Did the Apostle Paul Exist? Dr. David Skrbina 

Perfect Sunday morning content. I used to almost worship Paul as a Jehovah's Witness cause I viewed him as some weirdass rebel and I have a rebellious spirit...lol! What a joke on myself. If he existed at all, what a narcissistic jerk😂😂Thanks to Derek and fabulous guests, I'm a freethinker now. Thanks, buddy❤❤❤💪💪💪

Word to Derek: The word "hypercriticism" does not mean extra critical or super critical. It has a technical meaning which refers to criticism of criticism itself - that is, it's a field which critiques critical methodologies to see if they are truly reliable or if they are flawed.

If we acknowledge Paul existed, we must also realize some important points 1) "Paul" is probably a placeholder name 2) We know nothing about him other than he existed 3) He was a liar 4) We have no idea how much editing occurred between the time his 7ish authentic letters were written and the oldest copies that exist today (which is about 300 years)

The irony of an ad for Dallas Theological Semetery during Mythvision.

My own pet theory is that the underlying stories are an amalgam of several popular tales circulating at the time - there were a number of different messianic figures kicking around. A couple of generations later, these miracle stories get mashed together and now you've got one really comprehensive savior religion that sounds familiar enough to a wide enough audience to take off. Similar to the Arthurian legends.

Nothing in Paul’s writings suggest he was anti-Roman. He takes pride in his Roman citizenship, despises Torah-observant Christians (the Jerusalem church), and praises the Roman authorities as powers ordained by God. If Jesus was cruelly executed by the Romans as depicted in the Gospels, Paul knows nothing of it. If he had been against Rome, surely he would have mentioned their role in the crucifixion at least once.

I love how Derek slicks his hair back and gets down to work, great channel recommended it a few times

He fails to explain: There was many pro-Roman Jews. Vespasian and Titus were friends with many of them. If we are to take Romans 16 seriously, then Paul was part of the pro-Roman Herodian elite. There's no reason to think that the Romans hated or rewrote Paul.

That's a great point about tailoring the message. Look at how much Xtianity has changed in just a few generations to fit the views of their followers.

Everybody else was playing Checkers but the creators of Paul were playing Chess. 😎

The trick is to research the history of the church back to its beginning. If you start with NT characters and try to work forward, you’ll get nowhere. Where are any of the original documents? When did we first discover they were missing? Who was the last one known to have handled them? How and why did the owner dispose of them? Why does no one have a clue? The best evidence we have is the dog that didn’t bark.

Why do I see this same "story" over and over in Abrahamic religions? Not one single person from beginning to today out of these faiths can be verified to have even lived, much less written what is ascribed to them. Why do I see a parallel between Paul and Jesus? Each was reputed to be spreading this gospel far and wide, but nothing outside written about them till 30 years after the death. Paul and Muhammad? The Torah was presented by (Cyrus re.) Ezra as the writings of Moses, if Moses existed at all. We don't even have any idea if Ezra existed, and if so was this a single individual or a group with a directive and a plan. These myths were all presented as justification for achieving power and holding it. Nothing more. No deep philosophy to them at all . . . just a power grab.

You can tell that New Testament Scholarship is not his discipline. I suspect the creation of this new religion was much more convoluted and rooted in different sources.. perhaps tied to some non Jewish precursors.. who knows?. If Paul didnt exist, someone wrote those letters in the First century.. and there was already an audience .. that's the beauty and complexity of it.

The alleged Paul must have been an illustrious figure of his time, traveling all over the levant all the big and influential places , visiting congregations, preaching to thousands, getting jailed, raising a dead man who fell out of the window. Why don't we have any secular mentions of his deeds? Why are all the only early mentions come from the church? Isn't this a conflict of interest to accept the early church writings as proof for Paul's existence when we know for a fact church fathers forged several testimonies as evidence?

I don’t understand your argument, David, of Paul being doing his mission to be anti-Roman. The new testaments clearly have a pro-Roman slant when I read it. John, etc...

My theory is that gospel writing was the sole literature industry for a thousand years and generations of monks devoted their lives to crafting these texts.

The thing I always wondered about Paul is why Jesus would appear to him? Like, *if* Jesus existed and any of the accounts the gospel writers were even partly true, then Jesus had all these other disciples and apostles from his lifetime. Why did he even need to recruit Paul after his death? Maybe it makes sense if Paul is the originator of the whole thing, as some say, but then why not tell the story like he was there as Jesus' best friend during the time they were both alive? And if it was all spiritual then how did we end up with these later Jesus stories about a man who lived as opposed to a spiritual being?

Interesting take, I did enjoy Dr Skrbina's run down of the political issues facing Rome and the Israelites of the time and place

The beard looks good man!!

Your “we…are…” intro horrified yaboy. That was fun to watch.

This will be an interesting listen as although Paul in his own words goes around making a nuisance of himself in his travels about the known world once again he leaves no historical trace .. once again we are totally reliant on the Bible

Listening to this and a commercial comes up for "Paul, Disciple of Christ".....talk about missing the target audience.

Josephus was a great fiction writer.

It’s not an episode until Derek mentions preterdeterminism or whatever it’s called 😂

Tiamat is back. Helsinki is in Finland, Derek. Don’t expect to see a lot of fish fins in Helsinki.

Acts is dated to the mid-80´s??? Nope, the author has a clear dependence on Josephus "Antiquities", it´s early 2nd century. Read "Acts and Christian Begginings" published by the Westar Institute. The real issue is not doubting the historicity of Paul - that is for cranks with an agenda - , but when he actually lived (there are some things that might point to the fact that he might have lived in the 1st century BC) , what he actually wrote and what was his actual theology. The Book of Acts is historical fiction, and some of what is written there about Paul contradicts with statements that Paul himself made in his letters. I believe some of the parts of Romans, 1st and 2nd Corinthians were written by the historical Paul, especially since the "Epistles" to the Corinthians appear to be a patchwork of various incomplete letters to the same congregation - such a thing is very improbable for someone who supposedly never existed. Neverthless, the mess that they are as we have them and the various contradictory viewpoints you have in each of this "Epistles" makes me reach the conclusion that most of it is interpolated and not written by the original author, making it harder to understand what was actually written by the historical Paul. I have reached the conclusion - mostly due to the influence of the Ferdinand Baur, the Dutch Radicals and the works of Robert M. Price - that all the others letters, besides the ones I mentioned above, are post-Pauline forgeries.

From what I have heard from other scholars is that Pauls existence is based on what someone who never knew Paul claimed they found documents from him. Paul doesn't have contemporaries according to some. I'm not saying he didn't exist Im just responding to the statement that those who question it are just being hyperskeptical/irrational.

I was wondering: this Paul travelled, stayed in places...is there no one who was with him in a place where he stayed? The person ( Paul )had to go out, buy food, need to send his letters..Is there no witness who met this Paul?

Could Paul have been a pseudonym?

The argument that Paul's letters must predate the Gospels because they do not mention anything about the Gospels is trivially refuted by the fact that none of the pseudo-Pauline letters that we know were written in the 2nd Century mention the Gospels either. Of course forgers would know that Paul died before the Gospels were written. If I was writing fake letters from Elvis, I wouldn't mention anything about the 1980's. That would be a dead giveaway. Forgers weren't stupid. I'm not saying none of the Pauline letters are real, but the fact that they don't mention the Gospels is a meaningless datum.

How can you read Romans 13 and think Paul was getting back at the Romans?? Paul is a Roman agent.

Hey Derek (if you permit that I call you Derek) Dr Skrbina says Gospels are anti-Romans, Pr Atwill says the contrary. We need a debate. The gospels are anti or pro Romans. I want to know.

I think the idea that Christianity was promoted to burst the bubble of Jewish zealotry is more likely. I find it hard to believe that a Jewish man would destroy his own religion just to make the Romans look bad. The most difficult thing for me to figure out is how a person, no matter which aim he had of these two, could be deceiving and write such wonderful and profound expressions of love for God and man at the same time.

Derek says butt hurt and asks how to pronounce Helsinki in the first ten minutes, that's hilarious. I love it

It is commonly assumed that the same person wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. But there is a glaring and irreconcilable contradiction in these two "books" which point to different authors. In Luke Jesus ascends to heaven the day of his resurrection. In Acts he stays with his disciples for 40 days. It's hard to believe that the same writer would tell us so wildly different stories about such a salient event.

Could Paul have existed in say 75BC, when Aretas ruled Damascus ala 2 Corinthians 11:33? I totally discount the Acts stories. But Paul was shifted in time later to support the later written gospels, because his letters existed before the Jesus story was later created. You can not have stories of someone’s crucifixion before they were born.

10:22 paul doesnt speak to jesus as a miracle worker

Dr. Skrbina, before the 10-minute mark, gives us a distorted view of Roman-Jewish political relations: "All of the Jewish elite would have hated the Roman rule." Josephus alludes to Paul. Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy

The Christian religion should be called Paulism.

In a general overview the three main religions have run out of good excuses to persuade people to follow them. Their attendance seems to be disappearing which is probably a good thing when you count all the wars bad behavior towards each other etc. I hope that people can gain true insight into God and they behave towards each other in a way that God would become evident in the future of humanity.

WE ARE STILL LIVING IN THE ERA OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

All of the gospel writers lncluding Paul didn't write about the virgin birth of jesus just Matthew and Luke. Jesus never said he was born of a virgin?🤔

People love flawed heros All the Greek mythical heros were flawed and failed in many ways too So if someone smart were to invent Paul , they would make him as human as possible = believable

I think that what was likely to have happened is that after Jesus was crucified, many of his followers were horrified and in complete shock. They could see the brutality of the Romans and the scoffing of the Jews. The idea of him being Devine emerged by someone in the crowd and it grew from there. Paul just works it from there and starts off a church. It becomes a business where the bills have to be paid. The thread of truth is always there, but is embellished, stretched and altered to keep the movement going. They yearn for more so Mark (or whoever it was) writes the first gospel. It’s still not enough. Enter Matthew. Twice as long as Mark, birth narrative, prophesies etc as he attempts to improve the story. Fiction is built on fiction. By the time John comes along, the story is so twisted it bares little resemblance to the original.

Don't think even Paul was real. Probably a literary figure made up by Romans to give more weight to the Jesus story. As someone has pointed out, both Paul and Josephus had a similar shipwreck experience. Paul was actually Josephus? Makes a lot of sense

But Paul did not make up a story of miracle working Jesus (or there is no evidence of that in the Pauline epistles). In fact, Paul says the heavenly being Jesus gave up all his powers when he appeared in human likeness "he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant [slave], being made in human likeness." Philippians 2:7.

Marcion invented Paul and the first gospel with his gospel of the Lord in the second century.

Yes. Next question.

Wasn't Paul secretly working for the Flavian Dynasty? Weren't all of the original Roman Catholic Saints' members of the Flavian Dynasty? Weren't all of the original symbols used by the earliest Christians identical to those of the Flavian Dynasty? And isn’t one of the earliest iconographic symbols for Christianity, located in a catacomb, under the city of Rome, which was owned by a Flavian Princess? Weren't all of the original Jesus cult texts produced under the oversight of the Flavian Dynasty? Didn't the Flavian Dynasty posses the only remaining copy of the Hebrew Tanakh other than the Greek Septuagint translation? Isn't there Flavian typology in the Gospels? Weren't the canonical texts all back dated like the historical fiction of Gone With The Wind? Wasn't Emperor Vespasian known as the Jewish Messiah? Wasn’t Pope Clement of Rome a Flavian? Wasn't Josephus a temple whore for the Flavian Dynasty? Weren't the Flavian’s, as well as Paul, descended from King Herod? There was no separation of Church and State in the Roman Empire. And Christianity is clearly a Greco-Roman hybrid form of Judaism created by the Flavian Dynasty. As an attempt to adapt, pacify, and integrate the rebellious and defiant Jews into the rest of the Greco-Roman Empire. Just like the Greeks created Hermes Trismegistus to integrate Egyptian mythology with Greek mythology.Then finally Neo-Flavian Constantine chose the Flavian family religion to be the official religion of the entire Roman Empire. In order to consolidate power in his fractured Empire. And then Eusebius edited and rewrote the history of the previous 3OO years. Destroying all contradictory evidence. It isn't history it is all simply Greco-Roman mythopoetic literature. Today it is known as Historical Fiction. “What profit hath not this fable of Christ brought us.” Pope Leo X 💙

Textual analysis shows 6 of Paul's letters were written by the same author, so we might as well call him Paul. Jesus himself is probably a composite.

Given that Dr. skrbina is a philosopher it would be very interesting to see his reaction to Carrier’s work in On the Historicity of Jesus.

If Paul and Jesus were born in and around close to the same time era. Could it be that after Jesus left the tomb that he became Paul so he could roam around.

Being financially secure doesn't makes your opinion any more valid. It's still educated speculation.

The original message of paul was only for Jews in the diaspora (greek speaking jews). The point is that greek speaking jews were themselves a proselytizing group in the 1st century. There was a lot of "sympathizers" visiting the synagogues. So, starting from the synagogues, christianity spread to non-jews, exactly because it was easier to practice than traditional judaism.

Paul never mentions the miracles. He’s completely uninterested in Jesus life, except for the Resurrection. He not only has made up Jesus, but he’s ALSO made up two chief followers of Jesus if he’s making Jesus up. The Pharisees were NOT the elite, the Sadducees were. Paul was a Roman citizen. He didn’t hate the Romans. This guy is a mixture of scholarly consensus (there was a Jesus, he was crucified) and the “nope he didn’t” side that has no real credence. The Gospel writers have no knowledge at all of Paul’s letters. Even Luke who at least had heard of Paul doesn’t match the letters in Acts. And the idea of “we’ll start a religion to destroy Rome” is silly. The 1000 followers of Jesus that existed by 70 were going to destroy Rome? How about they believed in all sorts of woo like everyone else?

where is there anything in the Gospels about resistance to Roman rule? The Gospels also do not have the "basically the same theology." Paul never mentions anything about the Gospels anyway or about a single event in them so I am not getting how he thinks the Gospels are relevant to the historicity of Paul at all. What is Skribina's specialty, exactly? His knowledge of NT scholarship seems to be lacking.

Paul was created after 70CE. If Jesus was created after 70 CE, Paul could not exist before 70 CE. Jesus was created along with the Gospels. Jesus was raised by the Flavians after Josephus wrote the War of the Jews.

12:44 Skrbina overlooks further support for his idea: Greeks were already worshipping a virgin ('parthenos') goddess: the Parthenon is dedicated to the virgin Athena.

22:00:00 "I wish we had evidence for Paul like Josephus doesn't like the guy or ... " The fact is they did have really truly good evidence between the 4th and the 15th century and this evidence was hammered into the collective consciousness of the Doctors of Theology, Biblical Historians, Biblical scholars until it trickled down to the Classical historians and the lay man and woman. Seneca perhaps one of the most famous philosophers, statemen and men of letters corresponded with Dear Paul and read his letters to Nero. The Christians packaged up the Seneca-Paul letter exchange and used it as a preface to the literature and books of Seneca. FRAUD. Who dunnit? The NICENE CHURCH INDUSTRY invented at least one Paul. Along with the holy relics, hagiography, martyrology and the cult of saints and martyrs. What else did they invent besides the celebration of easter and Christmas, the One True Cross and on and on it goes, and where it stops nobody knows.

How likely is it: - That Simon of Samaria read Greek translations of Torah stories, interpreted parts of them as his christ character, and attached the real Jew Yeshu the Egyptian to his christ. - That Simon preached that Greeks adhere to the Noahic rules and prepare for the imminent return of Yeshu. - That Mark of Sinope popularizes christianity version 1.0 around Jesus Christ v1.0 by creating the christian bible v1.0. - That 2nd and 3rd generation anti-Marcionite sects of christianity write their Jesus stories and co-opt Simon as their Saul / Paul character., which evolve into christianity v2.0 and the christian bible v2.0.

On the chronologies of the writings. Paul apparently wrote between 45 and 60 AD at the latest. His last letter was to the Romans indicating he was increasingly focused on the West abandoning the East. Most scholars thing his last letter was written in late 55 or early 56CE, before his final trip to Jerusalem. This would be about the time Q was written, between 50 and 65CE which would have relied partially on a Hebrew gospel or possibly some scattered sayings, like Tomas. Everything in the Roman Empire takes a half a year to commute, so something can exist months to years in the East or Egypt and still not be apparent in Corinth.

Regarding the issue of Paul existing: there mostly existed a guy spreading Christian ideas that used this nickname. In particular, gnostics say he (Paul) was their teacher. However: his biography is unknown, what is there is the NT is most certainly not reliable. He didn't have much importance other than to his few followers. It is also possible that he didn't write anything, after all, several letters have been written by other people in his name and ended up in the NT!

Whether or not he existed, Paul preached obedience to Rome

🤔 Was there an Apostle Paul or not? If there wasn’t, someone wrote these so-called epistles with an intent. If there was, Paul risked his career, his reputation, literally his head - if it is true that he was finally decapitated after being imprisoned, all for the name of Yeshua the Messiah. Why would someone let go of fortune, fame, power, respect, good living conditions, a position among the “high status” Pharisees, in order to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Paul went on to live door to door, working a job making tents ⛺️, basically on the run, persecuted, despised, stoned, beaten, whipped, shackled and chained, shipwrecked, to the point of starvation. If the Apostle Paul didn’t believe in what he was doing, he should’ve just kept on hunting down Christians or he should’ve just stayed at home and walked away from the call of Jesus.

I think Paul was mimicking earlier messianic Jews who claimed they were witness to visions of 'Jesus the arisen', the Septuagint form of 'Joshua the branch' in Zechariah. Paul's version of this Jesus was as radically different from the earlier Jewish form as the Roman Mithras was from the Persian Mithra.

I have heard that somewhere in Talmud is mentioned that christianism was a jewish-made religion for the nations not to become Jews. At this time in Roman Empire Judaism was rapidly expanding and gaining converts in every corner of the empire. So rabbis feared that Judaism will stop to be God's chosen people's faith but another faith of nations. So they invented Christianism just to put the ethic of Torah but to keep nations in a distance from HaShem.

There is no mention in Paul of the gospels but is there any mention of Paul in the other three gospels? Not that I think Paul wrote much later, I'm just looking at the logic in terms of what predates what. On the other hand, there could have been a Paul who created a new religion by writing a series of sham letters that were never sent to anyone.

So here are some problems. First Mark first appears. We have evidence that there were written sources from the East that were not written by Paul, they were written in response to Paul. One is Q, or the Logoi of Jesus, the second is the Hebrew Gospel, the sayings of Yohanan the Immerser and Yeshua form an Jacov the Just point of view. The book of Mark seems to be written in response to these and the Jewish Roman War.

The Vespasians via Josephus, built on Paul's early writtings, wrote his later work along with the gospels. 21:50 the "reason" was to difuse the Jewish messiah cult.

Well, somebody wrote these 7 "authentic" letters. The most interesting questions is: when the Pauline epistles were written? Probably in the 50's CE, but there are no clear historical references in them. It is possible that they were written in the 1st century BCE. Another giveaway of fictional (or repurposed) narratives is when somebody is known by more than 1 name: Paul is Saul, who met Peter, or Simon Peter, or Cephas... really? Bart Ehrman thinks Cephas was not Peter.

Too many holes in this argument so far. Paul was probably Marcion with the help of Josephus anyway.

Paul, Josephus, James, John, Thomas, Sinon Peter, Mary, Miriam all family members of the royal household blatantly.

If Jesus did walk on water, most likely only a few, not hundreds or thousands would have seen it happen. If Jesus did other miracles maybe a few dozen people saw it happen, not thousands, and most were not able to write, and of the few who could write, it's likely they didn't have an audience to share their writing.

I’d like to challenge Dr. Skrbina to a debate on this issue. I would absolutely love to make a mockery of such asinine “academia” as this. Would you per chance host if such a thing we’re proposed, Derek? Idk if you read comments or not.

I remember being told not to be a Pauline believer, so the JW's thought he was a real person. I will get your book after I read Carrier's book on Jesus from outer space. But if he was real, he sure traveled a lot after being converted on the road to kill more Jews. I used to hate reading the book people revere, but now I find it fascinating. Also being a cult member we were told not to read anything but their material, now that I am not I devour everything! And after finding this channel, I never miss an episode!!! Thank you both, and wow the Unibomber huh, I may have to go see that too.

We know "Paul" was more than one writer, that's why we say 7 "authentic" letters of "Paul". And even then, we have to bare in mind that these 7 "letters" that we actually have were not composed as single letters, but are stitched together from at least a few different sources (judging by the different endings etc.). Don't get me wrong, someone wrote the letters. I just don't think you can call out "Paul mysticists" as easily as maybe suggested here. The letters we have are already, in a sense, very much "forgeries".

Did the Apostle Paul Exist??????? who invent paul,,,,and why did paul invent jesus

I don't think "most people existed, never being written about" has anything to do with anything. It seems intuitive, and true, but it doesn't tell us anything about history which is written. In a few hundred years that will change to 'most people who have ever existed have a profile online since the 21st century'. That doesn't really tell us anything about history either except that particular fact, and that each profile is history. Neither of these facts tell us which person written about is a real person. I don't know about Paul. Literally I know very little about Paul.

If I was an investigator I would first research the name Saul before I research the name Paul. Why is the name Saul being pushed to the side. If there is no clear information on Saul then there is no information about Paul

There is an ancient jewish "legend" about how after the death of jesus, one of the rabbies posed as an jesus apostle to seperate the christian cult from judaism.

MANY ARE CALLED, FEW ARE CHOSEN, MANY ARE BURNED AND FEW MEN LEFT IF THAT TELLS YOU ANYTHING.

where does the Aquarian Gospel come from Akashic records ????

Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala said: "So woe to those who write the scripture with their own hands, then say, This is from Allah, in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn." (QS. Al-Baqara: Verse 79)

I don't think Paul had to be engaged in a scam. People were inventing religions all over the region at that time without intent to deceive. Paul may very well have been the originator of Christianity, but he seems to have believed what he taught.

Probably this guy never heard Marcion wrote Paul's letter theory. Gospels cannot write directly after the temple destruction in 73 A.D. It takes decades to gather by persuade jews to make sect and need time to write the gospel to sects able to hear. At least take 30 years. So whole gospel dating has to shift to early second century at least. Probably they had their own gospels not same as gospels we had. Then in few years, Marcion introduced in the history and he wrote the gospel and paul's epistle with his own version. There is no chance Paul could appear 50-66 A.D. cause Early Christianity from James leadership did not exist at the time. Every events happens later 73 A.D. and beyond. The funny thing is Iraneus and Tertullian criticized Marcion but had no idea their belief theology mastermind comes from Marcion's Paul.

There seems to always be some modern skeptic that takes the need for evidence too far. In searching through historical writings that are closer to the life of Paul that are Pro Christian, Anti-Christian, Pro Paul, Hated Paul, thought he was crazy, etc etc. Not ONCE does even a sliver or vague thought that this guy Paul didn't exist is COMPLETELY nonexistence. Whatever nut that suggests that Paul OR Jesus never existed should immediately and wholeheartedly be discounted as a scholar. You can still disagree with this Paul/Saul character, you just can't say he never lived. Idiots! Great interview.

Gospels target religious Jews with most vial accusations one could think of and to suggest that Jews had anything to do with it borders on insanity. Greek language associated with Antiochus Epiphanes who defiled the Jewish temple was something that no Jew would even contemplate to acknowledge or to write using it. Furthermore no Jew would write pure idolatry starring Greek demigods. I agree with Dr. Skrbina and others who question new testament narrative. We must acknowledge that evil and vial doctrines of new testament was the ideological source of all against the Jews throughout history and caused millions of lives lost. Let's give a credit to Rome for their state religion and let them assume full responsibility for crimes committed against the Jews throughout history.

I think the question is irrelevant. What I think is remarkable is that the name Paul is spelled as Παύλῳ, Παῦλος, Παῦλον and Παύλου. that's gotta mean something 😉...

Did the Apostle Paul exist? No, I really don't think so. If he actually did exist, then he was one hell of a con man! He took a fledgling religion, and molded it into his own image! Apart from the first four books of the New Testament, the rest of it can be best described as 'The Books Of Paul'! Or. 'The Book of Paul'.

EXIST is such a low threshold

"But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes." (Paul)

The is no extrabiblical evidence Paul existed

How can u say Paul is anti Roman when he’s going around with clement who is a Flavian and a consul????

To me the Mythicist argument is being used in the wrong way, when it gets caught up with 'whether or not someone existed.' It's kind of suspicious, actually, that a number of those authors get ensnared into such over-the-top claims which have zero to do with their overall thesis. Other more important, simple questions are- 'Assuming they existed, can you really assume they are how they are portrayed, or portraying events, given what you have?' Or 'If you know so little about said person and their assumed circumstances, how can you assume to know so much about plagiarism or forgery, or vice versa?' Or, lastly, 'Given the scant resources, lack of education, and mystical/religious attributes often associated with writing, what could possibly be interpreted as a kind of allegory, incantation, or lingo, given the cultural lexicon and its relationship to mathematics, myth, & astrology?' Those who argue for Mythicism keep making the mistake of making an Either/Or, absolute argument for the last bit, when artifice, plagiarism, documentary, and allegory all could very well be written about a person who existed.

Okay , there was no Superman or Spiderman but there must have been guys , you know the kind of guys that did this things , like in the comic books !😮

Paul could have made up the Jesus character because there really was one, except all that we learn from Paul is the supernatural stuff which can be based on a totally imaginary guy. True, Jesus could have been a real preacher killed by the Romans, but Paul doesn't mention anything that Jesus supposedly preached. But this historical guy could have been someone living in a different region, or a different era, or a composite of several characters. There was the Teacher of Righteousness in the Dead Sea Scrolls who was too early to be biblical Jesus, but Paul could have updated the legend. The entire NT is all historical wisp with nothing solid to anchor anything.

i would like to hear someone discuss the Roman Office of Pontificus Maximus, basically the Secretary of Religion in the empire, being basically the "Priest" in a Priest/ King set up. In my No Evidence Opinion, IF there was a Paul, he seems to have sent working under the PM , and someone was sent out to be a "Saul Paul clamiant" sent out to create a "Messianc movement" For the would be "Unknown God", .

It’s just as likely that Paul made up jesus out of whole cloth. No significant reason to believe Paul used a real person as his muse. Paul may have just taken the idea of the Jewish itinerant preacher/prophet, of which there were many, and just picked the common name Jesus. Saying there was a historical Jesus is just a guess, nothing to substantiate that.

The only reason peoole debate Paul's existence is because Paul is the best evidence for the historicity of Jesus himself. So if you want to undermine Jesus then you have to undermine Paul.

Josephus and Paul sure are similar Josephus was hired by the Roman's to write the story and synchronize everything