Why are Paul's writings in the Bible?

[Bucky Ball]

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

The Jerusalem Church was destroyed in 70 CE, Shimon (the Lord's other brother) took the remnant over the Jordan, and only Paul's network of Gentile churches was left standing to write the histories and define orthodoxy.

And the evidence for that is what ?

[Bucky Ball]

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

I am going with what the NT scholars say here. Evidence (assuming you agree with a lenient sense of the term in this context) would have to be the seven or so authentic epistles written in his name, the ones deemed by scholars as authentic upon analysis as opposed to the other ones written in his name that are either debatable or clearly not the original Paul's work, which appear to show that he was quite a high status figure among the first century Christians (i.e., believers in Christ).

On the other hand, there is a lack of evidence to suggest there wasn't really such a Paul in the first place and that this was all made up later on.

So all there is, is your "consensus of scholars". They are no doubt, all "Christians". 
What non-Christians *scholars* studied an historical Paul ?
Are there any historical mentions of a "Paul" or "Saul" in any secular sources ?

[Bucky Ball]

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

The Jerusalem Church was destroyed in 70 CE, Shimon (the Lord's other brother) took the remnant over the Jordan, and only Paul's network of Gentile churches was left standing to write the histories and define orthodoxy.

LOL

[LinuxGal]

The Jerusalem Church was destroyed in 70 CE [1], Shimon (the Lord's other brother) took the remnant over the Jordan[2], and only Paul's network of Gentile churches was left standing to write the histories and define orthodoxy[3].

And the evidence for that is what ?

[1] Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War
[2] Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, Book III, ch. 11.
[3] Bart D. Ehrman (2002). "19: The Rise Of Early Christian Orthodoxy". Lost Christianities.

[GrandizerII]

I am going with what the NT scholars say here. Evidence (assuming you agree with a lenient sense of the term in this context) would have to be the seven or so authentic epistles written in his name, the ones deemed by scholars as authentic upon analysis as opposed to the other ones written in his name that are either debatable or clearly not the original Paul's work, which appear to show that he was quite a high status figure among the first century Christians (i.e., believers in Christ).

On the other hand, there is a lack of evidence to suggest there wasn't really such a Paul in the first place and that this was all made up later on.

So all there is, is your "consensus of scholars". They are no doubt, all "Christians". 
What non-Christians *scholars* studied an historical Paul ?
Are there any historical mentions of a "Paul" or "Saul" in any secular sources ?

Historical Paul is the mainstream scholarly view among basically all NT scholars, Christian or atheist or otherwise. Unless you think people like Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier are Christians now? Who are the NT scholars that don't believe Paul was a historical figure?

And why the stock argument from ignorance? Should Paul/Saul have been mentioned in any secular source at the time?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The historicity of Paul is basically a non-issue. It really has no bearing on either the truth or modern condition of Christianity. In that sense, he's a lot like Jesus.

Boru

[LinuxGal]

So all there is, is your "consensus of scholars". They are no doubt, all "Christians". 
What non-Christians *scholars* studied an historical Paul ?
Are there any historical mentions of a "Paul" or "Saul" in any secular sources ?

Historical Paul is the mainstream scholarly view among basically all NT scholars, Christian or atheist or otherwise. Unless you think people like Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier are Christians now? Who are the NT scholars that don't believe Paul was a historical figure?

And why the stock argument from ignorance? Should Paul/Saul have been mentioned in any secular source at the time?

I figure since the historical Jesus turns on the authenticity of Galatians 1:19, Jesus mythicists can get what they want by being Paul mythicists too.

[LinuxGal]

The historicity of Paul is basically a non-issue. It really has no bearing on either the truth or modern condition of Christianity. In that sense, he's a lot like Jesus.

Richard Carrier runs everything through a Bayes wringer and concludes Paul probably did exist.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7643

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

^That's fine with me - personally, I come down on the side of Paul being historical. But, even if he wasn't, I don't see Christianity as having evolved much differently than it did.

The authorship of the Pauline epistles doesn't matter all that much either - someone wrote those letters to the early congregations. Fighting about who it was (more accurately who they were) is at this point little more than an historical curiosity. It's like claiming that The Odyssey wasn't written by Homer, but by another Greek with the same name.

A difference which makes no difference IS no difference.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

It's the same problem that jesus had. Whatever real boy could have been the inspiration for the stories, the character in magic book, is a mess all the same. It's like looking for a historical Steve by reading a book about Joe. It's amazing how difficult it seems to be for people to parse the idea, but it's all over magic book old and new. There are characters in both books that were real people for certain, but the biblical characters bear no resemblance to the historical persons then, either. The kingdoms described were real, but the books fictionalize them for theological effect. The tactics and equipment mentioned were real, but displaced by centuries and put in the hands of herculean warrior kings.

Whatever the historicity of the characters places and events was, the story itself has a history of it's own, a path of development distinct from that. So you end up with people saying that paul was for sure historical, but the parts of magic book that tell us who paul was are..by the same scholars, believed to be completely fictional accounts. Perhaps the most crucial aspect of the character of paul, paul the convert, paul the super jew persecuting christians until he sees an apparition? That's a non thing. Whoever wrote pauls character made that shit up entirely for reasons that should be dead obvious to anyoneone here at af.

"I used to be like you" - they all start out....