" 

 == Recent edits == 

 I added the clause ""and the chronology of the Easter events in all 4 gospels"" to the frequently cited apparent conflicts list. This was removed and replaced with Moreover, since many Christian denominations hold the Bible to be the literal and inspired word of God, any form of contradiction is likely to cast doubt on this conception, and simultaneously render dubious any attempt to use it as a primary source for historical enquiry. I think this is terrible. First of all, this little rant seems off topic for this article. Second of all, inerrants are not ""many"". Next, this claim isn't even cited, so it isn't verifiable. Finally, it is wrong. Regardless what a minority of religious extremists believe about a text, it doesn't change that it IS a historical text, and that historian DO examine it, using historical methods, in addition to examining external evidence, contemporary texts, archaelogy, etc. to reconstruct probable histories. Maybe I am reading this sentence wrong, but it sounds like because someone believes the text is perfect and inspired by god, but actually it contains contradiction, it is therefore useless as a historical document? That logic doesn't follow, and it contradicts every university level historian and biblical scholar that I have read. 

 Next, Galatian is one of the undisputed epistles see Authorship of the Pauline epistles. Maybe the title is a little misleading, but when the VAST majority of a diverse body of scholars agree that 7 letters are ""authentic"" or ""undisputed"" we can not change what our cited sources say just because we can find some nuts on the internet that will dispute anything. 

 Next, why was Having a ""brother"" and ""apostles"" who are arguing with Paul over what Jesus' real intentions were during his life is impossible if he never existed.  deleted? Maybe we change ""impossible"" to ""improbable"" or ""unlikely""? But keep the sentence in. 

 Finally, there is already a section in this article for the mythists position. it is giving undue weight to a minority view to have rebuttle sections from this minority view in the pauline epistle section. Also, I personally am not fond of long quotes. It seems much less encyclopedic than a brief summary of a position. 

 It seems that you are pushing the mythist POV. Just keep in mind the NPOV policy. An article like this cannot give undue weight to such a small view. Your efforts might be better met at improving the actual article on this position Jesus as myth. If it upsets you that the majority view (which you believe is biased) gets the most space here, then your anger should  be directed at wikipedia policy, not this article in specific.  "