Well, first of all I’m not protecting “the church” (whichever one you are referencing). My grad degree (Masters) is in biblical text, however.
You cannot claim something is a forgery by the definition of the word if a document does not claim specific authorship.
“That is not the case with these books...” just because you say it isn’t the case, doesn’t make it so. The books just do not claim particular authorship. You are changing the definition (of forgery) and that is a logical fallacy.
You really haven’t answered my points about the gospels, Acts, or the Johanine literature. You merely say, “That is not the case with these books.”
Demonstrate it. Show me where the documents claim authorship.
Mithratic? There is very little documentation prior to the 2nd century CE regarding the actual beliefs of the Mithras Mysteries. In fact, it is more likely that Mithras copied Christian thought than vice versa. Most of what is found pre-2nd century is in the realm of sculptures and inscriptions that do not specify much about their belief system. In fact, much of what we know about Mithras comes from early church fathers, which you discount as unreliable.
You assume far more about me than you could possibly know--and about most Christians. Talk about shooting the messenger (the Catholic church?). The Orthodox do not believe in what is called the Penal Substitutionary Atonement view which suggests God killed Jesus to appease his wrath (that’s Anselm’s view--who died in 1109 CE). I do not hold to the PSA view--but my views are more in line with Renee Girard (Scapegoat View see also J. Denny Weaver) and Christos Victor (see Anglican N. T. Wright, S. Mark Heim, Gustaf Aulen, Bradley Jersak, Gregory Boyd, Brian Zahnd, most all of the early church fathers, and basically any Eastern Orthodox theologian).
I’m not shooting the messenger, just pointing out that his back story is shared by other scholars who did not come to the same place in their faith story, even though they were classmates. I’m merely pointing out the person you obviously follow is not the final say in the matter.
In fact, I appreciate Bart Ehrman and find his scholarship on the reality of Jesus and his critique of Dan Brown to be spot on. I have no disrespect for him. But he isn’t the only scholar who graduated from Princeton--and he does have a backstory that certainly does affect his views--just like I do, just like you do. It is almost impossible to approach any topic with a clean slate of openness.
Paul was no more pagan than Hillel. He was rabbinically trained under Gamaliel (Hillel’s grandson). I recommend you read the Jewish scholar Alan F. Segal (Paul the Convert, Yale University Press) who posits that Paul is actually primary source material for first century rabbinical thought and first century Judaism.
I also recommend New Testament Scholar Amy-Jill Levine (who is Jewish—not Christian) from Vanderbilt University for her view of Jesus and Paul. She certainly does not believe Paul was pagan. In fact, she indicates Jesus and Paul are the only documentations we have of first century Judaism.