The real religion?

[FatAndFaithless]

The stumbling block that I can never get passed with Steve is the fact that the NT is the claim, not the evidence.  It's no more evidence for Jesus/God than the Koran is for Mohammed/Allah.

And I will keep pasting this (from an earlier post) when the subject is brought up...

You are saying that period descriptions of historical events are not evidence of historical events. By your definition, we would never ever know anything about any historical events. In addition, the NT describes the events that were already believed to have happened and either written by eyewitnesses or people with access to eyewitnesses (either personally or through additional documents). Churches (which already believed that Jesus came, performed miracles, died, and rose again) existed before Paul started writing to them and before the gospel editors completed their works. Characterizing all 27 documents as the claim, is simply either (a) a misunderstanding of what it is they contain or (b) a catchy phrase used by atheist that has no real meaning.

And this is what I mean.  Just because it's written down doesn't mean it happened, that's it's an accurate description of what happened, or that it's an accurate description of what people believed happened, especially since any purported eyewitnesses are utterly anonymous and uncorroborated.  You've got a lot of legwork to do in establishing that the NT is even a reliable account of what people think happened, let alone that it depicts anything that actually happened.

You'll probably just keep using the NT as 'evidence,' but don't expect to get anywhere with it.