The Bible is Fictional Literature

Just a friendly reminder, round 2 was opening arguments and round 3 rebuttals, but no matter. "People who deny Evolution are entitled to do so. Just as people who believe in a flat Earth are entitled to do so; but that doesn't mean they have the truth on their side. And let me say something else. If Evolution is true, that doesn't at all disprove creationism. Some people try to point to the Creation account in Genesis 1 and the fact that the Bible supposedly supports the idea that the Earth is only 6000 years old to prove their contentions. But the fact of the matter is that there are countless interpretation given to Genesis 1 that support the idea that God didn't create the Earth in 24 hour days, but rather days that last a long period of time. And this can hardly be objected to by stating "well this is after Evolution, so it is done after the fact", because these interpretations arose long before the scientific discovery of an old Earth and Evolution." 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. "I disagree with your assertion that Jesus being the Son of God is 'unprovable'. One could very easily start with proving that Jesus probably was not a lunatic or a manaic, so it follows that if he said something about himself, it probably means is telling the truth (he is not a manaic nor is he a lunatic). What I am referring to are sayings of Jesus that can be shown to go back to the Historical Jesus with a high degree of certainty." Since we have no other accounts or evidence of Jesus' live and personality, any proof of Jesus' sanity must come from the Bible, and, because we have no reason to trust it's teachings, it is not a viable source. Ergo, Jesus' sanity is unprovable either way. "A saying of Jesus that is demonstrably authentic is the parable of the Wicked Tenants found in Mark 12:1-8. "And he began to speak to them in parables. "A man planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a pit for the winepress and built a tower, and leased it to tenants and went into another country.When the season came, he sent a servant to the tenants to get from them some of the fruit of the vineyard.And they took him and beat him and sent him away empty-handed.Again he sent to them another servant, and they struck him on the head and treated him shamefully.And he sent another, and him they killed. And so with many others: some they beat, and some they killed. He had still one other, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, "They will respect my son." But those tenants said to one another, "This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours." And they took him and killed him and threw him out of the vineyard." (Mark 12:1-8) Among the reasons for thinking this to be an authentic saying of the Historical Jesus are the following: 1) The saying is multiply attested. It appears not only in Mark, but also in Matthew and Luke as well as the Gospel of Thomas which appears to be independent of the Synoptics rendering of the parable. Multiple attestation is one of the clearest marks that a saying or event is authentic. Usually when historians are studying the past, with an event that is attested by 2 fairly independent sources, they conclude beyond any reasonable doubt that they have a historical fact. With the parable of the Wicked Tenants, we have 4 sources attesting to the saying, 2 of whom are almost certainly independent (The Synoptics and the Gospel of Thomas)" Assuming all of the Gospels were forged/nonauthentic, it wouldn't matter, because they would still agree on this. "2) The saying fits the historical context of Jesus' day. New Testament scholar Craig Evans notes "This parable reflects the Jewish-Palestinian experience of absentee landlords, thereby showing the saying is of the historical situation of Jesus' day" (1)" As would any well-made forgery. "3) This saying is unlikely to be a creation of the Church because the parable ends abruptly with the death of the Son and no mention of the Resurrection. If this saying were an invention of the early Church it is very hard to explain why they wouldn't have put on Jesus' lips a theme that they so forcefully emphasized in their evangelism." 1) Who said the Church was doing the forgery? 2) Human error/personal beliefs? Anything, really. "This parable has all the marks of authenticity and therefore goes back to Jesus." Marks of authenticity like this can be forged easily. "Craig Evans concludes: "When understood properly and in full context, everything about the parable of the wicked vineyard tenants - including its context in the New Testament Gospels - argues that it originated with Jesus, and not with the early church." (2)" See above. "Among New Testament specialists who accept the authenticity of this Parable are James DG Dunn, Craig A. Evans, Ben Witherington, James H. Charlesworth, Raymond Brown, Marcus J. Borg, David Flusser, and more than can be listed." A mix of Bandwagon and Appeal to Authority logical fallacies. "I therefore conclude that this saying goes back to Jesus." I contest this conclusion. "What then does this saying tell us about the self-understanding of Jesus? It shows us that he distinguishes himself from the prophets by calling them servants and himself the Son. This is significant because if Jesus distinguishes himself from prophets by calling himself "the Son" it shows that Jesus expressed a very unique and intimate relationship with God the Father which no one else shares and more importantly shows that the Historical Jesus did claim to be the Son of God." As I have shown, this very well could have been faked. "What's my point? My point is this: Jesus called himself the Son of God. Jesus was either a liar, lunatic, or the Son of God." And we have no way to prove any of those possibilities true or false, ergo, it is as I said before "unprovable either way". "In order to avoid the conclusion that Jesus was the Son of God you have to try to argue that Jesus was either crazy and/or deluded, good luck trying to prove the impossible." My entire point in that paragraph is that it is impossible to prove, either way. "Unproven is not the same thing as disproven, there is a big difference between the two. What you have to do is disprove something with evidence for me to take your claim seriously." I understand, and that paragraph did not say that they are disproven. In fact, it explicitly says "they will be proven one way or the other." Where exactly did you prove your point? Again let me make it clear, unproven is not the same thing as disproven if that is your argument. If you can disprove something in the Bible rather than show that something in the Bible has been unproven, then make your case and i'll examine your arguments. "My point" was referring to the point of that chapter, i.e., a story can include truth while being fiction. 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.