Understanding the bible

[FallentoReason]

Since you believe it's subjective maybe it is true God did not see you as a Christian, we could be getting closer to "sure." Though it seems subjective to you it's absolute for me.

I think the greater problem here is simply: what is a Christian? Was me going to Thailand on a missions trip with my own money (while being a broke university student) and having faith in God that he will heal and bless the community not what a Christian would do? Was my 'encounter' where I was left weeping and messed up on the inside not God's doing? I think you might be tempted to somewhat agree on these things and say 'yes, you most probably were a Christian' but because currently I don't call myself one you feel the need to defend your own position by pulling the No True Scotsman fallacy on me.

Sorry if that sounded harsh. I didn't mean it like that, but I'm just stating what I used to feel when someone I knew (whether personally or 'famous') would call it quits on Christianity. It was scary because they were making a direct statement on my beliefs through their life. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same with you, but I think the best way of knowing if the possibility of the Holy Spirit being real is if we can determine some things about the Bible; how the manuscripts came to be and who wrote what. The Bible is the only thing that connects the here and now with anything remotely supernatural and eternal, given that it can be shown to be reliable. Until then, it can be said that encounters with God are merely subconscious mind tricks and fluffy feelings... as I saw them and accepted them to be after I enriched myself with a better understanding of Christianity.

---

Plutarch makes reference to gods as a plural, refers to Apollo as the greatest of the gods, then later suggests it is Zeus, and allows that demi-gods exist. This alone is sufficient to suggest that he is not in any fundamental way a christian, nor aligned with the christian program of thought; but further, Plutarch never makes reference to christ. At best approximation to christianity, Plutarch is a Platonist, and this, combined with his temporal overlap with the writers of the NT, sees him conflated with their number, but it is not through any set of facts and rather, through that most beloved of christian tools, through the very absence of facts to support the contention.

I wouldn't say there's an absence of facts. The 'Luke' that scholars describe and the 'Lucius' that historians (and Lucius' own works) describe are almost the same person: well travelled historians who used 'medical' terms but most likely not doctors by profession. Another key piece of the puzzle is given by the start of Luke 1 when he confesses that he has used other sources as the basis of his work. Assuming that Mark was the first written, it can be said that he was referring to Mark.

http://www.carrington-arts.com/cliff/JOEGOS4.htm

As it seems, Mark, Matthew and Luke seem to parallel the writings of Joseph ben Matityahu (Matthew) or better known as Josephus. So I think there's some reason to think Plutarch, whose works are similar in style to Luke-Acts, borrowed from Josephus who may also be involved.

This is only the tip of the iceberg though. I'm planning on writing a concise paper on my theory after my university exams are over in 3 weeks.