Does a God exist?

[GrandizerII]

Steve, why appeal to scholarly work anyway? It's not like your views regarding the history of the early church are in line with the mainstream scholarly view anyway.

Now it's likely, as far as mainstream scholarly views go, that there were no intentional fabrication of significant events. But it's clear through analysis of the texts that certain events (such as the nativity events) were added later on to indeed support later orthodoxy. This does not imply fabrication, however, in the deliberate sense. More that later authors (e.g., "Matthew" and "Luke") heard about some additional stories about Jesus, and without verifying it for themselves in a proper skeptical manner, included them in their texts.

In what ways are my views of early church history not in line with mainstream scholars (I'm not saying they are, just trying to define what you mean by 'mainstream')? I agree that the editors of the gospels had common sources that they used along with original work. 

My point for pages and pages has been that the NT is either originally true or they were originally intentionally false. People like to throw up objections that are not backed up (like they were altered from a more 'mild' version). Universal 'honest mistaken-ness' also does not seem to be plausible.

Think of it this way, Steve. Do you know of any secular Bible scholar who accepts the virgin birth doctrine? I'm aware of quite a few Christian Bible scholars, usually Catholic, who actually don't accept that Jesus was born of a virgin.

And for your last point, again, false dichotomy. You're wasting pages over a false dichotomy, ok? And yes, what you call 'honest mistaken-ness' is plausible. Your biases just won't allow you to see that.