Absolute gigachad take

They literally weren't.

Nobody knows if the apostles were even fucking real, how gullible are you? We have no written accounts from any of them. Why are you people always like this?

Paul met and wrote about several of them.

What the fuck are you talking about? He directly mentions debating with peter and james etc. The issue over circumcision involved several of the actual apostles. Paul didn’t live in the 3rd century

>Seven letters (with consensus dates)[6] considered genuine by most scholars:

>Galatians (c. 48 AD)
Seven letters (with consensus dates)[6] considered genuine by most scholars:

Galatians (c. 48 AD)
First Thessalonians (c. 49–51)
First Corinthians (c. 53–54)
Second Corinthians (c. 55–56)
Romans (c. 55–57)
Philippians (c. 57–59 or c. 62)
Philemon (c. 57–59 or c. 62) First Thessalonians (c. 49–51)
First Corinthians (c. 53–54)
Second Corinthians (c. 55–56)
Romans (c. 55–57)
Philippians (c. 57–59 or c. 62)
Philemon (c. 57–59 or c. 62)

That historians accept the dates of those letters and their authenticity

>the retards who think an entire universe was molded exactly for them
>calling you solipsist and autistic

Yes they do, deliberately insulting sectarian tart atheist bullshit like your only works if you ignore the existence of the Vatican, where St. Peter is buried ,go tip you infantile fedora somewhere else

>fucking christcucks don't know how dates and times work

>The main source of information on Paul's life and works is the Acts of the Apostles book in the New Testament, with approximately half of its content documenting them.
>Fourteen of the 27 books in the New Testament have traditionally been attributed to Paul.[19] Seven of the Pauline epistles are undisputed by scholars as being authentic, with varying degrees of argument about the remainder. Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews is not asserted in the Epistle itself and was already doubted in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.[note 2] It was almost unquestioningly accepted from the 5th to the 16th centuries that Paul was the author of Hebrews,[21] but that view is now almost universally rejected by scholars.[21][22] The other six are believed by some scholars to have come from followers writing in his name, using material from Paul's surviving letters and letters written by him that no longer survive.[9][8][note 3] Other scholars argue that the idea of a pseudonymous author for the disputed epistles raises many problems
>The main source for information about Paul's life is the material found in his epistles and in the Acts of the Apostles.[41] However, the epistles contain little information about Paul's pre-conversion past. The Acts of the Apostles recounts more information but leaves several parts of Paul's life out of its narrative, such as his probable but undocumented execution in Rome.[42] The Acts of the Apostles also contradict Paul's epistles on multiple accounts, in particular concerning the frequency of Paul's visits to the church in Jerusalem.
None of your fucking letters were written by the dude and you can't prove they were. You are always so angry when this gets correctly brought up, seethe more you fucking cuck homosexual.

>heavily disputed if most of the letters are even his
>he still was almost a century after Christ
Did Paul have a time machine, anon?

You keep asserting that. But you are referring to a letter attributed to a dude that allegedly was around, based on a letter written almost 2 decades after Christ's death, cataloged by a scholar over a century after Paul died. I never know why you people have this complex cope, just admit you don't have the evidence you want, it's all faith based anyway. Not like you need it.

It's proof that a guy was an early Christian and that he wrote a few letters about it, sure?

Go back to India where being an illiterate mannerless savage is an accepted profession

>retard who doesn’t know this is how 99% of ancient history works
you also mean 40 years, not 100

I guess spartacus didn’t exist? What evidence do you have except later accounts? The vast majority of ancient history is written centuries after the events being described.

It is actually true though. It’s not a dodge to point out your criteria about the NT excludes swathes of ancient history.

That type of evidence is far from the norm, and secondly the temple where israelites kept all their documentation was fucking burned down by Romans

They knew because when they found out it was the Dom and Romani peoples who were among the first and second waves of migration into the roman empire were the only blavksmithing guild making the nails during the period lol, dude this is basic did you not finish general education? Did you think you only needed to know what your libshit programers decide to produce for you?

>seetheing orc glow tears
Deluchious

>ah you see, the insult you gave me is actually really based because something something cope cope cope