Originally Posted by Hollywood
I don't have to prove it fiction, there's no evidence to prove it to be non-fiction, therefore it's fiction.
There is proof. Which do you prefer, archeological, historical, textual, which? To be honest with you I think no matter the amount of evidence you'd still not consider it.
Of course the core doctrine will be the same, if it wasn't, it wouldn't be christianity.
Not always the case. Both Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormonism fall outside of Christian orthodoxy, yet they'd be the first to call themselves Christian. Both these religions are so riddled with error it befuddles me that anyone can legitimize them.
Your grasping for the sake of arguement...
Me grasping? Your chief argument for the Bible's falsity is based solely on your desire for it to be just that. I can load a stack of evidence from floor to ceiling supporting the claims of the Bible yet, your only support is your own circular reasoning?
"It is fiction."
"How do you know that it is fiction?"
"Because it is not a true story."
"Can this be substantiated?"
"I don't have to because it is fiction?"
...by generalizing everything as if there isn't a difference. When in fact, if you follow one over another, your life, depending on the orthodox, will be vastly different than that of someone in another orthodox.
I never said there was no difference. What I thought I clearly stated was that the differences that do exsist do not amount to much. What they do divide, in most cases, is the method in which people worship. Now there are instances where in some denominations, alleged to be Christian, will throw in there own eisegesis in the mix. The old Church of Christ use to do this when they suggested that if a person did not belong to the actual Church of Christ then they could not be saved. There is nothing in scripture to substantiate this.
There are still other examples out there but the constraints of time do not allow me to go further. If you have a specific question I'd be more than happy to address it.