Why are Paul's writings in the Bible?

[GrandizerII]

pid='2172191' dateline='1696392847']

Alright, so I've just gone through all this text, but not sure I understood all key points here. What is the takeaway exactly? What is the relevance exactly to what we've been arguing about here? Or is this just sharing something from what you previously wrote up for a lecture or something that you thought would be an interesting read? Was Saul of Tarsus real or not?

Off-topic, I didn't understand what your issue was with Thomas being one of the "Twelve"? If there were 11 in the room, and Thomas was away, what's the problem exactly here? Nevermind, I see what you mean. 11 at that point, as in Paul wasn't an item then. Still, there were 12 at that point, per "John", and Paul is overlooked/ignored there. ETA: Also, forgot about Judas.

I copied it in, to demonstrate ONE point. I am not a Paul mythicist. 
That's the only "takeaway". 
Obviously someone wrote the damn letters, .. someone who had familiarity with other sources. 
And that someone was an Apocalyptic Jew, who remained an Apocalyptic Jew, who was and remained in the Jewish Apocalyptic tradition, even after "conversion".

I'm happy to take your word for it that you are not a Paul mythicist.

So what was the deal with your original question to me then?

That I said Paul was a prominent leader among mid-first century Christians? Sure, maybe "one of the prominent leaders among mid-first century Christians" is not exactly accurate in terms of the wording, but I wasn't suggesting he was the top head among all heads, only that he had a high status among the various Christ-believing communities that he conversed/interacted with.

But that aside for a second, your question was worded as follows:

What evidence is there that a "Paul" was a prominent leader among "First Century Christians" ?

Double quotes around Paul seemed to imply you didn't believe Paul was a historical figure. I'm happy to be charitable here and assume it's because you're suggesting there was no such Paul that was, as I put it, a prominent leader among, as I also put it, Christians. Which, ok fair enough, but the point I was trying t make is that he was of some significant importance, as part of my answer to FM's OP question.

I'm guessing the quotes around "Christians" is because you didn't believe they were independent groups back then. And if so, that's fine by me, but I'd still consider them Christians.

And then you did make the sort of arguments Paul mythicists are known to make, like why was Paul not mentioned in secular sources then, if he was a student of someone awesome like Gamaliel and stuff like that.

So again, happy to accept you're not a Paul mythicist then, but I can't fault myself for misinterpreting you then. Plus, you kind of annoyed me with the whole prove consensus bs, so maybe I wasn't fully paying attention.