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

[expos4ever]

This seems very uncompelling to me. It shows that the Old Testament and New Testament do not mesh very well.

That is precisely the opposite of what I was trying to say.

I thought I was clear but let me try again: I am saying that a detailed, multi-thread, and arguably entirely legitimate re-interpretation of the Old Testament, which is NOT the mainstream interpretation available to Jesus' contemporaries, meshes exceedingly well with the story of Jesus. And that is the interpretation Paul goes with. What makes this all the more compelling is that there is every reason to believe that this alternate telling of the Old Testament would be resisted very strongly (people resist change) so that the mesh of this alternate with the story of Jesus would need to be particularly compelling to be accepted.

Paul had to re-imagine and reinterpret the Jewish religion in order to fit with the death of Paul's crucified rabbi.

Yes, but that re-interpretation completely honours the Old Testament - there can more than one legitimate interpretation of s a narrative.

Jesus did not naturally fall into place like pieces in a puzzle. He had to be pushed and shoved by Paul.

No, no, a thousand times no! I really tried to be clear about this but perhaps I failed. The "alternate" interpretation that Paul used to mesh with the Jesus story is an entirely legitimate alternative to the one that was held by most Jews.

PS: To be fair, upon rereading, I was not as clear in the second half as I intended to be. Here is something you should not from the first para of my post:

To expand: I believe that the very surprising, yet in hindsight completely Biblically appropriate, way that the New Testament “story” picks up and continues the Old Testament story is evidence of the truthfulness of the New Testament story (and, in fact, the whole story).

 

[toLiJC]

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.

it is a matter of exercising/practicing faith in That Who really is the true Lord God, the biblical scriptures are the only official Holy Writings for this planet, but their language is very special, and not everyone can understand it - more specifically, none of the people that do not exercise/practice faith right enough or that do not receive revelations from the true God

to read scripture is not compulsory, but to believe in God is the only reliable way to become and be able to do the works of Jesus and His true disciples, for example, at first, i read scriptures/writings and understood nothing, but then, since the moment i left reading and started to exercise/practice faith in God and Jesus, i has began to understand Their truth, considering the fact that i have read the Bible only twice since the beginning of my spiritual life

Blessings

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

What did the miracles of Jesus Christ and His apostles accomplish?

Who or what did they point to?

I think you are losing sight of my actual concern. My actual concern is not the meaning behind Jesus' miracles or the gurus miracles but whether such miracles even happened.

I think it is far more likely that these miracles were likely exaggerations upon re-telling and may have not actually happened. For example, India is a hotbed for such "miracle workers", but many of them are often exposed to be either fakes or there is no evidence to substantiate the claims in the first place. In other words, people are just making up the stories based on hearsay. These processes of exaggeration, mythologization, gossip and hearsay are so common to our everyday experience.

Why would Jesus, Jesus' disciples and the stories associated with him be immune to this?

 

[expos4ever]

This seems very uncompelling to me. It shows that the Old Testament and New Testament do not mesh very well....

It should now be clear that my claim is that the story of Jesus meshes well with an entirely legitimate alternate interpretation of the Old Testament narrative. So there is no issue at all of Paul "forcing" the Old Testament narrative to line up with the Jesus story.

But I would go even further: I would say the alternate reading that Paul comes up with for the Old Testament is richer and more complex than the "standard" interpretation held in Jesus' day. I will need to write more - it is hard to make general statements about this, more detail is needed.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Yes, but that re-interpretation completely honours the Old Testament - there can more than one legitimate interpretation of s a narrative.

I think you are viewing this through a 2000-year lens of exegesis. The Christian tradition (and the Jewish tradition) have both changed considerably in 2000 years.

I think, to the Jews at the time, Paul's writings would have appeared to them as Mormonism appears to Christianity today. Christian today decry Mormonism for having a "new book" which "doesn't at all mesh" with Christianity. Well, Mormons would argue that it does mesh, its just a different interpretation.

Plain and simple: the Jewish interpretation of the Messiah is wildly different than the person of Jesus. The Jewish conception of the Messiah is that he will essentially usher in an era of utopia where all kings will bow to him (Isaiah 2:4, Isaiah 2: 11-17).

Paul re-interpreted the Jewish position to try to fit Jesus into the role, not the other way around. Jesus came (as the Messiah) and no "new era" was ushered in. Our current political leaders do not all look to Jesus for guidance or bow to him (Isaiah 2:4). Jesus (as Messiah) did not usher in a new utopia. Jesus did not bring a time of eternal joy and happiness to the Israelites (Isaiah 51:11). In fact, the Jews have suffered horribly even after the supposed "Messiah" came. Weapons of war were not destroyed once Jesus came (Ezekiel 39:9). Still plenty of guns, nukes, missiles out there today. Jesus didn't change anything by coming and living and dying and resurrecting.

Paul re-interpreted this by making everything spiritual and de-emphasizing some of the more awkward prophecies.

 

[aiki]

I cannot afford to read the referenced author, but I suggest that in saying that "consciousness is an emergent property of the neural networks in the physical brain", the other poster is not saying that the brain and the mind are the same thing.

Either way, I am deeply skeptical that anyone can make a strong case that consciousness is not an emergent property of the structures in the brain.

Mind is an essential element of the soul. This is what the Bible makes quite clear. Saying, then, that the mind is merely an effect of the brain confounds the notion of an eternal, non-corporeal soul that survives the death of the physical body. A mind that is merely an effect of the brain ceases to be when the brain dies. There can be no soul without the mind, however. And if there is no soul, then a great deal of what the Bible teaches is total bunk.

Certainly, the mind and brain are intimately interrelated, but I don't think this means we must default to the belief that the mind is "an emergent property of the physical brain." That's what atheistic naturalists may want us to believe but the certainty of this claim is by no means settled.

Selah.

 

[Luke17:37]

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.

Hi there. There are a lot of people who agree with you, but not the Bible, not my church, and not my pastor.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who disbelieve lots of things the Bible says today. But please don't judge God by the people who claim to speak for Him but say He is wrong.

If you can suspend your judgment for awhile, you will find that there are people who believe the Bible is historically and scientifically accurate (actually, there is some figurative language, for example in the Psalms, parables, and some prophecy, but most of the Bible is very straightforward).

Jesus is called the Son of God (see also Psalms 2) because of how His physical body was miraculously conceived:

Luke 1:30-35
30 Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”
34 Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”
35 And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

Jesus Himself is eternal (Micah 5:2) and He is the Creator (John 1:1-2, Colossians 1:16).

I suggest you browse the sermons at my church and maybe start with the first five or six from the Genesis series (https://www.mcleanbible.org/sermons). My pastor's testimony is very good, too (https://www.mcleanbible.org/who-we-are/lon-solomon). He just started a new series on the book of Acts, which he has also preached before. He often says, "The more they dig out of the ground, the more the Bible proves to be right!" He did a series called Spiritual Boot Camp once which starts with several messages on the reliability of the Bible (https://www.mcleanbible.org/series/spiritual-boot-camp?page=1), but that is a common theme in his preaching. The first several sermons from the Genesis series I also highly recommend (except anything by Hugh Ross, who takes a compromised position on Genesis 1): https://www.mcleanbible.org/series/genesis?page=7

My best advice is to pray unceasingly for God to give you faith, and read the Bible. Let it speak to you instead of deciding that it can't be saying what it seems like it's saying. Have you read Genesis 1-11? That gives the historical background for why Jesus came. God created a perfect world; man sinned; the penalty for sin was death (Genesis 2:17, Romans 6:23, Romans 5:12--spiritual and physical death was the result of man's sin; it wasn't the method of creating); sin required a blood sacrifice to cover it (see Leviticus 17:11 and Hebrews 9:22); God provided a temporary covering by shedding animal blood (Genesis 3:21) and He promised to provide a Savior, the Seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15), who would undo the curse that effects the whole creation today (Romans 8:20-22). Mankind's need for a perfect man to provide a substitutionary blood sacrifice was met in Jesus.

There was a fellow named Sir William Ramsay, an archeologist and Oxford professor who took a leave of absense to try to prove that the book of Acts was written later and was not an eyewitness account. He ended up becoming convinced that the book of Acts was accurate down to the most minute detail and he placed his faith in Jesus Christ. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mitchell_Ramsay
He has written several books.

Just because you are a skeptic today does not mean you are bound to stay there. Even Paul, who God used to spread the gospel to the Gentiles and write most of the New Testament books, was convinced Christianity was wrong until the day he met Jesus. I'm saying a prayer for you.

 

[expos4ever]

I think you are viewing this through a 2000-year lens of exegesis.

Paul's reinterpretation was formulated 2000 years ago, so I am not sure what you are saying.

Plain and simple: the Jewish interpretation of the Messiah is wildly different than the person of Jesus. The Jewish conception of the Messiah is that he will essentially usher in an era of utopia where all kings will bow to him (Isaiah 2:4, Isaiah 2: 11-17).

I suggest you are buying into precisely the same "interpretation" of the Old Testament that most Jews accepted 2000 years ago. I have tried to be clear that Paul rejects that interpretation and, I would claim, comes up with a "better" one (in a sense that I am not prepared to defend in this post).

Paul re-interpreted the Jewish position to try to fit Jesus into the role, not the other way around.

And that is perfectly legitimate as long as the "re-interpreted" position is Biblically defensible (consonant with the Old Testament). Are you sure you are not assuming that there can be only one "valid" way to interpret a narrative?

 

[redleghunter]

I think you are losing sight of my actual concern. My actual concern is not the meaning behind Jesus' miracles or the gurus miracles but whether such miracles even happened.

I think it is far more likely that these miracles were likely exaggerations upon re-telling and may have not actually happened. For example, India is a hotbed for such "miracle workers", but many of them are often exposed to be either fakes or there is no evidence to substantiate the claims in the first place. In other words, people are just making up the stories based on hearsay. These processes of exaggeration, mythologization, gossip and hearsay are so common to our everyday experience.

Why would Jesus, Jesus' disciples and the stories associated with him be immune to this?

You missed the point. What did the words and deeds/ actions of Christ proclaim?

 

[ldonjohn]

leftright,

I don't know how other Christians came to faith in Jesus, but for me it WAS a “personal experience.” I was a seeker, but also a skeptic. I will not repeat my testimony from my first post in this thread, but I want to be clear about the “personal experience” moment. I had many questions & doubts about the truth of the bible. The thing most confusing to me was the meaning of “believe in Jesus.” The “personal experience” I spoke of was the moment, as I was reading the Gospel of John, that the Holy Spirit literally “turned on the light” for me and I “got it.” IOW, the Holy Spirit convinced me that the words I was reading were the TRUTH, that Jesus is God, and that Jesus was waiting for me to come to Him for forgiveness of sin and a new life. That I did, and He did change my life. My “personal experience” was about 40 years ago, and today, at age 72, I still have the assurance & peace that I found that day. It is a peace that no one can understand until they experience it for themselves.

Leftright,

You claim to be a seeker. I am wondering exactly what it is you are seeking. You have been given some very good advice from many others here who have attempted to point you to the best source of the truth you claim to be seeking, which is the Word of God, but you just continue to refute their posts. What is it that you are seeking? Are you seeking truth or do you just want to debate Christianity hoping that you will convince yourself that Christianity is just a myth?

John

 

[expos4ever]

Mind is an essential element of the soul. This is what the Bible makes quite clear.

Where does the Bible make this clear; I doubt this is a Biblically defensible position.

Saying, then, that the mind is merely an effect of the brain confounds the notion of an eternal, non-corporeal soul that survives the death of the physical body.

Indeed, but I see no evidence that the Bible teaches "an eternal, non-corporeal soul that survives the death of the physical body" in the sense I am almost sure that you mean.

 

[Winken]

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

Splendid!! Everyone needs to "tune in" to this message.

 

[ScottA]

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.

You have that wrong... It is for that very reason that the Christian DOES have the greater claim to truth. But it simply means nothing to the non-believer, which is no gauge of anything.

 

[Luke17:37]

I think you are viewing this through a 2000-year lens of exegesis. The Christian tradition (and the Jewish tradition) have both changed considerably in 2000 years.

I think, to the Jews at the time, Paul's writings would have appeared to them as Mormonism appears to Christianity today. Christian today decry Mormonism for having a "new book" which "doesn't at all mesh" with Christianity. Well, Mormons would argue that it does mesh, its just a different interpretation.

Plain and simple: the Jewish interpretation of the Messiah is wildly different than the person of Jesus. The Jewish conception of the Messiah is that he will essentially usher in an era of utopia where all kings will bow to him (Isaiah 2:4, Isaiah 2: 11-17).

Paul re-interpreted the Jewish position to try to fit Jesus into the role, not the other way around. Jesus came (as the Messiah) and no "new era" was ushered in. Our current political leaders do not all look to Jesus for guidance or bow to him (Isaiah 2:4). Jesus (as Messiah) did not usher in a new utopia. Jesus did not bring a time of eternal joy and happiness to the Israelites (Isaiah 51:11). In fact, the Jews have suffered horribly even after the supposed "Messiah" came. Weapons of war were not destroyed once Jesus came (Ezekiel 39:9). Still plenty of guns, nukes, missiles out there today. Jesus didn't change anything by coming and living and dying and resurrecting.

Paul re-interpreted this by making everything spiritual and de-emphasizing some of the more awkward prophecies.

Jesus fulfilled the "suffering Servant" prophecies of Messiah, but the Jews were focused on the "conquering King" prophecies. These He will fulfill when He comes again bodily, literally, historically, supernaturally, from the sky to the Mount of Olives, just east of Jerusalem.

Are you truly open to the message of the Bible? You have a very critical opinion of Scripture - basically, that it's man's word and that has errors. In contrast, the Bible presents itself as God's Word that can be trusted (2 Timothy 3:16, Hebrews 4:12).

It's one thing to claim something, but Jesus actually rose from the dead, and the historical case for His resurrection is very strong.

Similarly, Jesus' life fulfilled a lot of prophecies, including ones He didn't have human control over, like where he was born (Bethelehem, Micah 5:2), or that they pierced his hands and feet (Psalms 22:16), the mocking words people hurled at him (Psalms 22:8), that people cast lots for his clothes (Psalms 22:18), that they didn't break his bones (Psalms 22:17), that he was buried with the rich (Isaiah 53:9).

Changed lives are strong evidence, too. The eleven disciples who saw the risen Lord Jesus were uneducated common men who turned the world upside down in boldness where they were fearful before. All suffered for their faith and all were slain according to historians except for John. Paul, too, was on top of the game religiously in Judaism but he gave it all up to suffer greatly to bring the gospel to Jews and Gentiles across the Roman Empire, ultimately being beheaded for his faith by Nero. They had no reason to suffer for a lie. They saw the risen Lord Jesus. People today have also been changed by Him (including me!), and Jesus's disciples are still dying for their faith rather than recant Who they know to be true.

And, archeology has confirmed many Biblical details and has never disproven the Bible.

Are you really open to test your critical opinion of Scripture? How could Scripture be false and true at the same time? You say you want to believe? Stop asserting that the Scripture is wrong and see where it leads you. If God is really God, He can do miracles like creating the universe in six days and rising from the dead on the third day with no big deal. I believe He did. He can also preserve His Word (Matthew 24:35).

 

[Luke17:37]

Where does the Bible make this clear; I doubt this is a Biblically defensible position.


Indeed, but I see no evidence that the Bible teaches "an eternal, non-corporeal soul that survives the death of the physical body" in the sense I am almost sure that you mean.

Revelation 20:11-15
11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

 

[expos4ever]

Revelation 20:11-15
11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

Is this text support the existence of consciousness-bearing "soul" that survives the death of the body?

Where, specifically, is such a position expressed?

 

[com7fy8]

I have read a whole list of books

2 Corinthians 3:2 > read Jesus people and their lives, including how they are becoming in love; and they might share with you how God is correcting them > Hebrews 12:4-11.

personal experience is fundamental to my trust in my Creator.

God does prove Himself to each of us. With us, He does all He means by His word > Isaiah 55:11 < so better than how we now can understand Him and do our own version of His message. One thing which helps me now is to know God is personal, not only distant and an item of intellectual analysis and explanation. But because of however we are impersonal with people, we are not able to be personal in love with God. Our impersonal ways of relating and our using of people and criticizing people can have us elsewhere.

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

For me, His word is how God personally communicates the message of the Bible to me, in various ways creative, literal and literary in form. Poetry is used; so is plain historical fact which can be used in fact form or as an allegory to teach a spiritual thing. God is not limited; so I do not need to try to make myself the dictator of how He deals with me and has to share with me

But all He actually does with me is the meaning of whatever He says.

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.

"'Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.'" (Matthew 11:28-30)

Jesus does care about how we feel; He wants us to have "rest for your souls."

Sin can make us dead so we are unfeeling. We can be so alive to pleasures, that we are not alive to God and His love. I have missed out on love, by trying to just use people. God has us caring for any and all people. So, also selfish and favoritistic loving can keep us from being with God in His all-loving love > Matthew 5:46.

About Jesus being the Son of God > this is very real to God our Father of Jesus Christ ! ! ! God is so pleased with His Son, Jesus, that He has predestined us "to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren." (in Romans 8:29) So, God is about family. Jesus is called "Son", partly, I consider, in order to show us how God is about family and therefore very personal and intimate sharing and caring with Him and with one another in Jesus > Ephesians 4:31-32. This is included in the Christianity which the Bible means; so what you have been checking out could be something else. But God can use all the study and investigation which you have done. There are things which could help you, and there are things which can be used as an object lesson to help you see what is not Christianity!!

 

[redleghunter]

How could Scripture be false and true at the same time?

Indeed.

 

[Strong in Him]

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.

Well I haven't done a fraction of the reading that you have, so I don't know that I can relate.

But as others have said, Christianity is about a relationship with God, not an academic or legalistic religion. For me, the most important question is "what do you think of Jesus?" Or as Jesus himself asked his disciples, "who do you say that I am?"
Aside from all these, no doubt, erudite books, have your read the Gospels? Try the Gospel of Mark - it's the shortest. Jesus performed many miracles, gave people back their health, self esteem and taught many things about God. He also made a number of claims about himself - that he the only way to God and the only one who can give life, for example.
What do you make of all this? Never mind what other people write, teach, say or believe; if Jesus was to stand before you now and ask you that question, (who do you say I am?) what would you say?

Yes, there are divisions in the church and in some places we are far from the practices and example of the early church. Sadly some Christians, and churches, may not be the best examples of the Christian faith and God's love in action. We're not perfect.
But please don't reject, or judge, Jesus by some of his followers.

 

[Geralt]

the disciples were humans with needs, curiosity and fears just like us.
but then again after weighing all the alternatives and options, Peter when confronted with the question to abandon christ or not, can only conclude by choice:

Because of this, many of Jesus' followers turned back and would not go with him any more.
So he asked the twelve disciples, "And you---would you also like to leave?"
Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words that give eternal life.
And now we believe and know that you are the Holy One who has come from God." Jn6:66-69​

That is the ultimate question, isn't it ? spend your youth, middle-age, and twilight years arguing and talking about theology and philosophy or ideas here in the christian forum..but you know when death comes, and it will !, just like (or what will be) to your parents, or their parents before them, you will have to ask the question everybody in this world shy's away -

is there life after death ?
is this all there is to my short existence ?
is there a reckoning ?
will I face God ?​

and believe it or not with the question, 'to whom shall we go' -> there is no one else but christ.

a wise man/woman will make choices in life and live his/her life accordingly in view of what awaits him/her in eternity.