As I said. You are weakening your claim to the point you hope to sneak it in. Instead of looking at the evidence we have and drawing conclusions.

I already provided irrefutable proof that my claim stayed constant. That claim is precisely that claim because that's precisely what we have evidence for, and what's thus also accepted by historians. Not bible scholars, historians.

Yes. It is philosophy not science.

Fair point. Yet it is a philosophical stance which has pushed many a scientific advancement. The papers people publish don't generally start out with "To prove materialism, we provide the following nugget", but implicitly it's usually there. Of course there's also religious scientists but those are generally the "god in quantum uncertainty" or something kind of people, pushing the supernatural to beyond what can be measured... that is, they're, for all intents and purposes, materialists when it comes to their area of study. Like that Big Bang guy, random example.

I see. So how do you determine what he got right? Was he wrong about the Eucharist, the betrayal, having 12 apostles, visiting James, the crucification?

Eucharist by Eris IDGAF about any of that religious mumbo-jumbo. Why do you even assume that I would have an iota of interest. We can talk about things like withholding assent to non-kataleptic impressions if you want but I really, really, couldn't give less of a shit about Paul's opinion on pretty much anything. If you want to accost me with Christian theology at least have the decency to choose Meister Eckhart.