Well, scholars don't dispute that some distinct person we can call the historical Paul wrote six or seven letters to proto-Christian communities before the gospels were penned. For many reasons, he clearly must have been an historical person.

His uncontested writings can shed a lot of light on the earliest history of Christianity.

So, really, can the idea that several anonymous forgers disputed some of Paul's writing by pretending to be Paul.

That's interesting today because progressive Christians are re-examining and reconstructing their religion in the light of modern scholarship, as they reject sexism, homophobia, etc.

What's also interesting is that almost every graduate of a seminary (that isn't firmly entrenched in the fundamentalist Protestant Christian world) is fully aware that the historical Paul could not have written several of the letters attributed to him. Meaning, they are fully aware that several books that made it into the New Testament are intentional forgeries.

This is highly significant to the Christian faith, because it rather smashes the notion that the New Testament canon was somehow inspired by a supernatural force and is without error.

Clearly, if somebody lies about being Paul and writes a letter that gets accepted as being by Paul, then a very serious, intractable problem exists in the traditional theology and history of Christianity.