The more I learn about Christianity, the less true it seems

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Supposedly, if you seek, you will find. I have been poking at Christianity for many years and I have read a whole list of books from both sides. I have read the New Testament in full and all 4 Gospels multiple times. I have read Mere Christianity, Case For Christ, A Skeptics Guide To Faith amongst others. I have also read other critical books such as The God Delusion, The Rise of Christianity, and The Evolution of God. I have been open to Christianity and have no hostility towards spirituality. I have attended church semi-regularly. But, the more I learn, the more the following seems clear:

1) The Bible is not historically or literally accurate. There are parts that are likely based off true events and true people, but I would say the majority is either exaggeration, allegory, myth or poetry.

2) Jesus is not the literal "Son of God". I do not know what this means outside of some sort of metaphorical context.

3) Church sermons do not depend on the historical truth of the Bible. Many sermons that I have heard are simply literary analysis of a passage which is independent of the historicity of the passage. For example, just this past Sunday, the pastor at my church preached on Mark 5:21-43 in which Jesus heals a bleeding woman and restores a dead girl to life. He used this passage to talk about spiritual healing in our lives and even mentioned how the writer of Mark set up this story in such a way to contrast Jairus and the bleeding woman. The way he spoke made me realize that the historicity of the passage was irrelevant. You could provide the same literary analysis and spiritual application by reading any myth.

4) Christianity is a 2000-year old evolving misunderstanding; a group of conflicting opinions on God, Jesus, spirituality, and paganism. It was warped so thoroughly by the Roman empire, that it is difficult to try to reconstruct what the "original" Christianity looked like. We look at Jesus, Paul and the Bible through a 2000-year lens of history with all the associated theological and historical baggage.

 

[JackRT]

Supposedly, if you seek, you will find. I have been poking at Christianity for many years and I have read a whole list of books from both sides. I have read the New Testament in full and all 4 Gospels multiple times. I have read Mere Christianity, Case For Christ, A Skeptics Guide To Faith amongst others. I have also read other critical books such as The God Delusion, The Rise of Christianity, and The Evolution of God. I have been open to Christianity and have no hostility towards spirituality. I have attended church semi-regularly. But, the more I learn, the more the following seems clear:

1) The Bible is not historically or literally accurate. There are parts that are likely based off true events and true people, but I would say the majority is either exaggeration, allegory, myth or poetry.

2) Jesus is not the literal "Son of God". I do not know what this means outside of some sort of metaphorical context.

3) Church sermons do not depend on the historical truth of the Bible. Many sermons that I have heard are simply literary analysis of a passage which is independent of the historicity of the passage. For example, just this past Sunday, the pastor at my church preached on Mark 5:21-43 in which Jesus heals a bleeding woman and restores a dead girl to life. He used this passage to talk about spiritual healing in our lives and even mentioned how the writer of Mark set up this story in such a way to contrast Jairus and the bleeding woman. The way he spoke made me realize that the historicity of the passage was irrelevant. You could provide the same literary analysis and spiritual application by reading any myth.

4) Christianity is a 2000-year old evolving misunderstanding; a group of conflicting opinions on God, Jesus, spirituality, and paganism. It was warped so thoroughly by the Roman empire, that it is difficult to try to reconstruct what the "original" Christianity looked like. We look at Jesus, Paul and the Bible through a 2000-year lens of history with all the associated theological and historical baggage.

I was born and raised a fundamentalist Christian and I have been studying Christianity for most of my life (I am 72). At this point I find myself in large scale agreement with you.

 

[aiki]

I was born into a Christian family and have been a follower of Christ for almost fifty years. In spite of the many challenges to my faith I have confronted over the years, I am more persuaded now of the truth of the Christian worldview than I have ever been. Although I have read copiously and studied much about my faith (and its contradictories), that which most secures my trust and worship of God is my daily experience of Him. You see, the Christian faith is not an academic/philosphical position to hold and defend but a relationship with my Creator and Saviour. You can't get at real Christianity by making it solely an intellectual exercise because Christianity is not at its heart a set of arguments or evidences for God but a Person: Jesus Christ.

Having spent considerable time studying what and why I believe, I do not find myself at all of your opinion about the Bible, the historical Jesus, or the Christian faith as a whole. I find my faith to be the most rational, and real, and transformative thing in my life.

Selah.

 

[Winken]

Supposedly, if you seek, you will find. I have been poking at Christianity for many years and I have read a whole list of books from both sides. I have read the New Testament in full and all 4 Gospels multiple times. I have read Mere Christianity, Case For Christ, A Skeptics Guide To Faith amongst others. I have also read other critical books such as The God Delusion, The Rise of Christianity, and The Evolution of God. I have been open to Christianity and have no hostility towards spirituality. I have attended church semi-regularly. But, the more I learn, the more the following seems clear:

1) The Bible is not historically or literally accurate. There are parts that are likely based off true events and true people, but I would say the majority is either exaggeration, allegory, myth or poetry.

2) Jesus is not the literal "Son of God". I do not know what this means outside of some sort of metaphorical context.

3) Church sermons do not depend on the historical truth of the Bible. Many sermons that I have heard are simply literary analysis of a passage which is independent of the historicity of the passage. For example, just this past Sunday, the pastor at my church preached on Mark 5:21-43 in which Jesus heals a bleeding woman and restores a dead girl to life. He used this passage to talk about spiritual healing in our lives and even mentioned how the writer of Mark set up this story in such a way to contrast Jairus and the bleeding woman. The way he spoke made me realize that the historicity of the passage was irrelevant. You could provide the same literary analysis and spiritual application by reading any myth.

4) Christianity is a 2000-year old evolving misunderstanding; a group of conflicting opinions on God, Jesus, spirituality, and paganism. It was warped so thoroughly by the Roman empire, that it is difficult to try to reconstruct what the "original" Christianity looked like. We look at Jesus, Paul and the Bible through a 2000-year lens of history with all the associated theological and historical baggage.

Methinks you study too much. God in all His Spiritual reality is present for you. Open your Bible to 2 Timothy 2:15, KJV. See the words, "rightly dividing?" That is where you are missing out. Now read Hebrews 4:12; more about "rightly dividing." Now flip over to Ephesians 3:14-19. Don't doubt them, cross-reference them, look for them in some doubtful commentary (such as your own); just read them just as they are.

Now turn to John 14:6, John 3:16-17, John 5:24. Read carefully. Now look at Romans 10:8-13, then Ephesians 2:8-9.

There's nothing else that you need to know. No more poking. Home free.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I don't really see the problem.

1. A completely historical bible is irrelevant to Christianity, as the emphasis is a personal relationship to the Living God. If it has some fictional or mythic components than that is to create the mileau for the Incarnation to be properly understood. It doesn't have to be a history. (Anyway, history is a series of lies agreed upon - Napoleon)

2. Jesus as second person of the Trinity is Son of God as a term to describe an existence which we have trouble conceptualising. It was never meant literally in any sense of the term, even in the Bible.

3. Yes, there are four ways to read biblical texts traditionally: Literal, Metaphorical, Anagogical, Allegorical. I don't understand how taking a lesson from the text is a problem at all.

4. You are making quite a few claims here such as infusing paganism which people will disagree on.
To call it a 'misunderstanding' is a strong statement if we do not fully know what the correct understanding is, which is what you yourself implied by your last sentence and the 'lens' through which we look. It might not be a misunderstanding at all.
Also, Christianity largely formed within the Empire and was then adopted by it, not formed by Imperial fiat in spite of what modern revisionists like to claim.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I was born into a Christian family and have been a follower of Christ for almost fifty years. In spite of the many challenges to my faith I have confronted over the years, I am more persuaded now of the truth of the Christian worldview than I have ever been. Although I have read copiously and studied much about my faith (and its contradictories), that which most secures my trust and worship of God is my daily experience of Him. You see, the Christian faith is not an academic/philosphical position to hold and defend but a relationship with my Creator and Saviour. You can't get at real Christianity by making it solely an intellectual exercise because Christianity is not at its heart a set of arguments or evidences for God but a Person: Jesus Christ.

Having spent considerable time studying what and why I believe, I do not find myself at all of your opinion about the Bible, the historical Jesus, or the Christian faith as a whole. I find my faith to be the most rational, and real, and transformative thing in my life.

Selah.

I used to experience something which I called "God". I have not had such an experience in several years.

If the entirety of the Christian faith is founded on personal experience, then what if such experiences do not happen?

I have heard other Christians argue that the veracity of the Christian faith is tied to the historical events; putting your faith purely in personal experience is a slippery slope: "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith" 1 Corinthians 15:14.

If the veracity of the Christian faith is tied solely to personal experience, then the Christian has no greater claim to truth than any other person.

 

[faroukfarouk]

What about your sin? does the Word of God show up your sin, and it's uncomfortable? (The Word of God also wondrously reveals the Savior.)

But the mere fact that I decide I don't like the Word of God revealing to me my sin, does not in itself "prove" that the Word of God is wrong, does it?

 

[aiki]

I used to experience something which I called "God". I have not had such an experience in several years.

And how do you know that what you were experiencing was, in fact, God?

If the entirety of the Christian faith is founded on personal experience, then what if such experiences do not happen?

Well, I haven't claimed that the "entirety of the Christian faith is founded on personal experience." I have said a personal relationship with God is at the heart of Christianity but it isn't the sole ground upon which my faith rests.

I have heard other Christians argue that the veracity of the Christian faith is tied to the historical events; putting your faith purely in personal experience is a slippery slope: "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith" 1 Corinthians 15:14.

Claiming as I have that my faith is most secured by a personal experience of God does not preclude believing in a historical Jesus, or a divinely-inspired Bible.

If the veracity of the Christian faith is tied solely to personal experience, then the Christian has no greater claim to truth than any other person.

I think you've read too much into my words. I didn't actually say that the Christian faith is "tied solely to personal experience" but personal experience is fundamental to my trust in my Creator.

Selah.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Methinks you study too much. God in all His Spiritual reality is present for you. Open your Bible to 2 Timothy 2:15, KJV. See the words, "rightly dividing?" That is where you are missing out. Now read Hebrews 4:12; more about "rightly dividing." Now flip over to Ephesians 3:14-19. Don't doubt them, cross-reference them, look for them in some doubtful commentary (such as your own); just read them just as they are.

Now turn to John 14:6, John 3:16-17, John 5:24. Read carefully. Now look at Romans 10:8-13, then Ephesians 2:8-9.

(Emphasis mine)

One of the primary barriers to me accepting Christianity as true is that I don't believe the orthodox interpretation of the Bible to be "true".

However, perhaps you can elaborate on what you mean by "rightly dividing".

What do you believe "the word" refers to in Hebrews 4:12?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I don't really see the problem.

1. A completely historical bible is irrelevant to Christianity, as the emphasis is a personal relationship to the Living God. If it has some fictional or mythic components than that is to create the mileau for the Incarnation to be properly understood. It doesn't have to be a history. (Anyway, history is a series of lies agreed upon - Napoleon)

Your quote from Napoleon is interesting because that is precisely how I view the "history" of the Gospels. They just seem like a series of lies agreed upon by a few billion people.

Would you say that the Incarnation has to be historical?

2. Jesus as second person of the Trinity is Son of God as a term to describe an existence which we have trouble conceptualising. It was never meant literally in any sense of the term, even in the Bible.

Fair enough.

3. Yes, there are four ways to read biblical texts traditionally: Literal, Metaphorical, Anagogical, Allegorical. I don't understand how taking a lesson from the text is a problem at all.

Would you say that the Gospel writers "constructed the story" in order to show certain parallels / contrasts?

4. You are making quite a few claims here such as infusing paganism which people will disagree on.
To call it a 'misunderstanding' is a strong statement if we do not fully know what the correct understanding is, which is what you yourself implied by your last sentence and the 'lens' through which we look. It might not be a misunderstanding at all.
Also, Christianity largely formed within the Empire and was then adopted by it, not formed by Imperial fiat in spite of what modern revisionists like to claim.

Christianity formed within the Empire as a bunch of disparate sects and groups. It was only after Imperial adoption as the state religion that systematic destruction of "heretic" sects was carried out.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

What about your sin? does the Word of God show up your sin, and it's uncomfortable? (The Word of God also wondrously reveals the Savior.)

But the mere fact that I decide I don't like the Word of God revealing to me my sin, does not in itself "prove" that the Word of God is wrong, does it?

I don't really identify with the feeling of "sin". I don't have some heavy guilt hanging over me as some sort of burden which needs to be lifted.

I've never identified with this line of thinking when seeking converts.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I don't really identify with the feeling of "sin". I don't have some heavy guilt hanging over me as some sort of burden which needs to be lifted.

I've never identified with this line of thinking when seeking converts.

Whether or not you yourself do or don't, the question remains as to why people need the Savior revealed in Scripture. So many have fled for refuge to Him.

 

[BadHabit]

OP, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this matter. May whatever you believe bring you some sense of closure and peace.

I responded only because I am the polar opposite of you in terms of what I found through my studies. I came from a very secular, very scientific background, and when I started studying Christianity, it was a light bulb moment for me. I might not personally agree with your views, but I'll fight for your right to have them and to make them heard.

Be well.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

And how do you know that what you were experiencing was, in fact, God?

Who are you to claim that it wasn't? Its all just personal experience, after all.

Well, I haven't claimed that the "entirety of the Christian faith is founded on personal experience." I have said a personal relationship with God is at the heart of Christianity but it isn't the sole ground upon which my faith rests.

But if the literal, historical reality of Jesus' death and resurrection is a myth, a fable, a misunderstanding or an exaggeration, then what of your personal experience?

How do you know that what you are experiencing is, in fact, Jesus?

Claiming as I have that my faith is most secured by a personal experience of God does not preclude believing in a historical Jesus, or a divinely-inspired Bible.

Yes it does. If Jesus was not historical, then whatever you are experiencing as "God" needs a re-think because Christianity, as we know it, would be false.

 

[civilwarbuff]

If the veracity of the Christian faith is tied solely to personal experience, then the Christian has no greater claim to truth than any other person.

Well, fortunately it is not based on personal experience, though many of us have had them.....

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Well, fortunately it is not based on personal experience, though many of us have had them.....

What is it based on?

I feel like I'm getting conflicting responses...

 

[civilwarbuff]

What is it based on?

I feel like I'm getting conflicting responses...

Let's clarify.....by personal experience do you mean my own experience or the experience of the church as a whole?

 

[aiki]

Who are you to claim that it wasn't? Its all just personal experience, after all.

I haven't made any claim about your experience of God -- yet. But the Bible is very clear what things mark a genuine relationship with God. How does your experience stack up against what Scripture says?

But if the literal, historical reality of Jesus' death and resurrection is a myth, a fable, a misunderstanding or an exaggeration, then what of your personal experience?

Then my Christian worldview is falsified. I don't, of course, think that the Jesus of history is a myth, fable, exaggeration or misunderstanding.

How do you know that what you are experiencing is, in fact, Jesus?

Well, for one, my experience parallels what the Bible says is characteristic of a real relationship with God. For another, my life has undergone genuine change in accord with the promises of the Bible. Finally, I have no good reason to doubt the veridicality of my personal experience of God.

"Claiming as I have that my faith is most secured by a personal experience of God does not preclude believing in a historical Jesus, or a divinely-inspired Bible.

Yes it does. If Jesus was not historical, then whatever you are experiencing as "God" needs a re-think because Christianity, as we know it, would be false."

You're misunderstanding me. I am not talking about the falsifiability of my faith in the comment above, only that a personal experience of God and believing in an historical Jesus are not mutually exclusive things. Only when I grant your "if" is what you're saying true. But I don't. I think Jesus is, historically-speaking, rock solid. And how does this fact interfere with my experience of God? It doesn't interfere at all. Instead, it supports my experience. This is what I was explaining in my comment above.

Selah.

 

[Winken]

(Emphasis mine)

One of the primary barriers to me accepting Christianity as true is that I don't believe the orthodox interpretation of the Bible to be "true".

However, perhaps you can elaborate on what you mean by "rightly dividing".

What do you believe "the word" refers to in Hebrews 4:12?

What you need to believe is the scriptures I provided, not "orthodox interpretation." "Rightly dividing" involves the interpretation and application of scripture. No human being is capable of that. We get lost in the quagmire of intellectualism, comparative analyses, adjudicating, wrestling within our own brain, controversies, entertaining atheistic points of view, all leading nowhere. Read Proverbs 3:5-6. The Holy Spirit is the one who provides the Spiritual interpretation and application, not us. You are "learning" instead of listening as HE speaks.

Hebrews 4:12 King James Version (KJV)
12 For the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and Spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. The Word is Father, Son, Holy Spirit made clear and certain.

The "soul" consists of mind, will and emotions. The Spirit is the Holy Spirit we receive when we confess Romans 10:8-13.

Draw a circle the size of a half-dollar. Equally divide it vertically. Print "soul" on the left side, "Spirit" on the right. The line down the middle is the war zone. When "soul" is in control, one yields to mind-mental-emotional constructs which wage war against the Spirit, creating doubt / confusion such as you have concerning the Bible and the Christian Faith. The Spirit delivers knock-out blows to soulish input, bringing forth the clarity of God's Word in all of HIS infinite power and majesty.

As the song goes, "I need no other argument, I need no other plea, it is enough that Jesus died, and that He died for me."

 

[JackRT]

Perhaps a useful distinction to be made about Christian scripture is that "literally true" and "spiritually true" are not always the same thing.