As a newly minted "member" herein, I will keep my comments as concise and pointed as is possible. Towards that end, I freely admit that I am myself, a Christian...I am also an educated man working in a technological field with no small amount of "life experience" which challenges, shapes and defines what I believe. Additonally, I have never been able to approach my beliefs from a "hear no evil...see no evil" standpoint; if something can be proved false...it is illogical to cling to the falsehood.

However, as this article points out...there is little definitive anyone can say regarding the events of two, let alone five to ten millennia ago. Much of the Old Testament can be found in both the inclusive texts of Orthodox Jewish practice as well as Islam...the New Testament has been translated so many times since the time of the purported writers, it is impossible to determine when or by whom the original versions were first laid down on paper.

Any serious person of faith will tell you that essential to the belief that there is actually a divine power shaping the world, is the notion that Power has imparted certain truths through special people. Perhaps the Apostles...maybe even a few of the more sincere members of the clergy...often via the common theologian. Whatever the means, it is obvious that just as modern historians comment on events lived and experienced by others, scribes of the time commented upon the much touted leaders of the First Century Christian faith.

Still, many of these later books feature addresses by the writer...most notably Paul. It is not impractical to imagine an educated and powerful man such as Paul may have drafted or at least dictated the substance of these "letters"...is it really so hard to imagine a popular movement activist such as Peter (who may not have been literate) doing the same?

As with any "evidence", there is far more speculation than fact to review as pertains to the origin of the world's leading sacred texts...one might as well attempt to validate the authorship of this "blog" in two thousand years. My humble assertion is that while those of us follwing "faith" choose to believe something we cannot prove...those who do not agree seem engaged in "proving" the basis of that faith does not exist.

"...is it really so hard to imagine a popular movement activist such as Peter (who may not have been literate) doing the same?"

No. The christian religion does exist, afterall.
But it is EXTREMELY hard to believe that a popular movement two thousand years ago has any reality to it. Especially when that movement claims to be started by an all powerful/all knowing creature.
How hard could it possibly be for such a god to leave just enough credible evidence to raise doubt in a skeptic on their position of skepticism?
Instead, all the evidence points away from the claims of the christian church's throughout history. They've never been right. There are no demons possessing people, there are brain injuries and deformities. The world isn't flat, the stars are lightyears away and giant balls of fire, the Earth isn't the centre of the universe, the universe wasn't created in 7 days, there was no adam and eve, the list goes on.

Is the bear catholic?

Therein lies the whole of the answer to your question.

While it is commonly considered unseemly to make fun of the village idiot what you do suggest when the idiots seek out places to suffer for their lord and do his good works? Reason does not work. Pity does not work. Even agreeing with them does not work.

Your suggestions please BUT only if they are something untried. Keep in mind this is the internet not reality. We cannot give them the christian trip to the burning stake.

The idea of doctrine was invented no earlier than the 3rd c. AD when Constantine insisted upon a single set of beliefs from all the conflicting beliefs of Christians in his time. There is obviously no doctrine in the bible stories. If you disagree cite a doctrine intrinsic to the stories not something that was declared doctine by or after Nicaea. You do not get points for sloppy posts. Nor can you have any expectation that anyone will accept your expressed or implied framework for any discussion.

As all science is based upon physical evidence by definition your statement about science is false by inspection. You should also read up on the difference between science and engineering. They cannot arbitrarily be mixed.

How much of this life experience comports with your religious principles, such as the power of prayer, without invoking explanations for their incongruance that assume the conclusion, such prayer works except when ... ? As all such arguments are un-biblical who invented them and why do you think they are any more valid than any other ad hoc nonsense?

All the evidence is the OT is a translation of the Septuagint created around the middle of the 2nd c. BC. Even if you have faith it is older you have nothing but its invention by different people.

The idea that one can take out the magic and miracles from old stories to get to the truth does not differ from claiming one can take the magic out of the Wizard of Oz to discover what Dorothy really did.

In your no small life experience which events can you demonstrate were shaped by divine power? If you cannnot then your experience contradicts faith.

As to your assertion of imparting truths to special people, what objective tests do you apply to separate the special people from the fruit loops? How you apply these tests to the dead including the long dead? Considering Paul clearly does not have the same "theology" of as Christians who came barely a century later, which is the true theology? Paul or all the rest?

If you are not conducting your own tests, who is telling you this crap and why do you believe them?

But no one knows who that Paul was. He writes saying he has no knowledge of what his Christ did or said but that he writes from the spirit. (Perhaps he meant spirits.) He also writes of imminent return of his Christ so he wrote clear nonsense in all as the crux of all was that return. It is also clear the Paul of Acts is not the Paul of the letters.

As to who wrote what, dictation was not done. Every mention of important people writing is of writing it themselves. That is an invention of believers to get around the illiteracy of their imagined authors and the high quality of the Greek.

There is often very little problem. The apparent problems arise from trying to reconcile their origin with unprovanenced religious traditions. As with the OT the sole provenance of an OT from bibleland is the forged letter of Aristeas. No rational person accepts a forgery. A van Gogh on which the paint is still drying will come with a letter of authenticity.