(October 20, 2014 at 11:10 am)Vivalarevolution Wrote: Believing something else than what was written in the bible doesn't mean you can't be Christian.
I never said that wasn't the case. I just asked why you so readily dismiss parts and not others. How do you know the parts you accept are true?
(October 20, 2014 at 11:10 am)Vivalarevolution Wrote: But the difference between new testament and old is that there is no longer a need for writings of gods witness. Jesus served as proof to the character of god witnessed by hundreds. So authors couldn't interpret god as they wished (as they could in old testament). Here there was a definite picture which had little chance of being changed or corrupted. The letters and all just magnify the greater picture that's all.
Why didn't any of the eye witnesses write about it?
Not a single author of the New Testament was an eye witness (or at least none claim to be). Any of those things could easily be forged or corrupted. If none of the original witnesses wrote their accounts, who would contradict an erroneous one?
When Paul writes his epistles based on divine revelation, how do you know he was actually talking to God and not just lying or insane? You still haven't addressed that, and it's the crux of my original post.
