Christian "purpose" and "meaning" in life.

[Rampant.A.I.]

[
WE also know that much of the bible is MYTH and LEGEND - there is NOT a single mention of
the christ in the historical record of his supposed time -NONE at all.

Yes there is. At the very least Peter and John were companions of Jesus: or do christians not qualify as historians? Can I only believe non-christian historians? You just choose not to believe them and that's your prerogative.

Way to mischaracterize historical consensus.

Peter and John were not historians. Roman historians have no record of Jesus.

And Peter and John in the bible are based entirely on hearsay which my not have even come from Peter or John originally.

Epistles of John: Scholars tell us the epistles of John, the Gospel of John, and Revelation appear so different in style and content that they could hardly have the same author.

---

Some suggest that these writings of John come from the work of a group of scholars in Asia Minor who followed a "John" or they came from the work of church fathers who aimed to further the interests of the Church. Or they could have simply come from people also named John (a very common name). No one knows. Also note that nowhere in the body of the three epistles of "John" does it mention a John. In any case,

---

the epistles of John say nothing about seeing an earthly Jesus. Not only do we not know who wrote these epistles, they can only serve as hearsay accounts. [2]

Epistles of Peter: Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery

---

(for some examples, see the introduction to 2 Peter in the full edition of The New Jerusalem Bible, 1985). The unknown authors of the epistles of Peter wrote long after the life of the traditional Peter. Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this).

---

In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an author claiming himself to know what Peter said (hearsay), or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church. Encyclopedias usually describe a tradition that Saint Peter wrote them. However, whenever you see the word "tradition" it refers to a belief passed down within a society. In other words: hearsay. [3], [4]

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

In other words, you choose to believe, without being able to support your belief.

There's no choice on our part to disbelieve your claims that aren't supported by the historical evidence.

You might as well whine that we've chosen not to believe you have an invisible humanoid rabbit friend named Harvey who tucks you in every night.