So are historical events. What I mean by the irrelevance of the history is that Christ's proclamations are true yesterday, today and tomorrow. They are timeless. They are irrelevant of the geographic location, culture or politics, and, yes, history too. Even factual history.
When the Gospels tell us that we cannot serve God and Mammon (wordily goods), that is the eternally current and true message we need to take home with us.
Inconvenient elements of the story can be dropped without penalty
Certainly that is true of anything. "Be merciful" can be ignored.
So are historical events. What I mean by the irrelevance of the history is that Christ's proclamations are true yesterday, today and tomorrow. They are timeless. They are irrelevant of the geographic location, culture or politics, and, yes, history too. Even factual history.
Why do you accept that Christ's proclamations in scriptures are absolutely true, but that the rest of the Bible is subject to and DOES suffer from grave error? If you believe this, why would God make sure Christ's statements are correct in His word, but not really care about the rest of it in terms of accuracy?
FK: Inconvenient elements of the story can be dropped without penalty.
Certainly that is true of anything. "Be merciful" can be ignored.
Not really, since the point is whether the historicity is correct or not. If it IS accepted as correct, then there is much less wiggle room spin-wise. But if it is rejected, then anything goes. There is the danger of rejecting the history that God gave us, anyone can make up anything, and who's to say it's any less credible than the myth of the Bible?