S/he did not say the NT was fiction where I thought it was said.
In this particular discussion the post that influenced me to state that s/he regarded the Gospels as fiction was misread by me.
I'm sure you don't need me (a mere lurker in these threads) to remind you that the Gospels do not equal the NT. Hence, I must ask why the extensive equivocation in your post?
As a mixture of historical narratives, epistles, and a mystical vision, does it not seem rather bizarre to talk about the fictional state (or not) of the whole of the NT?
The shortcut way would be to simply ask him/her is s/he beleives that Jesus was God incarnate, died for our sins, rose from the dead, and can be known today as Lord and Savior and is exalted at the right hand of God and/or heaven. All these things are what the New Testament teach and record as actual facts to be believed.
What does any of this have to do with the potential fictional state of the Gospels? One can accept every word of the Gospels as historical fact, and not believe any of that.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
