Why you should distrust all religions.

[The Grand Nudger]

Baur put his finger squarely on the problem: There are 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.[iii]
[img=241x0]https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/wp-content/uploads/F.C.-Baur-241x300.jpg[/img]
Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792-1860)
Thirteen of the New Testament’s twenty-seven documents are letters with Paul’s name as the author, and a fourteenth, the book of Acts, is mainly devoted to the story of Paul’s life and career—making up over half the total text.[iv] The problem is, these fourteen texts fall into four distinct chronological tiers, giving us our four “Pauls”:
1) Authentic or Early Paul: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, and Philemon (50s-60s A.D.)
2) Disputed Paul or Deutero-Pauline: 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians (80-100 A.D.)
3) Pseudo–Paul or the Pastorals: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (80-100 A.D.)
4) Tendentious or Legendary Paul: Acts of the Apostles (90-130 A.D.)

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dail...ical-paul/
Notice no.4.

The question then becomes whether or not an identifiable man exists in "Authentic Paul", and what relationship we're proposing between whomever we posit that to be and the "Paul" of the gospels, and particularly, in context, the "Paul" of Acts.  Regardless of which of the many Pauls any given nutter believes is contained within the "historic paul", we have found no paul, at all, outside of the new testament.

There is -no- question that the character of paul is a tremendous embellishment, at best. One wonders what trivial details a historical paul might have had in common with Paul the Apostle. I see no reason to posit a person when confronted with a legendary figure. That;s the mistake of people who believe in legends. Paul Bunyan and Hercules and King Arthur are calling us again.

(the christer story is many layers of horseshit...lol)