False Paul mutually exclusive with Mark's midrash from Paul ?

[Giuseppe]

The idea that Mark is based on Paul is argued only by people who think that Paul is not a fabrication.

Since the scenario of a falsified Paul implies that:
1) Paul is really a disordered collection of fragments;
2) the fragments reflect different theologies;
3) an author based on fragments reflecting different theologies would be logically inconsistent.

Where is this claim wrong?

[rgprice]

It doesn't matter if Paul was real or not. All that matters is that a letter collection existed. The letter collection existed. It may have been modified many times prior to its use in the creation of the first Gospel. It was certainly modified many times after the creation of the first Gospel.

[Giuseppe]

Usually, the assumption held by the proponents of a (entirely) false Paul is that the letter collection was a kind of "schizophrenic" work insofar it merged a lot of different and rival theologies.

Could the author of the first gospel, on the hypothesis that he based himself on a such Paul, be not aware at all of the irrational character of the entire his own operation (= a midrash on a Paul who really conceals different and contrasting Pauls)?

[Giuseppe]

For example, Adamczewski thinks that the Jesus winning the first disciples is really Paul visiting the first time the Pillars. But the first visit to Jerusalem is absent in the Apostolikon.

Or another example: Adamczewski thinks that the Jesus going into wilderness is really Paul going to Arabia before the visit to Jerusalem. But the voyage to Arabia is an interpolation in Galatians.

[lsayre]

If Paul declared that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, and Mark is dependent upon Paul, then why does Mark have Jesus ascend into this kingdom bodily? I'm not sold on any arguments that someone we call Mark used Paul's letters by which to pen his letter which eventually became a Canonized Gospel.