Is Christianity based on older myths?

[SteveII]

Acts is a pile of shit. BTW, there were lots of different "Acts" books...most of them too stupid even for early xtians to accept.

https://www.academia.edu/3305696/The_His...ok_of_Acts

All in all, the book of Acts was written for a different purpose than what we areasking. It was not written to show literal, realized history in the sense that we think of today.Luke was writing apologetically in defense of his own tradition. With this realization we canmove forward and test the text verse by verse and compare it to other sources of the sameperiod. In many instances it can be shown that Luke took the story and smoothed it out tofulfill his apologetic needs of depicting a fully unified church which has been led by Godthrough divine inspiration

Xtain wishful thinking aside, we have no manuscript evidence for any xtian writings in the first century. The true believers keep trying to push this shit earlier but the scholars keep coming up with 2d and 3d century dates.

Of course, believers will believe anything if it suits them.

Except of course Mark and the epistles (and perhaps others)

Here is a list: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html

---

Any your using a Mormon author to discredit Acts!!

---

Exactly why is believing the gospels are accurate special pleading? What other 4 historical documents attesting to the same basic series of events and backed up by other period writings are dismissed as inaccurate? You say I cannot assume anything about any of these writings because there is no proof. Well, yes I can. I can assume they are correct until proven wrong. That is not an irrational position.

Your problem is the content. Your philosophy prevents you from believing the content so you are forced to come up with theories about why they contain the content they do. It is your burden of proof to falsify the claims and I have not heard any evidence--only theories peppered with incredulity. Is your only proof that miracles cannot happen your presupposition that miracles cannot happen? That is begging the question is it not?

Another thing, the fact that we do not know who wrote them is irrelevant. There is no evidence that they were "anonymous"--which implies that the author wished to separate themselves from the content. The first Christians almost certainly would have known the provenance of the documents. Justin Martyr, mentioned just a few pages ago, called them the Apostle's Memoirs. He quoted them in his writings. He was born in 100 AD. Was his understanding of their provenance and/or content wrong?

Martyr goes on to say they were read every Sunday in the church service in Rome. You can suggest that their basic content was intentionally changed over time, however there is no proof or even a good reason to think it likely with documents so prized by the community.

And so, my belief in the events of Jesus' life are almost identical to those worshiping only 100 years from Jesus' death. What has changed since then to make me think they were all wrong and you all are right?