Do you think jesus christ existed

[Aractus]

Luke-Acts is written by Luke - or at the very least a single author (concensus view), and he is a companion of Pual. More than half of the events recorded in Acts happened at the time of the author's involvement in the church and many of them were witnessed by him.

And we know this how?

Glad you asked. Very few scholars dispute the author is the same person, they're both addressed to the same person Theophilus, and Acts begins with "In the first book, O Theophilus ..." The writing style is similar and very well written, the only book in the NT that scholars say is more sophisticated in its Greek is the book of Hebrews and for this reason many scholars hold the view that Luke penned the Epistle and that Paul or somebody else close to Paul dictated it to Luke (this of course assumes that Luke didn't use a scribe). Regardless of the authorship of Hebrews, Luke-Acts total 27.5% of the NT text - so there's a huge amount of text to compare between the two. In comparison, all 13 of Paul's Epistles total 23.5% of the NT text, yet many scholars as you know claim that the much shorter epistles is enough to gauge his writing style - despite the fact that he uses scribes and doesn't pen his own letters!

We don;t even have evidence of Paul's existence much less that he is the author of anything at all

Oh yes we do, there's no doubt that Paul existed. First off there are his 13 Letters - the 7 undisputed plus the six additional ones that all contain similar greetings, and similar farewells to them, and all say that they're written by Paul. Then we have the book of Acts which talks about Paul extensively in the present, and three times Luke uses the first-person plural narrative which strongly implies that at the very least in those passages the author of Acts himself was present. 2 Peter also mentions Paul. We know more about St Paul than any other early Christian after Christ dies in the first century.

Somebody had to write his 13 Epistles, as you know sceptical scholars (atheists, agnostics, etc) only accept his authorship of 7 - leaving 6 that they would believe are pseudographically attributed to him - well pseudepigrapha requires that the person you're attributing your letter to is a real person. Also, nobody would write 7 letters and pseudographically attribute them to the one person, the notion is absurd. So any way you look at it, Paul had to have existed.

Feel free to provide your counter-evidence - specifically I'd like to know why somebody would attribute 7-13 letters to an invented character?

Oh yes I do, you have not given an Iota of evidence for your claim. All you have is some documents with a name who is proported to have written them

Rubbish, I provided you more than that. I've given you primary considerations, and secondary considerations - and then there are literacy considerations, etc, that come in to play as well. Paul quotes Luke 10:7 in 1 Timothy 5:18, and before you kick up a fuss about whether we know the authorship or not (since it's not one of the magic 7). The Last Supper takes place in all three synoptic gospels. Most accounts omit the first passing of the wine, but Luke's does not. Luke's also says this:

This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.

And in 1 Corinthians 11:24 we have:

This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.

Matthew 26:26b: Take, eat; this is my body.
Mark 14:22b: Take; this is my body.

And,

Matthew: Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
Mark: This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians: This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.
Luke: This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!

Paul knows Luke's version, and not the version recorded in Matthew/Mark. The wording in the original greek for the phrase "this is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me" is so similar to Luke that it's inconceivable that one isn't a direct quotation of the other. The reason why it's not completely word-for-word identical is because Paul dictates his letters to a scribe who then pen them from memory. The second part "this cup is the new covenant in my blood" is also Luke's, the version in Mark/Matthew reads "this is my blood of the covenant". So Paul is either quoting Luke, or they're writing down the same version of the Lord's Supper independently to each other.

There's plenty more internal evidence like this.

"Scholars". Not academics then but BAHBUL beleivers

I've already explained to you the definition of scholar, stop making stupid straw man arguments please.

But according to your logic it is reliable as to events of the 7th century. So why aren;t you a Muslim?

No, we know that it's partially reliable, which is what atheist scholars "know" about the Bible too.

We know that Joespehus has been massively forged.

Irrelivant as that section isn't forged - and you've just changed your argument.

That word' scholars' again

Fuck you, I grow impatient of your ignorance and stupidity. Go troll elsewhere.