I began with the assumption that Paul was valid and the real deal….
Originally Posted by Hastings
After I read from other sources that there was quite a controversy over Paul in the early church (prior to his trip to Rome) and read the history of Christianity being spread by terror and force (the catholics and even the Calvinists, Lutherans, etc) I began to wonder. So no, I didn't come in thinking Paul was a fraud.
Nobody said you ‘came in’ thinking Paul was a fraud. But by your own words above, you clearly were later influenced by these “other sources” and ‘then’ you began to doubt Paul’s validity. It certainly appears that you’d already decided that Paul was a fraud ‘before’ you arrived at the specific conclusions that you’ve drawn about Paul in regards to Revelation 2 and 2nd Timothy that you described earlier.
