Atheists being asked about the existence of Jesus

[Acrobat]

The well educated debater isn't sure why an attempt to certify the mythology of christ by the legend of paul, going so far as to call this a "firsthand account"... is problematic?

Odyseuss told his men many stories, too...dontchaknow?  We have firsthand accounts.

---

Firstly, we'll begin with the ambiguous status of paul as a historic figure. A short primer.

What can we reliably know about Paul and how can we know it? As is the case with Jesus, this is not an easy question. Historians have been involved in what has been called the “Quest for the Historical Jesus” for the past one hundred and seventy-five years, evaluating and sifting through our sources, trying to determine what we can reliably say about him.[/url]As it happens, the quest for the historical Paul began almost simultaneously, inaugurated by the German scholar Ferdinand Christian Baur.[url=https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/the-quest-for-the-historical-paul/#note02][ii] Baur put his finger squarely on the problem: There are [i]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][/i]
[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) [i]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.)[/i]

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/the-quest-for-the-historical-paul/


-and heres the authors wiki..if you want to go debate him. 

James D. Tabor (born 1946 in Texas) is a Biblical scholar and Professor of Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte,[1] where he has taught since 1989 and served as Chair from 2004–14. He previously held positions at Ambassador College (1968–70 while a student at Pepperdine University), the University of Notre Dame (1979–85), and the College of William and Mary (1985–89). Tabor is the founder and director of the Original Bible Project, a non-profit organisation aimed to produce a re-ordered new translation of the Bible in English.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tabor
So, we'll be containing ourselves..and refraining from importing assumptions from acts, "legendary paul", into statements we find in "early paul".  This..sadly, cuts out most of james, who - himself..is a disputed figure with a psuedoepigraphical work attributed to him..in acts.  

Early Paul, authentic paul..knew absolutely nothing of any of this apostolic horseshit..he saw a vision of christ on the road - and his gospel came from no man...., remember?  The most that can be drawn from authentic paul is that a tent revivalist strongarmed his way into a newly organizing faith community by the creation of a more inclusive theology and the production of unsolicited "letters" -in truth, operational polemics.  How this mundane detail about the formation of a movement certifies the mythology of the new testament...even if taken to be absolutely accurate at face value..is a mystery...and we know better than to take what "paul" tells us about "paul" tat face value, anyway.

Oh wow, what an embarrassing false assumption on your part, I'm referring to what's written in authentic-early Paul, not Acts or the other texts, the fact that you're oblivious that early-authentic Paul's letters contains his first hand accounts of his interactions and meetings with the disciples, and Jesus's brother, seems to be more the result of your own ignorance, not mine, lol.