The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Mudhammam]

You don't think that you must demonstrate that there was an actual Paul, and that we have a way of determining who that was......if you want to make the claim that there was an actual paul........and that we know at least some of who he was?  Do you think it's up to me to prove that there wasn't?  Why? On my end, I know that I can show you the legendary and mythical Paul...and I was of the impression that we both agreed that there is such a thing. Don't you think that might demonstrate my position which is....nothing to do with 90% of your responses to me...that the Paul of the NT (yes, even those seven epistles) is legendary, and mythological - whatever else he may have been-.

(I don't want to hear any more of your bullshit about conspiracies and cons, honestly...it's pissing me off. If the only people you can argue with are conspiracists then go find one?)

-Do you think that you've done that, in this thread? I'll go back and re-read whatever it is you think is the most compelling. How does that sound? I want the details of Paul, as you see Paul (the real man, mind you, not the convention), and I'd like to see their source.

I gave you the relevant source material. You dismissed them and said that's not good enough for establishing the historicity of Paul and some information about his life, without any---much less rational---justification in my view. So there's really nothing else for me to oblige until you attempt some sort of justification for your mythicist narrative, which very much is conspiratorial. "Sorry" if that pisses you off. My suggestion is to stop being lazy and bring something to the table worth discussing if you want your belief to merit anyone's serious attention.