Your Greek was an attempt to appear a little smart in the hope of garnering a little popularity.

You have based your opinion regarding Paul being circumcised on the Torah Bris milah, 'something old'.

Since you are an avid fan of Paul the pseudo-apostle (not Saul, the author of Hebrews), perhaps you've heard of Dr. James Tabor and would find his blog of passing interest. He discusses “‘All things biblical’ from the Hebrew Bible to Early Christianity” and may be more prepared than I am to spend some time with you.

James is not the source of my information on Saul, Paul or any other scriptural matter.

I disagree with regard to 'the seven genuine letters' which I assign to an imposter. Where James refers to 'Paul's own hand' I agree only that it was probably authored by one man whose arrogance shines through, however, I disagree on the identity of the man.

This is a snippet, "There is almost universal agreement that a proper historical study of Paul should begin with the seven genuine letters, restricting one’s analysis to what is most certainly coming from Paul’s own hand. This approach might sound restrictive but it is really the only proper way to begin. The Deutero-Pauline letters, and the Pastorals reflect a vocabulary, a development of ideas, and a social setting that belong to a later time. We are not getting Paul as he was, but Paul’s name used to lend authority to the ideas of later authors who intend for readers to believe they come from Paul. In modern parlance we call such writings forgeries, but a more polite academic term is pseudonymous, meaning “falsely named."

I'm not going to continue with you as this back-and-forth testy dialogue wherein you defend every corruption of organised religion. This is not 'discussion'.