that there are very very few variants, which have any doctrinal significance, and that we can weigh those, by looking at earlier or the majority of text (because we have so many).  

So what is it, that you are saying, by saying that no two manuscripts agree with each other?  Do you have evidence of something other, that is significant?

Of course that's your understanding.  That isn't the understanding of objective scholars, but if you already decided it's the word of god from the get-go, you can explain away anything you want.

---

Thank you for your response regarding that particular quote, though I'm still waiting for you to answer these questions I asked based on your statements: "I believe Paul was who he said he was", and, "I believe the epistles are what they appear to be."

My questions are: 

1. What evidence lead you to these two beliefs?

2. Why do you find this evidence persuasive?

1. It is a long established view that Paul wrote at least most of the epistles ascribed to him. We have early copies of those letters. We are as certain as you can be that he wrote them (there is no reason to doubt).  
2. If the skeptics are not skeptical, why should I be? I have no trouble believing the content--the letters make no extraordinary claims beyond what the gospels say--they are largely about Christian living.

1.  YOU have no reason to doubt.
2.  Because it's part of critical thinking.  Deciding to believe isn't.