>>Heh! Which part don't you believe and which part do you? Did you expect it to all be literally true when you started? If so, why?<<

The Canon is a mish-mash of legends, mythology and astrology. Paul's writings are the earliest Christian writings and yet they don't tell us anything about the life of Christ on earth. Paul never tells us when or where Jesus walked or when or where he died. Nothing about miracles, a ministry, twelve disciples, a virgin birth. No mention of Bethlehem or Nazareth. In fact, no narrative whatsoever! He barely quotes the man!! Where then did these historical details come from if not from the earliest Christian writer??

Then you see that Mark is the earliest of the gospel narratives and it has no miraculous birth story. Jesus is already a man when Mark's story opens. I would say that is because Mark never heard of the birth story having written his before Matthew and Luke--who otherwise borrowed a great deal from Mark. Now, think about that. Two writers who insert totally different miraculous birth stories (as well as totally different paternal genealogies for someone supposed to be the son of god) and then go and rely on an earlier writing by someone who clearly did not know about either of these miraculous births. That's like me giving an eyewitness account but relying largely on your account even though you weren't there.

Strange that Jesus has this personal epiphany while coming up from the waters of the Jordan while being baptized by John where a dove descends from heaven and the voice of god proclaims Jesus his son. What is the purpose for this epiphany since his miraculous birth would have been greatly celebrated in his day? Because the story was in Mark and preserved by later writers who tacked a fictitious birth story on in front of it even though it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Then the earliest Markan manuscripts, Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, housed at the Vatican Library, stop at 16:8. The problem is, that cuts out the resurrection.

Then you have two early Church Fathers as Irenaeus and Papias who stated that Jesus survived his crucifixion and lived out his days as a teacher in Asia and died at about age 50. According to these men, this story comes from John the Presbyter whose authority they do not question. Let us remember that both Papias and Irenaeus were bishops in the Church. How could they hold this view and not be expelled and excommunicated except that at least part of the Church either did not accept the resurrection or had not heard of it.

So the Jesus story has changed and mutated over the centuries and certainly not in anything resembling its original form today. Then again, it doesn't seem to have an original form, but is a mish-mash of various stories from various time periods twisted together. There does not appear to be a Jesus Christ, even as a mere man. He is not a creature of history.

There's simply nothing to believe about Christianity. I find no reason to buy any of it. If you do, that's fine. I know some devout Christian people who are quite nice and I get along with them quite well (one can play jazzy bass--both guitar and upright--like you wouldn't believe). But I find nothing believable in it.