The Bible: literal or metaphorical?

[Too Few Lions]

I thought I was just responding to various posts, and this is where the conversation went.  I think Paul's account is evidence of an historical event, and you don't.  I think an eyewitness account of an historical event is evidence, and you don't. But I will agree that this conversation has reached a dead end.  Ciao.

But you don't have 'an eyewitness account of a historical event', and you just ignore this fact whenever it's pointed out to you. You have a few lines written by god knows who, god knows when, god knows where. You believe those lines were written by somebody called 'Paul / Saul' around 50 CE, but that can't be proven in any way whatsoever, and that they refer to  some historical event, which also can't be verified.

My problem with all this "evidence" of a "historical event" is that I can't see the difference between this and me seeing a ghost, writing to someone about it and some years later that letter being collected into a book about the reality of ghosts by people who believe in ghosts.  Would that really make my letter qualify as evidence of a historical event?  I would never accept that.

My thoughts precisely BCE, I was thinking the other day that what Paul claims to have experienced sounds just like what we would call a ghost.

[Too Few Lions]

My problem with all this "evidence" of a "historical event" is that I can't see the difference between this and me seeing a ghost, writing to someone about it and some years later that letter being collected into a book about the reality of ghosts by people who believe in ghosts.  Would that really make my letter qualify as evidence of a historical event?  I would never accept that.

My thoughts precisely BCE, I was thinking the other day that what Paul claims to have experienced sounds just like what we would call a ghost.