[ThomasMore]

To my mind, if you cast doubt on some of the New Testament, then you cast doubt on the whole thing.

I agree, ksen! If it is "not all", as Invincibly has suggested by stating "Why does it have to be all or nothing? ", then which one of you will tell me "authoritatively" that what I am reading is the "word of God".

[Alex Murphy]

I agree, ksen! If it is "not all", as Invincibly has suggested by stating "Why does it have to be all or nothing? ", then which one of you will tell me "authoritatively" that what I am reading is the "word of God".

I'll go one step further than that. By what standard do detractors determine which portions are true (or correctly translated, or contain the "true events", etc etc etc), and which are false/mistranslated/made up? How do those standards hold up when applied to more ancient manuscripts of the same works?

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I agree, ksen! If it is "not all", as Invincibly has suggested by stating "Why does it have to be all or nothing? ", then which one of you will tell me "authoritatively" that what I am reading is the "word of God".

I suggest we do like the Bereans and let the Tenhak tell us what's authoritative and what's not.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

The scriptures they were searching certainly weren't orthodox NT scriptures.