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

"My sincere apologies for giving rebuttals in round 2. I was so excited but also pressed for time that I truly forgot to save it for the next round."Sorry if I do not necessarily sound convinced, especially when doing what you did gave you an advantage in this debate (forcing me to spend more time defending my Round 1 positive arguments and rebutting your arguments that I do not have the room to expand on my own arguments outside of within rebuttals)."he argued that the Marcionites made the epistles themselves and attributed them to Paul, but putting Paul"s name on them is pointless unless people already know who he is."The name "Paul" can easily be considered symbolic, thus making it useful in other ways then just identifying an author.Paul's name in Latin is synonymous with "more little" (Paulus means littleboy). This can easily hold a symbolic purpose of humility (which is prevalent in the epistles and some other early Christian documents)."Let me ask Pro these questions: when 1st and 2nd Corinthians were first written, to whom did these letters go?"Who says they had to go anywhere? Marcion is known for "rediscovering" the epistles. If Marcion forged them he would have no reason to send them."Marcionism was heavily rejected by the early church of the 2nd century, so why would they trust a gospel produced by them anyway? And why forge letters in Paul"s name unless people recognized his authority? And what proof did Pro give that there was a legend of a fictional Paul before his letters were written?"But if he "rediscovered" them then there would be greater reason to use them. It is already accepted by modern historians that Marcion "rediscovered" the epistles and is the one to spread them. And, again, the name "Paul" can be symbolic. Last, I said that it could be based on a previous legend or not (I didn't say for sure either way, I left it as a possibility)."As for the Marcionites inventing Paul"s letters, Marcion himself quoted from them"How does that prove anything? If he forged them as if they were not his own, then why not quote from them?"The letters of Paul fully accept the OT and its God as the truth"Yet Paul in the epistles disregards the OT Law countless times and points out that the OT Law is not nearly as important as you are making it seem like he said (Romans 2:25-29, Romans 8:1-4, 1 Corinthians 9:19-21, Galatians 2:15-16, Ephesians 2:15)."but not prevalent doesn"t mean they didn"t exist and would not be mentioned."But it does mean that it is more parsimonious that it would be written when they were prevalent."Conflict between the priests and the common people. It happens today, it used to happen back then"Not really with 1st century Christians."The doctrines that came together to form Gnosticism were already floating around in Greek philosophy and other sources that affected the first-century church. Also, other groups besides Gnostics rejected the resurrection."But why would we expect a CHRISTIAN source to address this when Gnosticism was not around? The resurrection was not the only part I was referring to."It depicts Paul and Peter as being side by side peacefully. So what?"It was uncommon to do so until the 2nd century."is at the end of the reign of Domitian, or c. AD 96, by taking the phrase"You are presupposing a date to determine the persecution."Christians were also persecuted by Jews in the first century CE."And early documents were specific on those persecutions as well."Pro thinks someone wrote in Ignatius" name after he died, which he says was common place, so why does he not think someone wrote in Paul"s name after he died? Why write in the name of someone who doesn"t exist?"Is it a possibility? Yes. Do I think it is likely? No. We have a lot more evidence for Ignatius then for Paul. I am also contesting that there were any letters written by Paul (not the same with Ignatius). And there are many reasons why people have written in the name of fictional characters throughout history."So Revelation doesn"t mention Paul by name"Or show indication of knowledge of Pauline theology."And Pro seems to assume there is no God who could have given John this revelation, otherwise, he"d have to know John can only write what God tells him to"The study of history includes using the principle of uniformity of nature. There are MANY reasons why credible historians don't use "god inspired" as an argument for anything."Pro accused me of using biased sources, but Detering is very biased"Apologetics- Assume God X is true, do anything to affirm it.Detering's flaw- Gives a little too much credit to arguments from silence and occasionally sources outdated scholarship.Not equal. Also, Tu quoque."So Justin Martyr doesn"t mention Paul, why then doesn"t he mention the name of the real author?"Instead of just bringing up arguments which can only be answered via speculation, how about addressing the analysis I gave."but doesn't see one can agree to Paul's existence from Ignatius' writings while not agreeing with some elements in his accounts? "My arguments against the writings of Ignatius were to date it to a later date, not to (necessarily) discredit them directly."I would like at least one quote from Acts and one from Paul to back up his claim. So far all we have is his claim, no proof."Positive view of Jewish Law:Acts 25:8 and 28:17Negative view of Jewish Law:Romans 2:25-29, Romans 8:1-4, 1 Corinthians 9:19-21, Galatians 2:15-16, Ephesians 2:15"which is why Pro needs to give examples to show that Acts and Paul's letters are not reliable."I already argued that Acts is a late 2nd century writing, making it outside the range of reliable information.I also already argued that the Pauline Epistles could easily be Marcion forgeries."Why would Luke present a standing temple in letters to Theopholis knowing the Temple was in ruins?"Again, how would YOU explain the 4 issues with an early date I listed? Even if the explanation I provided seems unlikely it is still more parsimonious then what you have provided so far."but his own arguments, and Detering whom he quotes, don't agree with the consensus of modern scholarship that Paul existed."I was pointing that out because if I have an enormous BoP for not necessarily following the consensus, then you would also have that if you are arguing for that early of a composition."Referencing the Olivet discourse only shows Luke was using a common source, or that the same discourse was floating around."It means that it has to be written AFTER the discourse."Pro simply assumes Jesus couldn't have prophesied Jerusalem's fall before 70 CE, but that assumes God doesn't exist and gives revelation, with is outside the scope of this debate."1) Principal of uniformity of nature.2) Extremely low prior probability for a god.3) Extremely low prior probability for any "god inspired" texts."Pro doesn't give any proof that Luke uses Josephus as a source"Article by Richard Carrier on the subject supporting that Luke used Josephus:http://infidels.org..."and there's a whole list of people not mentioned in ancient works even though they existed. So his argument from silence fails."But we would EXPECT to find references to Paul where there are none.Not all arguments from silence are equal, but the ones in this case are very compelling.ConclusionAll Con has managed to do is show that there are a few decent arguments for historicity. He has not confirmed that Paul existed as a historical figure and his rebuttals all seem to be that I have not affirmed that Paul was mythical (which was not what my BoP was to do).I have successfully shown that the case for a historical Paul is not as strong as most people believe. I feel as if I have given sufficient reasons to believe that the Pauline Epistles could have been forged by Marcion or his followers, that Acts is not a reliable source, and that sources that mention Paul came from the 2nd century and are not necessarily reliable.Therefore, I believe that I have sufficiently shown that one can be justified in holding the position of agnosticism in regards to the historicity of St. Paul.