Today I listened to a debate between J.P. Holding and Ken Humphreys on the existence of Jesus. Humphreys argued that Jesus did not exist, but he did take it for granted that the Apostle Paul was a real historical figure. Holding did a nice job of showing that the same unfounded tactics Humphreys was using to discredit historical evidence for Jesus could be used to discredit the existence of practically any other historical figure, but my question is if Paul existed then did Peter exist? If Peter existed, did the other disciples exist? If the other disciples existed, then who was discipling them if not Jesus? If we agree that Paul existed, then how can we doubt the existence of Peter who was spreading the Gospel at the exact same time and, at least in one instance (Greece), the same place (Galatians 2)? If Peter did not exist, did the people in Galatia think Paul was crazy for suggesting he did? Was Paul speaking of a fictional character? Did Paul write Galatians but this passage was a forgery? Was Galatians itself a forgery? Who made up the existence of the disciples? Paul? Is church tradition completely unreliable (i.e. the martyrdom of the disciples)? To me, the suggestion that Jesus did not exist is beyond absurd.