"107689, What do you believe? I'll listen."

I didn't see your question because it wasn't under my post.  I believe the teachings of Jesus.  Take for example, Matthew chapter 24 where Jesus predicts his return and all sorts of dire earthly ills including the tribulation.  This is a chapter that those who believe in "inerrancy" quote often and use it as a basis for their prediction of "the second coming" - yet they never read or quote verse 34.  You can read all of that chapter including his words on "the great tribulation" (which most "born agains" believe to be in future time) and I'll quote the portion they don't believe including prior verses, so I will not be accused of "quoting out of context."

Matthew 24:30-34 "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

Plainly in this passage Jesus says that he returned during his own generation - a space of about 40 years.  I believe that Jesus is on the planet right now and has been for 1,900+ years.  That's what he taught.  That's what I believe.  If you wish an intellectual answer, you can review the Jewish Revolt of 66 AD.  Nero was emperor of Rome at this time and his Hebrew equivalent number is 666.  (All Hebrew words have numerical equivalents.)  That is neither the core nor by far the only belief I have in Jesus teachings, it is simply one of them.  

One other significant matter where I disagree is the concept of "inerrancy."  At the time of Jesus the language of Judea/Palestine was Aramaic, not Greek.  Jesus taught the masses in Aramaic.  He probably knew Hebrew quite well (he amazed the doctors at age 12) and he may have known some Greek too but that was learned primarily by the upper classes and certainly not the likes of fishermen - who were undoubtedly illiterate. In those days only about 10% of Palestine was literate and many of those who were, could barely read and write.   So how did Jesus' Aramaic teachings become Greek?   Inerrant Greek at that?  We know that there are many, many translation errors in the New Testament and downright conflicts, such as who carried Jesus' cross?  Matthew, Mark, and Luke (all say Simon) disagree with John (who says Jesus) on that issue.  My point is that the NT is not inerrant and there are many conflicts, additions, and misinterpretations in all translations.  So once more - how do poorly and often improperly translated Greek manuscripts from the 3rd and 4th centuries (even though they were written earlier, we don't have any copies earlier than that) evolve from Aramaic to "inerrant" Greek?

That's a starting point.  If we can agree on these two areas then I might add some more.