Religious Background

[SteveII]

1. If your hangup is on the first three chapters of Genesis, then you have to realize that many many Christians do not take the story to be literal. Augustine 1700 years ago did not think that the creation account was literal. There are good reasons to think the six days were not really six days.

a. not written in the same Hebrew as the rest of the book of Genesis--but in an older Hebrew.
b. poetic formulation of the versus
c. how it is clearly not meant to be in order because even by ancient reasoning, day and evening don't come before creating the sun.
d. How it very likely was the story passed down in order to draw a healthy distinction between other creation myths, where nature is endowed with spiritual qualities, to the correct view that the universe is an orderly thing not to be worshiped.

2. You are over-stating your case about interpretation. The core theology is quite easy to ascertain from the NT. Common sense and a little reading for context usually takes care of the rest. Perhaps give an example?? 

3. Since there are good reasons to believe the NT is true, the events described there are indeed distinguishable from mythology.

1) my "hang up" is with the Bible (New and Old Testaments). Not merely the first 3 chapters

2) the fact that you can find one Christian who will say one thing, while another Christian says the exact opposite. And each points to their Bible to justify their interpretation. (This is the fundamental reason there are so many denominations. So, if you want an example, look at literally any 2 Christian denominations and look for the differences in biblical interpretation)

3) did zombies roam the streets of Jerusalem on the day that Jesus supposedly rose from the dead? (Mark 27:52). Given that the NT has the same supernatural claims and stories as the old, and both are reminiscent of Greek and Roman mythology, you'll need to clarify how to distinguish between them. For instance, none of the NT stories about Jesus or Jesus' time were written by authors who witnessed any of it. So how do stories written no less than decades after they supposedly occurred, provide any validation to their claims? How do you know they are more than word-of-mouth stories that were distorted into legend? (Like with Johnny Appleseed or any other myth/legend?)


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

2. That's seem like a pretty lame reason to reject Christianity. Obviously there will be differences in interpretation about minor things, but clearly there is a fairly large core that is agreed upon by all protestant churches. BTW, the vast majority of denominations were formed around cultural and church governance issues rather than doctrinal issues. 

3. Setting aside that that verse is in Matthew, yes, if people saw it, what right do I have to call them a liar? 

No, you have been reading to many atheist blogs. The NT has nothing at all in common with Greek or Roman mythology. The list of similarities are tortured and silly.

Why do you think that the people who wrote the stories were not eyewitnesses? There were many documents written before the gospels. The editors of the gospels could have been eyewitnesses themselves, known them, or sought them out. What we do know was that people believed the content of the gospels long before they were written (there were churches throughout the Roman empire by 50 AD). To many documents, too many people, too many facts to support the 'legend developed' hypothesis.