Being agnostic in regards to the historicity of St. Paul is justifiable.

From the rules that Con accepted: "Round 2 is for opening case only, no rebuttals." This was in the rules that Con accepted, yet he violated them. This is completely unacceptable in a debate. "Pro gave no link to his source for his quote from Britannica, but since he trusts Britannica as a source, let it be known that in the link I am providing, you"ll see that the Encyclopedia Britannica says that Paul was indeed a historical person, and admits he wrote at least 7 books of the NT." Someone can agree with one section of something while disagreeing with another section of it. "To conclude that even both Acts and the Epistles are unreliable in how they portray Paul is no indication of his non-existence. Most historians don"t accept the miracle stories in the Gospels concerning Jesus. Most of them believe the four Gospel are embellished with legend and contain contradictions about his life, yet, they agree he existed." Completely irrelevant. I also argued that because of the MAJOR contradiction between Acts and the Epistles (not just minor ones) that at least one of them (not necessarily both, but possibly both) is unreliable in the portrayal of Paul. Furthermore, Con says that it does not indicate non-existence. 1) If there does not exist reliable sources to establish if someone existed then it lessens the chances that they existed. 2) My BoP is ONLY to show that one can be justified with a position of uncertainty in regards to the historicty of Paul, not to show that Paul was indeed a mythical character. "Pro says "Acts would probably be written in the mid to late 2nd century." But there are good reasons to think Acts was written before 70 C.E. "A.D. 70. No mention of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (Luke 21:20)." One has to remember that the author of Luke also wrote the Acts, that they were both written to the same person, and that Acts was written in the form of a biography of Paul (not of Jesus). Furthermore, the source that he is using for this comes from an extremely biased website. Furthermore, the arguments on the website do not even agree with the modern consensus (which dates Acts to either the 80's or 90's). Furthermore, his own source says that Acts came after Luke. This means that any argument that dates Luke at a later date also dates Acts at a later date. Further evidence that Luke-Acts is a late composition is: 1) It makes reference to the Olivite Discourse in Luke 21 (meaning it has to come after 70CE). 2) It appears to be using Josephus' War of the Jews as a source (meaning it would have to come after 93CE). 3) Marcion has priority over it via the principal of accretion (meaning that it would have to come during or after the mid-second century). 4) Prominent church figures are silent about the existence of Luke-Acts until the late second century (meaning it was probably not compiled until the mid-to-late second century). To say that Acts came before 70CE means that you have to explain, in a parsimonious way: 1) How it references the Olivite Discourse? 2) Why it appears to have used Josephus as a source? 3) Why it violates the principal of accretion with Marcion? 4) Why prominent church figures were silent about it? All that has to be said (about my opponent's objections) when positing a later date is: Acts was written as a biography of Paul and the events during the life of Paul. "As for the so-called contradictions he didn"t list, they don"t exit" And his only justification for this is an apologetics website? Sorry, but that is not even close to being convincing. Paul in Acts speaks positively about Jewish Law (examples: 25:8 and 28:17), the Paul from the epistles appears to disregard it on many occasions. Acts indicates Paul is an apostle, but the epistles never do so. "As for "On the Historicity of Jesus" by Richard Carrier, Carrier agrees with me that Paul existed. So Pro"s own source disagrees with him" I also agree with Newton's Laws of Motion. Does that mean I have to agree with Newton about alchemy and a hidden Bible Code? No. One can accept some of what someone says without accepting all of what they have to say. "Pro, you cannot assume an epistle is not authentic just because you have others that are not." Those arguments were only about the prior probability. "Furthermore, Pro"s argument is one from authority. He gives no proof for the 6-7 letters being forgeries, just a mere claim that this is generally accepted by scholars" Did you read the section on Justin which leads to the conclusion he was silent because he knew the were forgeries? How about the part where I also pointed out that if it holds true for Justin that it would hold true for Aristides? "But the same scholars generally accept that Paul wrote the other letters, thus he existed. So why should I accept what scholars say in one instance but not the other? Just shows Pro"s bias." Ad hom. Also, Detering (who I also used for a few of my arguments) is a Paul mythicist. "Clement of Rome" Are you going to refute my arguments for a late composition of 1 Clement? "Polycarp" The accuracy of which in contingent upon the Ignatian Corpus, which I already presented arguments for a late composition of. "The Shepherd of Hermas" In what way is this evidence? "Didache" Again, how is this evidence? You need to explain the claim instead of asserting that the document is evidence. "Irenaeus" Interesting thing about Irenaeus though. In his book Against Heresies he argues that Jesus could be executed no earlier than 49 CE. "The Thirty aeons are not typified by the fact that Christ was baptized in his 30th year: He did NOT suffer in the twelfth month after his baptism, but was more than fifty years old when he died." "From the 40th and 50th year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, affirming that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan." Considering how Paul was supposedly teaching around then, a while AFTER the supposed death of Jesus, this shows something about Irenaeus: 1) The mentions of Paul were later interpolations. 2) Irenaeus' mentions of an old Jesus were later interpolations. 3) Irenaeus was unaware of when Paul was supposed to have been preaching OR knew Paul was not preaching at that time. There is little textual evidence for the first 2, so the 3rd explanation follows. From there, how can we say that Irenaeus is a reliable source for the historicity of Paul? "Justin Martyr" I already addressed this in my opening round. "Clement of Alexandria" AGAIN, how is this evidence? "Tertullian" AGAIN, HOW IS THIS EVIDENCE? "Origen" This document, and all the others you have listed afterwards, came about at a time too late to be an independent and reliable source. The authors would not have been eye-witnesses nor had access to eye-witnesses. They would only have access to extreme hearsay, rumours, or previous documents (either that we have or that are lost, if lost we can not be sure how accurately they recorded the information). "Paul identifies himself as the author in 1 Corinthians 1:1; 16:21" Yes, and if it was forged it would also be written as if the author was Paul. "Paul refers to himself within the epistle" Same as above. "First and second-century testimony is unanimous in attributing these letters to him." I already argued against any first and early second references to Paul as the author of the epistles (and even to any reliable mention of Paul in the 1st and early 2nd century at all) without Con rebutting them. " for if they had not, there would have been a great deal of speculation as to who had written them - a variation of titles would have inevitably risen" This ASSUMES that they would have just been circulating since their composition no problem. This is not the case as Marcion either forged or rediscovered the Pauline epistles. He could have given them their names easily enough. "How could the early Christian community honor these letters as authoritative unless they knew who had written them?" Mark, Matthew, and many other early documents were anonymous (as it was more common then signed documents) where the church only assumed certain people wrote them (and it is even questionable if these people existed in the first place). This is not an issue. "For an anonymous author to have penned a Gospel, and have it accepted as from the hand of any authoritative person, would have required them to first produce the..." You have only asserted that that would have happened. Sometimes controversy can take other forms (like Justin refusing to acknowledge Paul or the Pauline Epistles despite clear influence of their existence in his own writings). And the consensus (as Richard Carrier and Hermann Detering have pointed out) already is that, at minimum, Marcion "rediscovered" and circulated the Pauline Epistles. If the only mentions of Paul and the Epistles came after Marcion (which I have argued without being rebutted), then it is not too much of a stretch to think Marcion could have invented Paul all together (especially considering other arguments I have brought up). "At the beginning of the second century, there would have been first-generation Christians alive who recalled the apostles and their teaching..." Pure assertion with no evidence to support. "We have early witnesses to the authorship of some of the Gospels" Not according to any consensus we have today, and your evidence is shaky at best. "Richard Carrier says:" I never used the signature argument. Conclusion Not only did Con decide he was above the rules he accepted for this debate by making rebuttals in his 2nd round, he also made comments in a way that attempted to insult my intelligence. He also (mainly) used large quotes instead of his own words, used apologetic sources, and pure assertion.