1. The NT stories about Jesus and Paul are fiction.
Pretty much.
2. The author called Paul claimed he witnessed events that could not have happened.
Did he, though? As I was saying before, that testimony is considered by most scholars to be a later forgery.
Again: you seem to assume that ancient manuscripts can't have been tampered with. That's by FAR not the case.
3. Not a single NT writer mentioned or copied his Epistles - not even the author of Acts who was Paul's supposed close companion.
Was he, though? That the "we" sections in Acts are not written by gLuke is almost consensus at this point. Pretty much the only debate left about them is whether gLuke himself copied those from an earlier source, or someone added a bit of forgery to the manuscript later.
4. Multiple 2nd century Christian writers and even a non-apologetic knew nothing of Paul as an evangelist and nothing of the Epistles and Churches.
And yet he seems to be somehow important enough to try to make him say what one wants to say. That's not someone who was totally unknown.
In fact the whole pattern to ancient forgeries is that instead of calling it "the epistle of Larry", which nobody would have any reason to obey, you'd sign it with a name that they would in fact know and attribute some authority to, like Peter or John or such. That so many forgeries are in the name of Paul would actually indicate that the name was actually known and carried some authority.
Now I'm not saying necessarily that he actually founded this or that church, but he was known. For whatever reason.
5. The Pauline letters are really a compilation of multiple unknown writers.
Which is known to pretty much everyone at this point. Even the RCC at this point doesn't say that all of them are Paul's any more. The ones taken to mean anything are a subset of 7 which were written by the same person.
But basically the fact that there were SOME forgeries in someone's name, doesn't mean that you can just dismiss that person and everything by them entirely. Because such forgeries existed in the name of pretty much anyone who had any authority on any domain. E.g., there were a ton of medical forgeries in the name of Galen, by multiple unknown writers, but that doesn't mean that Galen never existed
6. There is no historical corroboration for Paul and Epistles by non-apologetic writers.
Exactly what would someone who wasn't a Xian even have to say there, and why?
7. Non-apologetic writings were forged to make it appear that Paul was in communication with Seneca who lived in the time of Nero.
That they did. But again, you seem to be operating on a sort of all-or-nothing assumption.
8. 2 Peter, the only NT writing outside Acts of the Apostles [regarded as fiction] which mention Paul only once is a forgery.
Sure, but the NT isn't the whole body of works or anything. It's a curated collection that (A) had to say what the ones compiling it wanted it to say, and (B) fit a preset number of books. As such, it is rather incomplete.
9. The author of Acts appears to have used the writings of Josephus to help to fabricate Paul.
gLuke did use Josephus extensively, and sometimes makes a hash of it too. Which really is why we know that Luke and Acts were written after Josephus. But I'm not sure how you get that Josephus had anything to do with Paul specifically.
10. An apologetic source state the Pauline Epistles were written after the Revelation of John.
Yes, well, the classic and medieval church wanted everything to be written very early. I mean, Eusebius dates Matthew's gospel to 41 AD. IIRC various berks dated Acts to 62 AD or so. And so on.
And they were wrong about the order too. E.g., the early church narrative said that Matthew was the first gospel written, and Mark is after that. We're pretty sure today that they were wrong about that.
So I wouldn't take such claims about who shot first to really mean much.
From that perspective, it matters
