See Luke 22:19-20, Mark 14:22-24, John 6:35, John 6:51-58, John 15:5, John 19:29-32, Matthew 22:34-40, and Matthew 12, a chapter literally called "Jesus works on the Sabbath". The events in the gospels came before Paul because Paul's conversion was after the last supper. To say his events came before the events in the gospels is very odd in an argument. You can't say "well the gospels were written after", that's like saying Canaanites came after the Hebrews because the Hebrews were written about before the Canaanites were written about. Things exist independently from writing about them.

Not really sure why you included the trinity as a thing anyways if it's not impactful as to whether it's true or not, it would be like saying Paul invented robes. Yeah, and? All three parts of the trinity exist, but seeing it "as a trinity" is not necessary.

When I said the position of women was always culturally influenced, I wasn't saying that in the sense that Paul didn't demote us in favor of men but that that was culturally a non-issue/moot. Paul said at one time we should wear coverings on our head, but that is extremely setting-exclusive, if depictions are anything to go by.

Paul was completely unnecessary with baptism popularization. Traditions don't just vanish like you describe. Or else we wouldn't have a John the Baptist to speak of.

The last verse I gave about children in my previous comment literally and explicitly denounces using any method such as the rod. If that doesn't support what I'm saying, then you've escalated this argument into a matter of understanding as well now, and I cannot explain something to someone who figuratively doesn't speak my language.

I'm surprised I actually agreed with someone on what good manners and good form are before witnessing the argument continue out of the idea I'm not "supposed to" agree with you according to your assumption of what I am. I ethically agree with you, take it or leave it.