@dwells, my wife read your last few comments because I didn't quite understand what you were saying. Here's how she understood it based on your last few comments on this thread and I think I understand it now.
Essentially, the New Testament is just a bunch of writings from followers of God, no more authoritative as writings from you or me or Billy Graham or ? You get the point. It's useful for historical context and for comparison, but where it appears to differ from the Old Testament then it's not to be taken seriously. In essence, the Old Testament is the only authoritative Scriptures. The New Testament is no more authoritative than Josephus or Eusebius or the anti-Nicene church fathers are authoritative? Good history and reference but not on the same level as the Tenach. Is that a fair understanding?
RE: Contending for the Faith: part 1 of ?