Alex: I don't have a problem with most of your essay till this point. Why the sarcasm?
There is no sarcasm, Alex. What I write is not visceral. Claiming the Holy Spirit is no different that Paul using Christ as his authoirty. Inviisble, untangible authority that no one has to prove as long as you convince someone to believe you. That was the Church's only "authority" from Paul onward.
Imagine if you sit at a restaurant table and the waiter appears to place something inviisble on your table and then ask you if everything was okay. You would positively call him nuts. A nd if he inisted that there was spiritual food on your table, and that Gos is guiding him, you may call 911.
In many ways that's exactly what the Church is doing, whether it nios through sacrametns or trough the Bible; the proverbial waiter is the same.
Trouble is, every religion on this earth makes similar (and in my opinion pathetic) claims and for a good reason (there is not proof!). There is nothing inherently "holy" about the Bible or the God of Israel unless you are willing to believe there is. And then it is presneted as true, because this God "guides" you.
How is that different from all other gods and religions on this earth? There is not a shred of palpable, substantial evidence to prove any of this, except by blind faith. So, then let's keep it on that level. The problem arises when someone's perosonal conviciton is elevated to the rank of absolute "fact." And the one, looking at the empty table and wondering if the waiter is nuts is suddenly nuts?!?
The history of the Church, the development of the theology and the canon indicates nothing divinely spiritual. It's all human sturggle to come up with the most convincing argument, nothing but wars of opinions, just like here on the FR, those who believe in pink unincorns on Jupiter vs. those who don't. Might as well argue over how many angels can fit on the tip of the needle. The "profit" is about the same.
Well, faith is a theological virtue for a reason -- this reason precisely. However, you are not correct that there is not a shread of evidence. The Resurrection of Christ is one miracle that is attested to by hundreds of witnesses, and other miracles of Christ have witnesses as well. Obviously, there are skeptics denying all of that, but you cannot say that Christianity operates on faith alone. Our faith is faith in the evidence that the Church has preserved and passed on.
Next, there is no reason to only take our evidence and not take the Jewish evidence of the Old Testament miracles. I would admit that some of them look less forensically convincing and perhaps some of them are allegoric. But we cannot a priori dismiss their evidence while holding on to our evidence.
Further, the Old Testament miracle all point to the Chrisitan religion. For example Jesus saw in Jonas swallowed by a fish a prefigurement of Himself. The talking donkey has a spiritual meaning, as I struggled to show, that has to do with the inerranct character of true prophecy. So if God has a message to us, and miracles are His language, why not have faith in all of them?
After all, what is easier, for a donkey to talk or for a man to come from the dead?