You seem confused about arguments and assumptions. Arguments are based on data but speculation is based on assumptions.neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:29 pm Assumption is not conviction or fact. What I mean is that I assume for the sake of argument. I don't know if there was an historical Paul who wrote the genuine letters etc. But the case is defensible if not definitive.
I am quite prepared to likewise consider arguments that assume there was no historical Paul and I do that too, sometimes.
I am not arguing that there a first century Paul who was a historical person. I merely assume that for the sake of argument in certain contexts. That's all.
Your admittance that you don't know if there was an historical Paul who wrote genuine letters, that you merely assume for argument sake and the fact that there is no corroborative historical evidence for Paul makes the case indefensible.
Not one single Gospel or Epistle writer was influenced by the Pauline teachings of salvation by the resurrection.
Paul's conversion was manufactured and the attempt to place him in the time of Seneca has been shown to be forgeries.
Origen in "Against Celsus" supposedly written in the 3rd century admitted that Celsus wrote nothing about Paul in "True Discourse" c 170 CE.
Up to c 362 CE there was no known historical reference to a person called Paul in any known contemporary writings of the 1st century.
Early Paul is indefensible if you merely assume there was an early Paul for argument sake.