"Paul" What's Bullshit and What Isn't?

[RoadRunner79]

i didn’t even look at who wrote it. I looked at the reasons given and agree with most scholars here.

I notice that you however often focus on who rather than what. Dismissing because of the source. Attacking the source, attacking the person, argument from ignorance and silence. Appeal to motivation. These are your favorite fallacies. Of which this fits right in.

I tell you what... you make an arguement that isn’t based on these, and I’ll promise to “lose my shit” just for you.

Yes, because you are satisfied with anyone who will tell you that your fairy tales are real.  Usually you get that from theologians masquerading as "historians."  I'm not interested in their apologetic horseshit.  Or yours.

Got it now.

Apologetics comes from the Greek word apologia and is a legal term; which describes giving a defense or reason for something.  

I don't really care who you get your information from, or what their conclusion is, but the reasons and evidence to support the claim.  One can even acknowledge a good argument for an opposing view, and not have to jump to that side.   It is about the weight of all the evidence.  I just don't find speculation based on silence to be a very good argument.   Many would call it fallacious.

The problem with the link in the OP is that it is unfalsifiable and hence the circular accusation by "most scholars".   It is assuming that there are interpolations in Pauls letters, because everything has interpolations.  However you cannot show otherwise, because even if you don't find any reasons or evidence to conclude that there are interpolations, you are assuming that they are there anyway.