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

[forGod1]

I always run from Christianity because of stories that have no backing in reality, aka how the majority of scientists seem to see the world. I can't grasp Noah's Ark no matter how hard I try. The evidence for such an event would be astounding, you'd think. It's just that when I was saved, some crazy stuff happened that atheism can't answer for. I've seen spiritual things, etc.. I've had things revealed to me in ways that only a loving God would allow. I've seen things that add to the possibility of a divine creator in great numbers, as have many Christians. These are things that no godless society can answer for. I'm not lying, because I have no reason to.. and because it wouldn't please Jesus. I really try to convince myself that there's no god, it just always comes back to allure I feel. It is cosmic, if you want to put it that way. No matter how hard I try to turn my head, it keeps happening. It's not as strange as I want to believe.. it's Jesus. And, no, I don't want to believe, I almost have to. That's what God has left me with. He's shown me everything.. now it's up to me to choose Heaven or Hell. He doesn't have this sense of humor most people are going to hope for on judgement day. Stop before you have to realize what you always knew a minute too late. I'm not preaching.. just was put here to share stories with non-Christians, like all Christians.

 

[aiki]

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

They aren't always different or separate, either.

Selah.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

What do you suppose is still keeping the door of christianity open to you?

Is it a logical, rational belief that it might be true?

Is it an emotional connection? A fear or dislike of the implications of it being false?

I only ask out of curiosity.

 

[BadHabit]

*nevermind* I spent 10 minutes typing out a lengthy response and realized before I hit the "post reply" button that my post would just open me up to a slew of arguments I don't care to get into. So, I deleted it.

...I'll just go back to reading and keeping my opinions to myself.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

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?



Fair enough.



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



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.

First, Jesus lived and died in 1st century Judaea. This is accepted by everyone except the most marginalized fringe group (Christ Myth). Our closest sources on this person are the Gospels, Paul and Josephus and based on their representations were are forced to conclude that either this person was God Incarnate or a madman (to paraphrase Lewis).
The fact is that the Incarnation is an extraordinary event, so it has nothing else to which it can be compared to establish historicity. It boils down to a matter of faith in the sources whether you accept it or not. I clearly do consider it historical, but I understand the reluctance of people to trust the texts on account of its miraculous nature.

Second, the gospel writers constructed their works on first century literary theory, especially Luke who clearly shows parallels to the style of Greek biography.
Yes they were written to show parallels and juxtapose ideas etc. But so was Plutarch's Lives or Thucydides' Peloponnesian war or Caesar's Gallic War. That has no bearing on their historicity as even the universally accepted histories of the time show that structure. Don't read modern conceptions into 1st century texts, they won't conform to what you are looking for, even completely secular ones.

Third, Rome had no influence on doctrine. At Nicaea, Constantine would have supported any creed whatsoever, he just wanted one to try and stop Christian infighting and called every bishop he could find. The result was of 381 bishops all except 3 endorsed one view which became the Orthodox view. Roman influence can be seen on the development of the hierarchy, canon law and so forth, but not on the doctrine and beliefs of the Church at all, which is firmly grounded in the 300 preceding years of Christian history.
The Emperors tried to enforce unity it is true, but this has no bearing on the truth or not of Christian doctrine. In spite of modern recasting of history, Constantine didn't choose trinitarianism nor did any of the later Emperors choose doctrine, they just endorsed doctrine proposed by Churchmen and in the long run, whatever the majority supported became established in spite of Imperial support or not (See Arianism of Constantius II, Monothelitism of Heraclius or the Iconoclast controversies to see what I am talking about).

 

[ldonjohn]

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.

Leftright,
I was raised in attending a Baptist church, but as a young adult I had serious doubts if any of the bible was true. That was many years ago before the internet was available. I was asking the same kind of questions you are asking about the bible & Jesus. I talked to Christians, read books, read bible tracts, listened to preachers on the radio, etc. but I could not find any evidence that would convince me that the bible is true, that God is real, or that Jesus was/is who the bible claims He is.

After several years of searching for answers I realized that something was missing, a missing link, and I did not know what is was. I thought I would never know the truth about the matter.

One night, out of a sense of desperation & helplessness I looked up at the ceiling of my bedroom and said a prayer to a God who I wasn't even sure existed. I said, “God will you show me the truth about Jesus & the Bible?”

The next day, while I sat at my dining room table with a bible opened to the Gospel of John, I started to read in the bible. That was the first time I had ever read in the bible except while in church. As I read in the Book of John I found that missing link I mentioned above. The missing link that allowed me to see the truth was the Holy Spirit.

I did not know about the following scripture at that time, but it describes the reason the Holy Spirit allowed me to see the truth.

This scripture, Jeremiah 29:13, “And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart” says that if you earnestly search after God you will find Him. That scripture says that when we seek/search for God as though finding Him is more important to us than anything else in our life at that time we will find Him, and at that time my life was consumed with my struggle to find Him. That night, as I started to read in the Gospel of John, I was spiritually blind and could not see nor could I understand spiritual truth, but the moment I began reading John 1:1 the Holy Spirit began His work in me. I realized that something was telling me that those words I was reading were true. The more I read, the more I understood, and the more I became convinced that I was reading the truth. By the time I read through chapter 6 I knew, without any doubt, that I had found the answer to the most important question in my life.

You probably have heard the saying, “I saw the light.” Well, that is exactly the way I would describe the change that took place in my life that night. I was a blind man who was given sight. I was in the dark, but was given light so I could see. The Holy Spirit used the scripture I was reading to “turn on the light” for me, and I “got it.” I found the evidence that convinced me the Bible is true, that God is real, and that Jesus is who the bible says He is.

I have replied to others who have stated that they had read the bible several times, and/or that they had read the Gospel of John several times, and nothing happened; they still didn't believe any of it was the truth. My response to that claim has always been this, “If, when you read the bible, you really don't believe you are going to discover that it is true because deep down inside you really don't expect to find that it is true, well, you probably won't believe it is true.

So, leftright, my point is that you will never be convinced of the truth about the bible, about Jesus, or about God by asking Christians or others about these spiritual matters. Yes, Christians can give you good advice like some of these posters have done, but the only way you will find the answers to your questions, and that you will know you have found the truth is to search for that truth in the way described by Jeremiah 29:13, while believing that God will show you whatever it is that you need to know so that you will be convinced that you have found the truth.

Finally, I agree with aiki's posts & with ninken's post but I want to add another scripture to ninken's post which is Romans 10:14. Verse 14 tells us that we must “believe” in Jesus before we can call on Him.
John

 

[ldonjohn]

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.

Leftright,

You used the following scripture in your post: "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith" 1 Corinthians 15:14. I don't know your purpose for using that scripture verse, but I can tell you that a true Christian knows that Christ was raised from the dead & that He is alive today, because the real Christian has had the Christian “personal experience” with our Risen Savior. The Christian experience IS a personal experience, and that experience is the proof that it is real.

Following is a scripture verse that describes a non-believer: 1 Corinthians 2:14, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

And this is another scripture verse that describes a non-believer: 1 Corinthians 1:18; “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. “


Those 2 verses describe me before I became a believer. They describe the spiritual condition of unbelievers before they became a Christian.

No one can understand that experience until he/she has experienced it for themselves. It is real and it is life changing.

I'm not suggesting that you are an atheist, but I have had discussions with several atheists, and they are quick to use the “circular reasoning” argument whenever they hear about the Christian “personal experience.” My response to that accusation is “ You are right, it is circular reasoning, but the difference in the atheists' “circular reasoning” and the Christian “personal experience” is the Holy Spirit. Without the working influence of the Holy Spirit an unbeliever cannot understand spiritual matters.

The Christian “experience” is offered to anyone who will allow the Holy Spirit, through the truth of scripture, to draw him/her to Christ. I suspect that you might be asking these questions because God is trying to draw you to Himself. The Christian experience can be yours, but to have it you cannot continue to ignore the Holy Spirit's influence as He is drawing you to earnestly seek God.

John

 

[Hieronymus]

Here's a lot to learn that shows why it is true:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzXkVr_R6Kg30l25sDsjipQRpUMQXVi9W

Various topics.

This was one of the things that opened my eyes:

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Perhaps move this thread to conspiracy theories. You have a whopper here.

 

[redleghunter]

What is it based on?

Absolute Truth.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Perhaps move this thread to conspiracy theories. You have a whopper here.

Perhaps my comment was a bit too harsh. I believe the Gospels and New Testament (and Old Testament) contain a bunch of historical bits, but I also think that there has been a lot of mythologization and exaggeration.

There have been hundreds or thousands of "miracle workers" throughout history from every religion and walk of life. Were they all miracle workers? Wandering preachers or gurus are especially common in South Indian history. Many of them claimed to do miraculous things, have miraculous births and deaths, and even rise from the dead (see Kabir, Lahiri Mahasaya, Sai Baba of Shirdi, Sri Yukteswar, etc). These wandering gurus had disciples (or followers) who later promoted and wrote about the idea that their guru appeared to them after the guru had died. Many of these cases are well-documented by their followers and occur much more recently in time than Jesus.

So it just "makes sense" that Jesus' followers behaved and acted in a similar way to these other groups. Why would Jesus be the exceptional exception?

I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist (that belongs in the conspiracy theory department), but I think his miraculous claims fall in line with other historical exaggerations of gurus by their disciples.

The alternative is that these miracle workers throughout history really did somehow perform these miracles. Perhaps their disciples aren't lying or exaggerating anything. But, what the disciples do is imprint their cultural and spiritual biases onto their leader. So, for example, a South Indian Hindu miracle worker will be considered a reincarnation of Shiva while a Mediterranean Jewish miracle worker will be considered the Messiah Son of God.

 

[JackRT]

Messiah means literally "anointed one" and was the common way in which the Jews referred to kings of the dynasty of David. "Anointed" refers of course to the method of coronation of the Jewish kings. It translated into the Greek as "Christos". The Jews regarded themselves as a "theocracy"... a kingdom ruled by God. The Jews also envisaged a (metaphorical) throne room in which there were three thrones. God occupied the central throne. At "the right hand of God" was the throne of the "king messiah" who was the reigning king of the house and family of David. At "the left hand of God" was the throne of the "priest messiah" who was the high priest of the house and family of Zadok. Ideally there were always two messiahs who were known collectively as the "sons of God". All these terms, "messiah", "kingdom of God", "at the right hand of God" and "son of God" were political rather than religious statements. It was a later generation of gentile Christians who re-interpreted these phrases in a very different religious sense. Both before and after the death of Jesus the early Christians, who were, after all, practicing Jews, understood these terms in their traditional sense.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

First, Jesus lived and died in 1st century Judaea. This is accepted by everyone except the most marginalized fringe group (Christ Myth). Our closest sources on this person are the Gospels, Paul and Josephus and based on their representations were are forced to conclude that either this person was God Incarnate or a madman (to paraphrase Lewis).

This is a false dichotomy. Jesus could simply be misrepresented.

Many historical figures become misrepresented, exaggerated or mythologized over time. Even in modern times we see some forms of misrepresentation, exaggeration or mythologization in important historical characters of the US such as Christopher Columbus, Abraham Lincoln, JFK, etc.

The fact is that the Incarnation is an extraordinary event, so it has nothing else to which it can be compared
to establish historicity.

There are many other claims to incarnation (or re-incarnation) by many wandering preachers and gurus throughout history. So yes, you can compare it to other historical cases. And, it seems, when you do, the idea that Jesus was incarnate has not much more reason to be believed than any other gurus claims to incarnation.

It boils down to a matter of faith in the sources whether you accept it or not.

The Gospels were written by people directly involved in the Christian movement. They have no incentive to be unbiased and, in fact, are the exact opposite: they are seeking to spread the word. So they have every intention to represent Jesus in a certain light.

Would you trust a biography of Donald Trump written by a Donald Trump supporter who wants you to vote for Donald Trump?

I clearly do consider it historical, but I understand the reluctance of people to trust the texts on account of its miraculous nature.

It isn't necessarily the miraculous nature that makes me critical. Its that there are many other texts out there that claim similar miraculous things which are wholly discarded by Christians as "false". It seems entirely inconsistent.

Second, the gospel writers constructed their works on first century literary theory, especially Luke who clearly shows parallels to the style of Greek biography.
Yes they were written to show parallels and juxtapose ideas etc. But so was Plutarch's Lives or Thucydides' Peloponnesian war or Caesar's Gallic War. That has no bearing on their historicity as even the universally accepted histories of the time show that structure. Don't read modern conceptions into 1st century texts, they won't conform to what you are looking for, even completely secular ones.

This is an excellent point. I would argue that, by doing this, they remove some of the historicity (in defining historicity by modern comparisons). Did Jesus heal the bleeding woman and Jairus' daughter the same day in the sequence as described? Or did Mark construct the story as a juxtaposition for literary effect?

If he constructed the story a certain way, then he is essentially re-imagining history to support his points. Seems sketchy. And yes, it is equally sketchy when secular authors do it as well.

Third, Rome had no influence on doctrine. At Nicaea, Constantine would have supported any creed whatsoever, he just wanted one to try and stop Christian infighting and called every bishop he could find. The result was of 381 bishops all except 3 endorsed one view which became the Orthodox view. Roman influence can be seen on the development of the hierarchy, canon law and so forth, but not on the doctrine and beliefs of the Church at all, which is firmly grounded in the 300 preceding years of Christian history.
The Emperors tried to enforce unity it is true, but this has no bearing on the truth or not of Christian doctrine. In spite of modern recasting of history, Constantine didn't choose trinitarianism nor did any of the later Emperors choose doctrine, they just endorsed doctrine proposed by Churchmen and in the long run, whatever the majority supported became established in spite of Imperial support or not (See Arianism of Constantius II, Monothelitism of Heraclius or the Iconoclast controversies to see what I am talking about).

The majority does not make something true. It is really tough to judge what early Christianity looked like prior to the Roman adoption because so much was destroyed. The fact that the Roman Catholic church fervently destroyed all heretic opinions means A) there were heretic opinions and B) The Church saw them as damaging.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

This is a false dichotomy. Jesus could simply be misrepresented.

Many historical figures become misrepresented, exaggerated or mythologized over time. Even in modern times we see some forms of misrepresentation, exaggeration or mythologization in important historical characters of the US such as Christopher Columbus, Abraham Lincoln, JFK, etc.



There are many other claims to incarnation (or re-incarnation) by many wandering preachers and gurus throughout history. So yes, you can compare it to other historical cases. And, it seems, when you do, the idea that Jesus was incarnate has not much more reason to be believed than any other gurus claims to incarnation.



The Gospels were written by people directly involved in the Christian movement. They have no incentive to be unbiased and, in fact, are the exact opposite: they are seeking to spread the word. So they have every intention to represent Jesus in a certain light.

Would you trust a biography of Donald Trump written by a Donald Trump supporter who wants you to vote for Donald Trump?



It isn't necessarily the miraculous nature that makes me critical. Its that there are many other texts out there that claim similar miraculous things which are wholly discarded by Christians as "false". It seems entirely inconsistent.



This is an excellent point. I would argue that, by doing this, they remove some of the historicity (in defining historicity by modern comparisons). Did Jesus heal the bleeding woman and Jairus' daughter the same day in the sequence as described? Or did Mark construct the story as a juxtaposition for literary effect?

If he constructed the story a certain way, then he is essentially re-imagining history to support his points. Seems sketchy. And yes, it is equally sketchy when secular authors do it as well.



The majority does not make something true. It is really tough to judge what early Christianity looked like prior to the Roman adoption because so much was destroyed. The fact that the Roman Catholic church fervently destroyed all heretic opinions means A) there were heretic opinions and B) The Church saw them as damaging.

Indian gurus have nothing to do with Jesus. First century accounts from the same mileau would be different, but they don't exist. Besides, Christianity has been present in India since the first century so those gurus aren't an independant occurence which could be checked against the Incarnation, but perhaps influenced by it.

So you reject all history before the 1700s as sketchy then. Then any argument with you regarding historicity is pointless since history started only a few hundred years ago in your estimation.

The point is that Roman interference did not cause Christian doctrine. Likewise just because it was the unpersecuted opinion does not make it wrong or the persecuted ones right. My point was that this whole point is irrelevant to establishing the truth or not of Christianity.

As to Jesus, I qualified my point that it was based on our closest and best sources to his time. This is the same thing we would do for any historical figure's opinions. Else we couldn't say anything about Him at all. Similarly if we excluded biased reports we couldn't say anything regarding Lincoln or Washington either. I could say Washington was a royalist spy, he was just misrepresented, but if we have multiple consistent sources saying otherwise, this is unlikely. Same with Jesus. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[aiki]

This is a false dichotomy. Jesus could simply be misrepresented.

Many historical figures become misrepresented, exaggerated or mythologized over time. Even in modern times we see some forms of misrepresentation, exaggeration or mythologization in important historical characters of the US such as Christopher Columbus, Abraham Lincoln, JFK, etc.

Theorizing about exaggerations and misrepresentations and proving them are two different things.

There are many other claims to incarnation (or re-incarnation) by many wandering preachers and gurus throughout history. So yes, you can compare it to other historical cases. And, it seems, when you do, the idea that Jesus was incarnate has not much more reason to be believed than any other gurus claims to incarnation.

Can you give us a sampling of these gurus you say are just like Jesus?

The Gospels were written by people directly involved in the Christian movement. They have no incentive to be unbiased and, in fact, are the exact opposite: they are seeking to spread the word. So they have every intention to represent Jesus in a certain light.

Well, as New Testament historians have pointed out, the Gospels do rather the opposite and establish themselves as reliable historical accounts via the principle of embarrassment. If the writers were trying to whitewash and mythologize Jesus, they would not have written their accounts in the way they did. Woman as the first witnesses to the empty tomb; Peter's betrayal of Christ; the dullness of the disciples to Jesus' teachings; Christ's familiarity with women, Gentiles and sinners; the humble beginnings of Jesus' life on earth; his mundane life as a carpenter's son from a small, backwater town; the skepticism of his family and home community - all these and many other details are not typical of stories attempting to mythologize, or exaggerate, or whitewash. These details would have been met with significant cultural disapproval and even condemnation by the Jews who were the first and intended audience to the Gospels. The idea, then, that the Gospels mythologize and are thus suspect in their accounts just doesn't wash.

Its that there are many other texts out there that claim similar miraculous things which are wholly discarded by Christians as "false". It seems entirely inconsistent.

Not when you compare texts and consider doctrine.

Did Jesus heal the bleeding woman and Jairus' daughter the same day in the sequence as described? Or did Mark construct the story as a juxtaposition for literary effect?

What good reason do we have to think Mark did as you suspect? Merely having a suspicion does not certify it as true.

The majority does not make something true. It is really tough to judge what early Christianity looked like prior to the Roman adoption because so much was destroyed. The fact that the Roman Catholic church fervently destroyed all heretic opinions means A) there were heretic opinions and B) The Church saw them as damaging.

We have the accounts of Acts and the various New Testament letters. From them a fairly detailed and accurate picture of the doctrine and character of the earliest Christian Church can be formed.

Selah.

 

[JackRT]

I think it wise to consider the societal biases of the middle east during biblical times. This was an entirely pre-scientific culture. The scientific notions of cause and effect were yet to become common understanding. Virtually everything --- storms, earthquakes, disease, etc, etc --- was attributed to divine or demonic intervention. Anything that could not be explained was regarded as miraculous. On the other hand, we today live in a society that has been enculturated for centuries in scientific understandings. We tend to look for scientific understandings whenever anything strange or unusual is encountered. Scientific understandings have a long history of coming into conflict religious ideas based on pre-scientific understandings. Whether they admit it or not even fundamentalist Christians have been enculturated by science. This sometimes leads to ludicrous situations. An example is the denial that the bible actually teaches a flat earth cosmology.

 

[Cappadocious]

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.

Why have you only looked at things from an Evangelical Protestant perspective?

 

[Root of Jesse]

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?

The four gospels were written at different times to different audiences to get different points across. Matthew was written to a Jewish audience to prove that Jesus was the Messiah. John was a theological treatise. That's why they're different. Also, if you place four men in a place, give them an hour to observe, you will get four different descriptions of what happened there, with some similaries. This is what you see with the Gospels. None of the Gospels contradicts the others in any way.

Fair enough.



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



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.

That's incorrect. Christianity formed from Jesus' Passion and Resurrection. For about 6 weeks, the apostles wandered around dazed by what had happened, Jesus, though calmed them down and explained it to them. He sent the Holy Spirit at Pentecost to give them strength to carry out the mission he gave them. They all had the same faith, and went separate ways with that faith. They formed Christian communities with that faith, and ordained bishops with the Holy Spirit to keep the faith on the same track. Christianity grew because it was so radically different from the way the world was, cold and impersonal. People became Christian and accepted the faith even though they knew they could die because of that faith. The Church grew roots in the first 300 years, after which Constantine legalized the Church to operate without fear of persecution.

There were never many different flavors of Christianity before its legalization. There were questions, for sure, such as to the nature of Jesus, the Trinity, and so on. Some didn't agree when they came to a conclusion, and did fall off as heretical sects. Arianism, for example, was one such belief that was held by the emperor and many bishops. But it contradicted the Holy Spirit-guided faith, that's why it was considered heretical.

 

[Hieronymus]

Perhaps my comment was a bit too harsh. I believe the Gospels and New Testament (and Old Testament) contain a bunch of historical bits, but I also think that there has been a lot of mythologization and exaggeration.

Yes, this is what they tell you,it's the popular consensus.
But there's no evidence for it.
Please do browse my playlist and if you hadn't yet, "Zeitgeist Refuted" is a must see, it provides a lot of perspective.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I always run from Christianity because of stories that have no backing in reality, aka how the majority of scientists seem to see the world. I can't grasp Noah's Ark no matter how hard I try. The evidence for such an event would be astounding, you'd think. It's just that when I was saved, some crazy stuff happened that atheism can't answer for. I've seen spiritual things, etc.. I've had things revealed to me in ways that only a loving God would allow. I've seen things that add to the possibility of a divine creator in great numbers, as have many Christians. These are things that no godless society can answer for. I'm not lying, because I have no reason to.. and because it wouldn't please Jesus. I really try to convince myself that there's no god, it just always comes back to allure I feel. It is cosmic, if you want to put it that way. No matter how hard I try to turn my head, it keeps happening. It's not as strange as I want to believe.. it's Jesus. And, no, I don't want to believe, I almost have to. That's what God has left me with. He's shown me everything.. now it's up to me to choose Heaven or Hell. He doesn't have this sense of humor most people are going to hope for on judgement day. Stop before you have to realize what you always knew a minute too late. I'm not preaching.. just was put here to share stories with non-Christians, like all Christians.

Three words prove the worldwide flood...Himalayan Sea Salt.