Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Speaking of falsehoods and fabrications, either drop the dishonest rhetoric or quote where I have asserted "that the whole, and all of the accounts, are necessarily false or fabricated".
I quote:
"
You have a body of text claiming the abrogation of natural law, unattested before the 2nd century, copied, redacted, harmonized and, where deemed necessary, purged as heresy."
Now tell me you didn't mean to indicate the
whole of the Bible is one big lie. If you didn't: exactly which parts were "copied, redacted and harmonized" and which weren't? Have you even
read the parts that were "purged" (they are available, you know) - and honestly asked whether you disagree with their exclusion? If you do disagree with their exclusion - on what grounds? Because they make the "stories" sound so much more incredible? That plays right into you hand, doesn't it?
The this gruel that managed to seep through this doctrinal sieve is what you proudly proclaim the word of God.
Doctrine is formulated
from, and only from, Scripture. Before I make any more assumptions -
are you saying that we don't know what Jesus or God said because we
can't trust the sources?
Or if you are saying we
shouldn't trust the sources, on what grounds? That they contain miracles? The purpose of Jesus' miracles were to authenticate him to his witnessess. It worked, and therefore served their purpose. They weren't supernatural events that came out of nowhere.
The Jews expected their messiah to perform three miracles that weren't ever performed before: The healing of a leper (Luke 5, 17) giving sight to one
born blind (John 9), and driving out of a demon of muteness (Matthew 12).
Since you will not believe by miracle, no miracle will be sufficient to cause you to believe. The testimony (your "stories") should be sufficient, because they do not cross any natural laws themselves.
John 3:11
I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony.
This is certainly true out of context - in the present time, with you. Why shouldn't it have been true within context, along with his testimony itself?
I have done so where, exactly? And what relevant accuracy did you have in mind?
I won't look for posts that confirm this, but correct me if I'm wrong: You believe that the accuracies that place the New Testament within a real, contextual Roman and Greek world, indicating sometimes places and names that were previously thought to be fictional but later discovered, you believe they point to nothing more than fatual references in, say, Anna Karrenina.
At what stage do you stop believing the factual information provided, and start believing everything else (the "body of text")are lies or fabrications?
In short: do you, or do you not, believe that these witnesses were truthful?