Why did pagans not take any notice of Jesus?

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't; however, it is clear to me that they were not written by eyewitnesses, and it is equally clear that a simple majority of Paul's letters were forgeries.

 You nor anyone else can prove your assumptions and that is all you have, assumptions.

GC

Let's take thessalonians as an example.  Both were traditionally attributed to Paul.  1st thessalonians is considered to be authentic whereas 2nd thessalonians is not.  

Well, we assume there was Paul, and he wrote things, for starters.  He's believed to have died sometime between the great fire and nero being deposed.  A short window.  So, assuming those things, what can we posit?  We can posit that 2nd thessolonians was not written by paul, who died before the temple was destroyed - an event absent from 1st thessalonians but present in 2nd. 

We can also posit that the author of 2nd thessalonians had a copy of 1st thessalonians.  These are alleged to have been letters sent to churches, mind you, not historical documents written in triplicate, with one sent, one archived, and one kept in the possession of the author - but if we assume that some disciple or associate of paul wrote 2nd thessolonians then they would be more of the latter than the former. 

So, what depends on the above?  Well, perhaps the most direct reason to suppose an early date for authentic paul is the presence of the forgery in the deutero-pauline epistle itself.  We can date the destruction of the temple, so even though it doesn't give us much, it gives us a dividing line in time.  Authentic paul lived and died before the event, but the duetero-pauline authors (who may have been contemporaries of authentic paul) lived at least long enough to write about it.  Not only were they aware of that event, they were clearly aware of pauls "letter" - so that authentic letter must predate it.  

Taken the other way, if we insist that the deutero-pauline work is actually authentic..then this would prove that our early dates for authentic paul - as well as the timeframe he's believed to have lived and died, are wrong.   The icing on the cake is that the author of the deutero-pauline work is so craven that he closes out his fan fiction with a campaign style affirmation of identity and approval of the message.

So...before you rail against biblical scholarship as though it were nothing but assumption and no one could prove anything, understand that the early dating of both paul the man and his authentic work positively depend on accepting a deutero-pauline forgery.  If we reject that, we shift the calendar by at least two decades but as much as 65 years.  Instead of writing in the 50's and dying in the 60's.  Paul writes in the 70's or later and dies.....who knows when.  The deutero-pauline work, itself, is dated to between 80 and 115.

Somehow, I doubt that you want to argue that authentic paul, who received his gospel from no man, was writing as late as the second century but could not possibly have been writing before 70 ad.