That's what the NT says in black and white. I even gave you the verses. Not bad for a rusted Easterner, huh? :)
You’ve told me John - the entire Gospel - was written to appease Gentiles
I don't think I would have said it that way, but John's Gospel says what was needed to be said at the time it appeared.
Passages in the other Gospels may be ok, unless they disagree with your beliefs, in which case they are later additions added by some scribe working for the Catholic Church.
I don't think I would have said that either. It's not that I accept some parts and reject others. I do recognize different themes in different parts of the Bible, and they represent the mindset and the realities of the times in which they were written. These themes do to always express the same thing.
In short, like some liberal scholars, you reject what you disagree with and cite what you do...a mode of argument I find unconvincing.
In short I don't make extraordinary claims (i.e. the Bible is the word of God) and reject such claims until someone produces credible evidence to the contrary. Remember, doubt is justified. The party making claims is under obligation to produce proof, which they don't. When asked for it, they say "it's our faith; we don't need proof." That's fine, but you are still presenting your faith as if it were a proven fact and not a mere belief.
In fact, I even asked that someone please start by telling me what is God and I have yet (not surprisingly) to get an answer.
There are a variety of arguments in favor of scripture being scripture, but in my experience, if someone reads the Bible and rejects it as God’s words, then nothing I say will convince them otherwise
Because the the precondition is to a priori accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God. Of course, once you do that then talking donkeys are accepted as something "normal" and everyday...no questions asked. Sorry, the real world doesn't work that way.
I will say that when I follow what scripture teaches, my life goes well.
First, bad things happen to believers and non-believers. Second, many an individual who doesn't follow what scripture teaches would say his life is going very well too. You are using anecdotal experience as "proof' of authenticity of the Bible. That is inherently weak and unreliable.
When I do not, my life does not
One can make a case for or against such argument by selective memory, or preference. Again, your argument is highly anecdotal.
As I said, I pretty much believe scripture needs to be self-affirming...if you read it and reject it, nothing I say is likely to sway you.
“Of course, once you do that then talking donkeys are accepted as something “normal” and everyday...no questions asked. Sorry, the real world doesn’t work that way.”
I dunno...I’ve had an ass speak to me more than once. Even some that were my commanding officers!
Sorry - couldn’t resist. I can’t turn on the news without seeing some donkey braying about health care. ;>)
“That’s fine, but you are still presenting your faith as if it were a proven fact and not a mere belief.”
Actually, I’m presenting it as something I believe true now, and believe will be proven as fact for all to see and know in the next life. I don’t believe the Gospel is ‘proven’, and I don’t believe God would force us to believe against our will by giving us absolute proof.