The Bible is Fictional Literature

I must say that I am completely dissapointed in the bad responses given by Pro. It's obvious that Pro has no regard for actual scholarship when dealing with the issues at hand. Pro either needs to be more aquianted with how New Testament scholars know whether or not a saying of Jesus can be traced back to him amidst what they consider forgeries and embellishments.Let me go through one-by-one the points made by Pro and demonstrate that this kid has absolutely no clue what he is talking about.Pro said "Did you miss the entire point of my argument? The evolution statement was an unimportant sidenote. I am calling the Bible fiction on completely different and unrelated terms."No...I didn't. I was responding to your claim. If Evolution was as you say a side note to your argument, then why bother mentioning it at all? You claim to call the Bible fiction on other grounds yet you still haven't provided any argument to support your case.Pro said "Assuming all of the Gospels were forged/nonauthentic, it wouldn't matter, because they would still agree on this."Maybe Pro should pay closer attention to what I am saying rather than attack a strawman argument. Whether or not the sources I am appealing to are forgeries is completely irrelevant to my argument. Pay attention to what I am saying. I said that the parable of the wicked tenants is multiply attested by independent sources. Independent means that one account doesn't rely on another already existing source for their material. So the Gospel of Thomas is independent from Mark in this regard as I already explained if you had even bothered to read what I said instead of just glancing at what I wrote and attack a position I don't even hold.Pro said "As would any well-made forgery."Again, Pro is completely clueless in how historiography works. You don't start with the assumption that it is a forgry until proven innocent, then go to the data and conclude that it is contexually credible because it is a well-made forgery. That is a mixture of circular reasoning, begging the question, and special pleading. You can't assume what you have yet to prove. How about instead of just assuming what you have yet to prove, actually prove it.Pro said "1) Who said the Church was doing the forgery? 2)Human error/personal beliefs? Anything, really."Again, stop assuming the conclusion you have yet to prove. What evidence can you give me other than 'well this conclusion is convenient to me so I will hold it, but don't ask me to prove it' can you give? I have yet to see a single piece of evidence from you proving your case. In a debate the whole point is to prove your point, it is not to assume your conclusion, then run off to some unknown source and ask me to read it and believe it. This is not how we do scholarship.Pro said "Marks of authenticity like this can be forged easily."This is a perfect demonstration of the circular nature of Pro's argument. "I will assume that anything Jesus says in the Bible could not have been said by him because they are forgeries, then with this unproven ssumption in mind I will go back to the data and dismiss any saying on the grounds that 'marks of authenticity can be forged'". You don't even realize that even skeptical New Testament scholars would laugh at your approach. Absolutely not, marks of authenticity cannot be forged. The marks of authenticity are there to weed out unhistorical from historical; it cannot be said that they are forged. Why? Because if Mark and Thomas are independent sources - which they are, then that means you have to prove that Mark forged the parable of the wicked tenants, then Thomas came along independent of Mark, forged the exact same parable word for word independent of Mark. And have you proved any of that? No, therefore your assumption is just that - an assumption.Pro said "A mix of Bandwagon and Appeal to Authority logical fallacies."If you're going to act like this; be consistent. Therefore, since I cannot appeal to scholarship on the Bible, then you cannot appeal to scholarship on Evolution, nor can you make the assertion that Atheism is the correct view because it is very popular among a growing number of people. Therefore you have not only proven that scholarship cannot prove anything, you have also proven that scholarship cannot prove Evolution, nor can the fact that Atheism is growing rapidly prove that Atheism must be the correct worldview. Therefore, everyone if free to believe anything they wish regardless of the facts, because nothing can be proven, and any worldview someone has (including Atheism) hold their view completely on faith, in a faith that has no evidence supporting it. Be consistent. Don't apply one standard to New Testament scholarship, then apply a completely different standard to Atheism. If you don't then you are inconsistent. And inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument.Pro said "I contest this conclusion."No one cares what you think. You aren't a New Testament scholar. Heck, your not even in High School yet (LOL). What you have to do for me to take your claim seriously is to provide evidence supporting your view that the saying cannot go back to Jesus. Simply saying 'well I don't believe that' is merely an unproven assertion, just like everyone one of your other unproven assertions. Simply dismissing my arguments isn't a refutation. Either show me the flaw(s) in my arguments or your objection or contesting to my view is groundless just like everything else you have said so far.Pro said "As I have shown, this very well could have been faked."Shown what exactly? Faked on what evidence? As you have been doing your entire rebuttal so far, you have not been interacting with my arguments, you simply dismissed it without explaning the flaws in my argumentation. Then you run off and say 'as I have shown'. Well guess what, you haven't shown one flaw in my argument. And on top of that, you still haven't provided an argument to dismiss the saying as inauthentic. So what have you proven? Obviously nothing as is evident by your lack of an argument and your lack of a refutation of my argument for the saying being authentic.Pro said "And we have no way to prove any of those possibilities true or false, ergo, it is as I said before "unprovable either way".While nothing in the past can be proven 100% one way or the other, at least I have provided reasons for thinking my view is the correct view. You on the other hand assume your conclusion, then act like you have proven your case without providing any reasons for thinking you are right.Pro said "My entire point in that paragraph is that it is impossible to prove, either way."Like I said, I provide arguments for thinking I am right, you on the other hand don't do the same, nor do you interact with my arguments. So your claim is baseless.Pro said "I do not think you fully comprehended my main point: "It is for this reason that the Bible should be considered fiction. Not because it is false; but because it is unprovable." If something cannot be proven, than the only way for it to originally exist was for it to be invented. And that makes it fiction, by the definitions set."What is the evidence that because something is unproven, therefore by definition is fiction? Talk about a typical case of special pleading, begging the question, and non-sequitur. I have said this many times before, I will say it again: You cannot assume what you have yet to prove. What joke of a dictionary are you reading to come up with your bogus definition of fiction? To argue your case on a false assumption means your whole case collapses; because you are assuming something that is already false to prove your contentions; thereby showing that your contention is false.