Why are Paul's writings in the Bible?

[Bucky Ball]

I already answered that, above.

I don't think you did, or maybe I'm not getting your point. Let's start again:

There are six or seven epistles written in the name of Paul deemed to be authentic by scholars. You don't consider them to be authentic, but nevertheless they share a style of writing and philosophy that appears to indicate they were written/authorized by the same person (or group of people). You also see the name "Paul" as the "speaker" in these epistles. Now who was this "Paul"? If it's a fictional character, why the name "Paul"? Why not a real person's name? Or maybe it is a real person's name, but only had remote indirect connection to these epistles?

If there was no historical Paul, what's the story here?

You've been arguing a lot in the negative, but what's your positive case?

See : https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/paul.htm
Paul did not preach (if there was one) "Christianity". He preached his own gospel, which he admitted/claimed he got "by personal revelation", (and "from no man").

I've seen that site dozens of times before. Skim reading the first article on Paul in that link, the author makes one assumption that I don't think is warranted: that the "Paul" of the epistles is meant to be honestly conveying information about himself. I don't think Paul was exactly an honest man. I think he had some grandiose idea of himself (much like what you're implying here actually) and exaggerated a few things about his own life details. So maybe Paul never really persecuted Christians in his past life, and maybe he's lying in his writings about his exact origins/background to prop himself up and justify his supposed special status.

Also, going back to your objections earlier about why Paul-this-or-that wasn't mentioned in any of the secular/Judaic sources at the time, it seems like you're basing them on legends about Paul in Acts rather than on what Paul himself said in his writings. And if that's the case, that weakens your objections.

I still want to know which academics support your claims who are not "economically obligated" (not PAID by Christian organizations) to support the status quo.

Well, you've basically rigged the game here. If you think someone like Richard Carrier is considered as "economically obligated" to support the status quo that the historical Paul existed, then nothing I say is going to satisfy you.

I never said Carrier was "economically obigated". 
That's ALL you got ? 
I want to know who else is in your "consensus" claim.
YOU claimed consensus. You don't know what that consists of ?