Only if you don't believe Paul's testimony that what he wrote was received from Jesus Christ personally...
I'm not going to address the rest of your post, because frankly, I believe it would go in one eye and out the other. But I will say this.
I believe Paul's testimony - I am Christian, or identify myself as such. But I also believe real-time evidence, studies done in this age that is right before my eyes. Proof by forensics that innocent people have been given death penalty because of a witness' faulty memory, for example.
Change blindness, memory bias, flashbulb memories, and all this other psychobabble that shows that our brains are not tape recorders. Things happen, and we process it according to previous experience - it is filtered, and what is meaningful in our mind is put on the shelf long term and altered in some way. I know, because I've developed a certain memory of writing something this way... I read it several years later and found my memory to not reflect exactly what's there, and even contradicted it in context. (I try to keep a journal.)
Unless you want to assume that the anicients had superior brains, you have to understand that there are possiblities that there are not so much malicious error, as there is bias and that you don't have the whole story from Paul's vision alone. If you want to look through Paul's eyes and only his (that is, his writings that made it into the NT, and even some of those are highly doubted to have been written by him), then that's your affair.
But it is a very narrow way of looking at the world and you are going to push so many away or miss so many opportunities because you just can't find it in yourself to think any other way. You will not be able to relate to people, and thus not help them much less witness to them. If you approach the world in just one way, then you will only see one type of result.
In the case of ancient texts, you are guessing based on evidence that is literally thousands of years old, and far removed from their original context. I could write here "my husband is hot." Do you think that at every point in history it would've been understood that I thought him attractive? Some people would think he was having a fever, if they depended on those words alone and ignored context. Words, and their meaning change. Because words change, so would the ideas that are shaped by the words.
There's more than one way to skin a cat, they say, and there's more than one way to view Christ. And suppose psychology progresses and prove these things the norm (already on its way), and some Christians still refuse to believe it possible that the authors they claim are "just men" (but somehow they are immune to psychological/memory error that everyone is prone to)...these men (well those who interpret the text) pose exclusive views in such a way that doesn't speak to the whole world, then perhaps Christians could be labeled as those who refuse to believe what is right before them through the telescope. Not a faltering label, so I'll spare it.
Want to claim that on faith? Great! That's fine. Claim it as fact? Expect resistance, because fact is somethingthat is firmly established, and can be observed by all. And of course, you could then say the resisitence is persecution and blindness - that's faith as well.