I suppose one would assert that Paul is making them up out of whole cloth. Which, honestly, doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
I stated clearly in my previous posts that Paul
never mentions a historical Jesus, but only a crucified and resurrected savior. Now, unless you're asserting as
historical fact Paul's assertion of the divinity of Jesus, a reasonable conclusion to draw is that
the Christian concept of Jesus as the messiah was invented out of whole cloth by Paul. And I further stated that any claim to the historicity of Jesus or assertion that the supernatural events depicted in the Bible are
historical fact must be proven using evidence.
If they're all made up by the same guy, why are they all written so different? Hell, why don't they agree with each other more, or with Paul for that mattter?
You're confusing two different arguments, (1) that Paul's preaching of the crucified and resurrected savior was wholly fictitious, with (2) that Paul wrote the Gospels/New Testament. At no point in my original post did I ever assert or claim that any one person (let alone Paul) wrote the Gospels/New Testament. On the contrary, I stated clearly, and more than once, in two different posts, that the Gospels have been heavily rewritten, edited and altered over many generations (the assumption being that this was done by
many persons), which would account for the fact that the Gospels don't agree with each other.
I recommend you read
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (published in 2005) by Bart E. Ehrman, a New Testament scholar from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
It smacks of conspiracy theory.
Sigh. You'd save us both a lot of effort if you could just
carefully read what I post.