Religious Background

[TheBeardedDude]

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.

Pt 2) it's not "the reason" I rejected Christianity or a god. It's one of many reasons that I started my questioning of my religion. Your opinion on it being "lame" isn't relevant.

Pt 3) people claim to have seen it. People also claim to have been abducted by aliens. They may sincerely believe it, and are therefore not really lying. But they also aren't telling a truth about the universe.

On the similarity with Greek and Roman mythology, I don't know what "atheist blogs" you're referring to. I mean that they present a man-like God with supernatural abilities who visits humans and wows them with magic. I'm not talking about any sort of Zeitgeist type (the movie) connection. Please stop assuming.

None of the NT books can be traced to earlier than 70 CE. That's at least 4 decades after Jesus supposedly died. So no, I don't believe any of the stories can validly be attributed to firsthand/eyewitness accounts. The closest you get is Paul claiming to have met Jesus' brother and Paul claiming to have had a vision (hallucination) of Jesus. That's it. That's not even convincing that he met Jesus' brother, let alone that any of the stories he wrote after it are accurate/true.


Cheers
TheBeardedDude