If theists understood "evidence"

[RoadRunner79]

Look how adroitly the last few pages can be memory holed, lol.  

If a person tells you that they think paul was a dishonest person who suffered from mental illness..they are only representing the majority opinion of scholarship on each respective claim.  You seem to thinks it's feelings, whoooahohoh feelings.

So..this actually does beg a question.....do you understand evidence....?

The authentic paul of the nt was a barker in an era of carnival religion who told self aggrandizing fibs as a part of his act, at the very least.  He complains of his illness.  It's always been accepted that this was epilepsy.  People thought so then, they still think so now..fuck, epilepsy is called st pauls disease for that very reason.

If you are really interested in discussing it, I would suggest you make a thread, where we can start over, and you can present the evidence for your claims. This is such a gish gallop of an ever moving goal post. As soon as I reply to one thing; five more pop up, and my objections are being dodged. We can talk about  the claims individually in a reasonable manner, and then see how they fit together.

---

Or we can go back to the OP; if that’s not being completely avoided.