"But what about the moderates?"

[DeistPaladin]

Why do we need to know, for example, whether someone called Moses actually lead the Jewish nation out of Egyptian slavery? It doesn't affect at all my actions, or my decision to follow Jesus. It makes a crucial part of the meta-narrative, but that works whether or not it is wholly, partly, or not at all true. The historicity is irrelevant.

Should we disregard the 10 Commandments, then? If we can't be sure whether Moses existed, how can we be sure God truly wrote the 10 Cs that Moses carried down?

How about Genesis? I refer to the first three chapters. If Eden was a metaphor and evolution truly explains the diversity of life, then what is Jesus saving us from?

Evolution doesn't work without a cycle of birth and death. If death didn't exist until sin came into the world, evolution couldn't function before sin. Sin came into the world by Adam and Eve, so Adam and Eve could not have evolved from simpler life forms.

The way Christians explain how a good and perfect god can create the universe and yet the universe be so flawed is because we live in a "fallen world". This fall took place because of Adam and Eve's sin. They brought sin into the universe. Jesus came to save us from this sin and by his death on the cross brings us the possibility of salvation. But if there was no Eden and no Adam and Eve, there was no "fall" and thus nothing to save us from and thus Christianity collapses. If you have some way to salvage it while discarding the OT, I'm keen to hear it.

Where it becomes perhaps more significant is NT historicity.

Are all the books in the NT historically reliable? I'm curious how you feel about the Book of Acts in particular. Acts is drenched in supernatural fireworks, even by the standards of the Bible. One can barely turn a page in that book without reading some account of angelic intervention, the casting out of demons, faith healing or blinding, a booming voice with a bright light, and other overt supernatural displays.

Do you think all that really happened? If so, why has your god become so quiet since? Your god was not so concerned about "free will" (not that the Bible is either) that he restrained himself during the time of Acts. Why not now, especially when we have mass communication and the ability to record such events?

I think what impressed me the most when I read the Bible is when I contrasted the universe of these stories vs. the one I live in. When you put the Bible down, you see a supernaturally tranquil universe, one governed by predictable laws and best understood through science and reason. The contrast with the universe of the Bible could not be more stark.

But unless one wants to insist on the gospels as Jesus-cam transcripts, there is oodles of room for a mixed view on NT historicity, within a strong faith

I think we're back to "how much of it?" and "how can we tell?" questions.

Rest assured, I'm not one to pick at nits like "what color was Jesus' robe?" Whether it was "scarlet" or "violet" could be a matter of perspective. On the other hand, "what decade was Jesus born in?" is a question I should think eye-witnesses would have gotten straight.

Luke is praised by apologists like McDowell as having "incredible accuracy" as a historian. Putting aside we know next to nothing about Luke aside from him being allegedly a traveling physician and companion of Paul, I see his accuracy as leaving much to be desired.

Luke places the pregnancy of Mary during the life of Herod the Great (bold emphasis added).

Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth...
1:13 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John...
1:24 And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying,
1:26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
1:39 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;
1:40 And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.
1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

So we've established that Elisabeth conceived John the Baptist (JtB) during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in March of 4 BCE. Jesus was conceived six months later. So we've established the conception could have happened no later than the end of 4 BCE.

Then Luke tells us the birth of Jesus happened during the administration of Quirinius of Syria and the census of the Judean province of Rome.

Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
2:2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) ...
2:5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

Rome acquired Judea as a province in 6 CE. Prior to that time, it was a quasi-independent kingdom, specifically a tributary ally of Rome under Herod the Great. There would have been no Roman census since Rome didn't rule over it directly. However, once Rome acquired Judea, they were doubtless anxious to know its population and taxation potential.

So either Mary was pregnant with Jesus for 10+ years, and perhaps those Sons of God take longer to bake in the oven, or Luke goofed on how long a period it was between the death of Herod the Great and the Roman acquisition of Judea.

I can provide many more problems with the historicity of the Gospels but that gives you a small taste.

(many Xian scholars don't take the pastoral letters as being written by Paul, for example)

.
Scholarship has doubts about half the Pauline epistles.

I believe firmly that history is the friend of Xianity, not its enemy.

I'm quite comfortable arguing to the contrary if you like.

I'm not sure what is meant by TF, and Google doesn't help.

My apologies. I'm used to exchanges with apologists who affectionately know the Testimonium Flavianum of Josephus as simply the TF.

The meta-narrative of the Bible coming to a climax with Jesus I believe to be true. Which “parts are contaminated” is therefore a non-issue.

I'm curious as to which parts of JC's story you take seriously or if the entire biography is allegorical and therefore slips into the cracks of our knowledge of history.