Why are Paul's writings in the Bible?

[GrandizerII]

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

You knew you weren't going to get exactly what you asked for because your demand wasn't made in good faith. There was no way I was going to list every single name for you, that'd be completely unreasonable. You also sneak in an extra demand which was not in line with what I claimed.

I gave you some names, and you weren't happy, but you were not going to be happy unless I gave you exactly what you wanted.

Here's the thing, Bucky. One need not know every single scholar/expert holding to a consensus to be certain that there is such a consensus. Consensus, in fact, very often isn't something that is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but is nevertheless something that is noted in academic works or credible encyclopedias/wikis. It is implied also through observing a lack of relevant experts opposing the consensus.

I didn't waste your time, you did that to yourself.

And I don't believe for a second that you don't hold to a positive case for Paul mythicism. Though I do accept you don't have a strong argument to make for it.