Reply #1: The single thing that marks this article as absolute bunk is

[humblebum]

that it claims to be objectively proven to be true, when in fact, it is only subjective at best. It is quite well known among historians that the farther down the time line one gets from an event, the more difficult it become to obtain indisputable objective proof about an event. It is OK to question the authorship of certain books of the Bible or for that matter any text, but to make a definite statement such as is being made here is a pure lie for the reason stated earlier. It would be very foolish to think that someone writing nearly 2000 years ago would be doing so to deceive readers centuries later. It serves no purpose.
There are books of the Bible such as Hebrews where an author is not stated and authorship has been ascribed and debated, leaving some uncertainty to remain. But in the cases where the author is plainly stated, I would clearly give more weight to the Church fathers who were closer to the actual events. Just because there are statements in the Bible ascribed to a single author that appear to be contradictory does not mean that the author was not who he claimed to be. We do know that Paul did not always personally pen his works because he states that he used a scribe to whom he dictated. We also know that the existence of people who could read and write 2000 years ago was quite rare, and we know from Scripture that Paul was a very educated man and possessed the ability to write and to speak effectively. And we also know from the Scriptures that Paul spoke to many diverse populations and that he tailored his messages to the various cultures that he encountered in his journeys.
Whatever biblical critics state about events that happened so long ago is purely subjective interpretation. And to state such opinions as being objectively true is a calculated deception designed to serve their own purposes, whatever those may be.