Summations Only

From John
3:14. Jesus believes the stupid story of god getting snakes to bite people, because they complained about a lack of food ( From Numbers 21)5:17 God works on sabbath and so does Jesus ( Not according to Genesis 2:2-3)5:46 Claims Moses wrote about him ( Nope)11:42 Prays in public, in contradiction to Matt 6:5-6 where you don't do that14:13 Whatever you ask in my name I will do ( lol, that's a beauty!)6:53-57. Eat his flesh and drink his blood to be saved.There are lots more. I call it errors, or contradiction or absurd....one of those.

That's okay half BS.
True Christian doesn't see any.
I see mostly BS. No nukes you can run the middle ground. ))
There is lots more half BS.
But, this is my view for sure.

Okay Ringo.
I'll show some more "inconsistencies".I'll do a little homework later. I remember a couple other inconsistencies ( for me) but there are quite a few more.
I suspect you'll disagree for the hell of it though. :-))))

Okay, these two others I know but I'll give more after I check some notes later.
_________________________________________________
John 1:18 Nobody has seen god at any timeWell, yes they have:
Gen 35:9, Exodus 6:3, Numbers 14:14, Deu 5:4
( God is seen in a few other places too)
___________________________________________________Jesus judges no one : John 12:47Jesus does indeed judge: John 5:22, 26-27__________________________________________________

But I don't have to try hard, that's the problem.

Did ugly people write errant stuff and claim it's inspired by god, then form religions around the errancy?. Then ya, I have a problem with that.
But to heck with it then. I'll leave it alone, don't want to be a self-impressionist.

Why?Indeed why is what I ask myself.You say this: Then follow it up with suggestion that I'm now trying to hard to find unimpressive inconsistencies.
I call that yanking the chain.
You can answer the why.

I just did that, no problem.
But, I'll avoid doing it now. Don't want to rub guys wrong.

[q/s=phat]You do seem like an interesting chap! Stick around awhile...I love meeting new people.[/qs]Thanks. I'll try and stick around awhile.
I'm not that interesting by the way.

Bluffing, about what?
No clue, absolutely no clue, to what you speak

You have an odd way of prodding. I put up a few passages which you don't find impressive. Kind of half BS. If I can continue on spewing BS, seems pointless don't you think? Ringo thinks similar and True Christian has seen it all before and it's another moot point or misses the point.
So in absence of specific direct question on it, I'll pass on further head banging into wall.

That is a demonstrable effect. It's testable. The correct god can heal. You can set up experiments to prove that. They don't show a demonstrated effect. So you have the wrong god, or he doesn't heal.

The bible is not authentic. Writers claiming to be people they aren't adds further suggestion to that.
It should be important to anybody that believes it is the word of god, inerrant or literal or historical non- fiction. That does not include you or I.

If you believe it's non- fiction you should be able to support that. What part is non- fiction and what part is fiction and how do you tell the difference. ? I have been Christian. So from a Christian perspective, in my opinion, authentic should matter. I have not spent much time at all discussing authorship of John. I spent little time on it. There is a lot of information on it and I consider it " touched on" in my posts. Not considerable time...in my own assessment. However, I have said it appears to be not " impressive" to any here. The guys here, in my opinion, are very sharp guys. So maybe banging my head against the wall showing something, that sharp guys consider as not much..well logically I have to think that maybe I'm not doing much and continuing in the same way isn't adding anything. Some seem outright put out by it, including you.

The question remains no nukes, how do you tell fiction from non- fiction?Or as you restated, how do you know the " essentials" of Christianity are true, as opposed to whatever the non- essentials are, that aren't necessarily true?Same question really.