Why you should distrust all religions.

[GrandizerII]

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)

Just so I'm not strawmanning you, you're referring to the Paul of Acts when you say "there was no Paul"? If so, sure, Paul is just a legendary character in Acts ... but I see the characters as based on a historical person.

4 different depictions of Paul doesn't mean one of them could not have been the authentic one. #1 is called authentic Paul, and according to scholars, some of the epistles were authored by a Jesus Christ spokesman called Paul.