Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
I note that you have not addressed any of my points directly. Rather, you have indirectly alleged that comparing details about Paul's life to the Historia Augusta is not useful - but you cannot even be bothered to explain why. I presume, though, that you think that the Historia Augusta is fundamentally less plausible (due to exaggerations) than the details that we have about Paul. Which account, if any, is less exaggerated, I think to be debateable (after all, Acts describes mass conversions of thousands of people to Christianity, people fighting demons, and resurrections from the dead; and the Historia Augusta, for all of its other faults, deals with events that are supported by ample coinage and contemporary sources). But I cited the Historia Augusta as evidence that people have long known how to create documents that have been mistaken by later authorities for sober histories when they were in fact propaganda of limited or no value for reconstructing the time that they describe.
You also introduce the claim that what is available about Paul's life is not like that that we have about Adam and Eve - but you cannot even be bothered to explain why. I presume, though, that you mean that Adam and Eve are presented within a primal/mythical timeframe, where Paul is presented within a historical timeframe. I personally have no problem with accepting that Paul was active when Acts claims that he was; however, I am considerably more skeptical about the assumption that Paul did everything that Acts (and the Pauline letters) claim that he did where he did. In this skepticism, I am not comparing Paul to Adam, but rather to Robert Adams, who faked many interactions with Ramana Maharshi and Ramana Maharshi's inner circle, as may be read here: https://selfreflexiveloopphotography.ph ... -of-india/. My primary criticism of your reasoning was not because of your treating Paul as contemporary with Gallio, but rather was of your reasoning for assuming that Act's account of what Gallio did was true because, supposedly, there would be no theological reason to make such claims.