Not really so hard to say the truth of what you know, so not sure why you would fail.
Mostly put there as a bar to judge what is said.
I am a human. Humans undertake nothing of this complexity that is free from error. I at times get my facts mixed up, am ignorant of counter claims from time to time, and misunderstand context on occasion. My goal is perfect, my execution is not.
So you know the truth is that we are guessing at history. Perhaps educated guessing but still guessing. Hopefully from reliable evidence. Granted some guesses can be more persuasive supported by what you accept as evidence.
There is no other option that to make educated guesses at history. That is the what the historical method produces. My claim is that my guesses or conclusions are the best possible.
Everyone likes Jesus, no body likes Paul. (not a true statement)
Jesus sat with and forgave sinners, healed the sick. Championed the meek.
I do not understand the purpose here.
Paul seems homophobic and a misogynist. Understandable that some would want to discredit his letters.
We were discussing authorship not character. I asked if you (as it seemed you were) conceded Paul's authorship but denied the other NT writers. I usually get the exact opposite. I have no idea why Paul's character is on trial.
Thing is that with Paul the author identifies himself. If you're willing to identify yourself maybe gives your statements a little more credibility. Not really but maybe a plus mark with people.
Other authors identified their selves. How is that the test for authorship. The most influential piece of data concerning authorship is that no contenders beyond the tradition authors exist for almost all the NT books. Mathew, Mark, etc... may not be free from any contention but they are by far the most evidenced authors. There are no contemporary claims by anyone else to authorship.
Vs the gospels... Though one can understand why one might not want to identify themselves but since we don't know who they are we can only guess at why they didn't.
I believe one or more of the Gospels did mention authorship. If you find a declaration convincing then why are you not convinced for example by the extensive claims to a careful and extensive examination of all relevant material like eye witnesses, and earlier records.
Too bad Jesus didn't make any. Others made these claims for him. Which really means one is left to judge the truth of the words by the truth they themselves know.
You can't possibly know that and reason is firmly against you. A mute teacher of mankind is about the worst possible conclusion there could be. The most rational conclusion is that he made countless declarations and that they were for the most part faithfully and emphatically recorded and even the holy spirit assisted in the accurate transmission of his message. Not to mention the confirmation of consistency and internal coherence with even people who had taught a thousand years earlier. What other book can boast a consistent narrative over almost 2000 years?
Which is to say you have nothing but the truth of your own word in your corner. You are left with whatever truth you can bring to the table. And of course guessing... When two or more come together of common belief it becomes easier to what we guess at as the truth. Experts of historical guesswork. Not to dismiss it without consideration but this is reality. To accept any of this as truth is not realistic.
1. Not a single word in any core doctrine I hold to is derived from my own words.
2. I in a complete vacuum arrived at the identical conclusion on all basic doctrine as scholars have consistently done for over a thousand years of protestant history. It also has over 90% agreement with all the great Catholic scholars for the past 2000 years.
3. None of it is even based on a single authors words.
4. It is also based on the words of the men who in all of histories years had the greatest access to the facts.
However none of this was the point. The point was you cannot seriously believe you can contend with the most scrutinized book in human history by using your speculative musings about the very issues they and not you were in a position to know the truth of. You might as well have brought a knife to a gun fight with a Abram's tank.
I cannot consider your position because it at least did not come with anything to consider. You did not reference any texts, no reasons why you would know a single thing you claimed, no philosophy, etc.... in short nothing to evaluate.
To accept as a probability perhaps,
The probability that Christianity is true.
The probability that Jesus existed.
The probability that all these other beliefs are wrong.
All guesswork.
Al evidence based reasoning. This is what is called the argument from uncertainty inflation. It involves pointing out or inventing uncertainties with a view and then amplifying what amounts to exactly what is to be expected and is overcome through scrutiny into what cannot be overcome by any method whatever. IOW you equate a lack of complete certainty with the inability to make reliable conclusions in order to justify a false plausible denial. In addition to what I stated there are an additional two terrible problems with doing this. The first is my most resented pet peeve.
1. You employ a criteria to return the desired level of uncertainty that you will immediately abandon for just about any other event or concept you evaluate. You do not throw your hands up at the car dealership because you can't know for certain you are picking the right care and give up. No you resolve the slight uncertainties and make the best conclusion possible. My biggest complaint in debates is the non-theists employment on an industrial scale of double standards. If you cannot determine the historicity of the claims in the most textually attested events in all on ancient history then all of ancient history is unresolvable.
2. The particular conclusion that the gospels are correct in all central claims to events is confirmed by the born again experience. There are hundreds of millions of claims to this confirmation and they are numbers no other religion can even fractionally compete with. Unlike most other claims I can know the truth of what I believed by it's unmistakable spiritual confirmation through an event that cannot be described fully in human language but must be experienced to be understood.
So again what do you have to back up your speculation that can even get in a discussion with just the slight portion of what I have to back up my beliefs?