Why are Paul's writings in the Bible?

[Bucky Ball]

You claimed consensus. 
I'm simply asking who that consists of, and who in it consists of those not economically obligated. 
It's YOUR claim. Sopport it or STFU.

This is getting tiring. I already gave examples of a few scholars (with references) who accept a historical Paul. I can add more: Dominic Crossan, James McGrath, perhaps everyone who was a member of the Jesus Seminar? I don't have a whole list right in front of me, just as I don't have a whole list of biologists who accept that evolution is true. On the other hand, you have Robert Price on your side and?

Now STFU about this silly consensus list demand when I have gone beyond that already and made a case for the historical Paul from parsimony and addressed your other points. Work on enriching the discussion instead of dwelling way too much on something that's not that big a deal considering all the other stuff said.

What is your positive case for a mythicist Paul? What is the story that you believe about this character? Let's then compare accounts, and consider which appears to be more parsimounious, taking into account factors such as dates when the epistles were written, temporal/geometric proximity to events/occurrences mentioned in the epistles, whether the wider implication is more parsimonious, and so on.

If you don't want to do any of that, then don't waste my time.

Nope. 
I asked you who in your consensus claim is not economically obligated. You gave a few names. I want ALL the names in your fake consensus, and PROOF of your claim.
I have no positive case. I simply asked a question concerning YOUR consensus claim. I see I'm never going to get it.
I see the time being wasted here is mine. You have no support for your claim.

ta ta