(October 1, 2023 at 11:49 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:(October 1, 2023 at 9:48 pm)GrandizerII Wrote: I am going with what the NT scholars say here. Evidence (assuming you agree with a lenient sense of the term in this context) would have to be the seven or so authentic epistles written in his name, the ones deemed by scholars as authentic upon analysis as opposed to the other ones written in his name that are either debatable or clearly not the original Paul's work, which appear to show that he was quite a high status figure among the first century Christians (i.e., believers in Christ).
On the other hand, there is a lack of evidence to suggest there wasn't really such a Paul in the first place and that this was all made up later on.
So all there is, is your "consensus of scholars". They are no doubt, all "Christians".
What non-Christians *scholars* studied an historical Paul ?
Are there any historical mentions of a "Paul" or "Saul" in any secular sources ?
Historical Paul is the mainstream scholarly view among basically all NT scholars, Christian or atheist or otherwise. Unless you think people like Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier are Christians now? Who are the NT scholars that don't believe Paul was a historical figure?
And why the stock argument from ignorance? Should Paul/Saul have been mentioned in any secular source at the time?