Have you considered analyzing Paul's words and flow and culture without supplying your own assertions that do not come from those sources? It looks like you're asserting one thing without supplying evidence and then shifting the burden of proof for your claim onto someone else who declines to believe it.
Have you considered analyzing Paul's words and flow and culture without supplying your own assertions that do not come from those sources? It looks like you're asserting one thing without supplying evidence and then shifting the burden of proof for your claim onto someone else who declines to believe it.
Read it.
I'm not sure anyone has come up with something stupider, ever.