>>18070745
>I never said anything about canonization
I know but that's when what is contained in the NT actually became formalized. And that is important if you want to claim Paul affirmed all scripture within your NT. However I appealed to the earliest attestation there not even any formal process so this criticism of yours of my argument is not even sound. Another thing that I should have highlighted is that even the OT isn't safe from similar arguments
>In Timothy and Titus, Paul identifies himself in the first verse. If someone rejects the Bible, that implies they are non-Christian. This remains true even if they say otherwise
No true Christian bro? Come on... Also that doesn't prove anything, I too can write a letter and claim to be Paul. But if that's your standard then why when it comes to the gospel you don't require the name of the author being present in the text and instead rely on tradition for that?
>Sure they would
If the HS came down right now and said 2+2=5 would you argue with him about how he is wrong? The only reason you don't see them as contradictions is because of all the mental gymnastics involved and I don't mean this in a disrespectful way. Such as what happened in the example I gave, which wasn't technically a logical contradiction btw but Christian theology in particular loves to impose those anyway
>You allow the basic point that the people you quoted, who are assuming Timothy and Titus are forged, could be biased?
Yes of course, there's no human being on earth without bias. Especially those in the historical field who look at miracles being described like the sea being split for Moses and then due to the method they are operating under they are forced to look for naturalistic explanations like the tide or what have you. You yourself do it for other religions and you don't even recognize it. And for the record I do agree with you about their methodology having flaws, it doesn't mean their third party perspective arguments are wrong though