What do we do with the man named Jesus??

It all goes back to the OP, -06, and your question therein. So, what to do about the man named Jesus?

Give someone a loaf of bread and they will eat that day. Teach someone how to bake and they’ll never go hungry. Problems like this helps to move us towards self-reliance and it’s never truer with critical thinking. Memorize a solution to a problem and you may have mastered that particular problem. Improve your critical thinking skills and you’ll give yourself the tools to create your own effective solutions to a multitude of unfamiliar problems.
Critical thinking refers to a diverse range of intellectual skills and activities concerned with evaluating information as well as our own thought in a disciplined way. These skills and activities include:

• Analyzing
• Conceptualizing
• Defining
• Examining
• Inferring
• Listening
• Questioning
• Reasoning
• Synthesizing

When we’re ready and willing to examine our own capabilities as thinkers, to acknowledge problems and weaknesses, this can help us refine our thought processes so that we can learn to think and process information in a more comprehensive way and that increases our ability to identify and reject falsely believed ideas and ideologies.

Critical thinking doesn’t just mean to think ‘a lot’. A person may spend a great deal of intellectual energy defending a flawed position or pursuing a question that actually needs reformulating before progress can begin. If they never examine possible biases and flaws behind their approach, that’s not thinking critically. We must want to be better at thinking to pinpoint and minimize any biasing influences on our thought from culture and upbringing, to seek out and be guided by evidence that fits with reality, even if it refutes cherished beliefs. Indeed, when we think critically, some beliefs tend not to cherished but held with the understanding that if they are shown to be unfounded, a change of position is the most appropriate response.

Critical thinkers create an attitude of curiosity and eagerness to widen their perspective and broaden their knowledge and are willing to do the work required to keep them properly informed about a subject. Most importantly, critical thinkers recognize that explanations must actually explain and be testable to be worthy of serious consideration – “The crops failed because the rain god was angry” does not explain anything, nor is testable. They also understand that legitimate theories clearly define the circumstances in which they will concede defeat.

Critical thinking embraces skepticism. Skepticism does not mean rejection of indiscriminate ideas, as some mistakenly believe. It refers to doubting and suspending our judgment about claims that are presented to us so that we simply do not accept claims that might not be justified, but first take the time to understand the claim, examining the reasoning and possible assumptions and biases behind them. If you never look behind or through a claim, you will never see what is on the other side.

Reasoning behind factual claims should be based in sound, consistent logic, not on emotions and social pressure. The truth factor of a claim is not determined by an emotion that accompanies it or the fact that it may be believed by certain social groups. Some people will try to persuade us that ‘reason’ has no value because it is a human concept. But that is an untenable position. Arguing against reason is cutting off the branch you are sitting on, using the very thing (reason) you dismiss in order to construct a case against it.

Reason has an intrinsic role in the decisions and judgments we make in negotiating our way through life whether they are momentous or trivial. If a particular line of reasoning is flawed, what of it will increase our understanding? Dismissing the value of reason? Or honestly looking at our flaws or the flaws of a claim? A lack of respect for reason or evidence or any number of obstructive character traits (ie. unwilling to listen, intellectual arrogance, intellectual laziness) will sabotage ones capacity for critical thought.

One of the largest barriers to critical thinking is the unwillingness to see complex issues in anything other than black and white terms. If one sees only two options where there are more than two options, this constitutes a “false Dichotomy”. When we think in false dichotomies, we will draw false conclusions.
Example 1: If option A is false, then option B must be true.
Example 2: If one doesn’t hold attitude or belief X, then one must hold attitude or belief Y.
Black and white thinking often reflects an underlying intolerance, refusal or reluctance to deal with the uncertainty or ambiguity that results from the absence of definite answers. It leads to flawed conclusions because one cannot tolerate the ambiguity of not knowing; in other words, it is not about truth or curiosity, but about comfort. A critical thinker can handle uncertainty, preferring to be aware of areas of their own ignorance and they can wait for valid evidence for evidence based answers.

Critical thinking provides each of us with keys to unlocking our own intellectual independence leaving us willing and able to explore and solve problems for ourselves. It moves us away from rash conclusions, mystification, and a reluctance to question received wisdom or authority and tradition. It moves us toward intellectual discipline, a clear expression of ideas and the acceptance of personal responsibility for our own thinking.

Individuals who are eager to acquire and apply the best knowledge and reason in all fields and are willing to correct flaws in their own thinking are better equipped to create more profoundly effective solutions to the problems and challenges in living and living together. When we teach and encourage critical thinking, we empower individual lives and invest in our collective future.

 

Atheism is a stance in that one does not hold or lacks a belief in God/s. That's all it is. It is not a religion or philosophy. My atheism simply denotes I lack a belief in God/s. There are other philosophies that atheists may use, such as secular humanism. An atheist can be a secular humanist, but not all secular humanists are atheists.

 

So, the way this conversation goes is we can't talk about assumptions of an atheist, but we can talk about false assumptions of a Christian?

If we talk about atheism and its benefits, its "attacking the believer", but we can talk about Christianity and its benefits (like *most* of the list in your OP... some of the list was outright "false assumptions").

I'm confused. I think the problem with discussing any of these issues with an atheist is that they only want to talk one sided and life doesn't work like that. This conversation will go nowhere because your understanding of the Bible is barely scratching the surface and we can't talk about atheism because its off limits. I don't think there is much left to discuss.

Applying human thinking to a Godly issue will never help you understand anything. The world has taught you that critical thinking will get you to the bottom of everything, but that is a human fallacy. The first thing that you have to accept to understand the Bible and Jesus is that humans are not infallible. Its quite the opposite. Critical thinking cannot help you understand God. You have to more open than critical thinking can make you. You have to open yourself to the prospect that God is so powerful that He can create this world in 7 days. You are closed off to this before you ever read it.

There is another flaw with your critical thinking. The only part you ascribe to is "questioning". If you would analyze first, you wouldn't take verses out of context. It shows a very shallow grasp. That is not how the Bible should be read- with a closed heart and mind.

​

 

The problem is, you can't debate the Bible with someone that has 0 belief in the Bible. If their only goal is to bash and rip apart the Bible then nothing anyone says will change their mind and nothing in the Bible will make sense to them or open their eyes.

It always makes me wonder though, what is that nagging thing in the atheists mind that makes them want to fervently disprove the word of God and find fault in it. To me it makes no sense, I could care less what the koran, buddhist, pagan books say becasue I am at peace in my spirit and soul with the word of God, I have 0 belief in other religions and I spend 0 time bashing and disproving them.

IMO, if I was an atheist and that unsettled about what I believe, then I would do some serious soul searching.

Lol, good one.

 

I guess that most physicists and mathematicians are not critical thinkers… may of the theorems that they consider are not testable… try proving/testing string theory, the theory of relativity, or fuzzy math

You’re missing the mark again, taking things out of context and once again showing that you do not actually read critically…. Nothing was said about Christianity/Religion/faith… Just that when you are viewed as inconsiderate in your posts people will not want to give you any credence/or ignore your posts… You also seem to make assumptions here that are not based on fact…. You assume that we have all discussed Islam, Judaism and wiccans with the same negativity that you do…. Admittedly there are some who may have but your sweeping generalizations are much like the little girl and the animal’s based upon false assumptions…. which further affects my view of your ability to be truly objectivity….

 

Of course you can. If your assumptions about me are wrong, I'll let you know. I do not presume to speak for all atheists.

As I said in an above post, atheism has no benefits because it's a stance only in that the atheist has no belief or lacks a belief in god/s.
As for the list in my op, please explain to me my false assumptions.

Good grief. Am I not talking oth sides? Are the others not speaking for their belief system? So far I haven't read anything from a Christian or otherwise theist esposing human secularism.

Not quite. My understand of your understanding of the Bible will go nowhere until you explain. Otherwise, a Catholic can say the same to you in that a your understanding barely scratches the surface.

As I've said, already, and I will embelish a bit more, atheism means a lack of belief in god/s. a = without and theism generally mean belief in god/s.
It's become tiresome to have to explain this several times. Perhaps those participating in the thread should actually read my posts?

Now you're getting it!! Reread my critical thinking post above and you may understand more.

No, critical thinking gets me to near the bottom of everything. And it sure makes more sense than saying "Goddidit" ofsomething I don't understand.

This is terrily wrong. The FIRST thing I have to accept is the presupposition of the existence of any god. Once I do that without verifying or testing it and yet adhere to the belief, I've just thrown away all my reasoning for something that has no verification or testabiblity.

Not quite right. Critical thinking will help one to understand there may not be a God or miracles.

I see you must have not understood my critical thinking post above.

There are no flaws in thinking critically other than the wrong conclusions.

Once again we're at the "context" crossroads and yet no one has described to me the "correct" context of the verses I submitted.

First, I think with my brain. My heart is for pumping blood. Thinking with one's heart is the fastest way to willingly become decieved or deluded. Secondly, if the Bible is the word of God, it amazes me that it's so ambiguously written that all Christians cannot "grasp" the allegedly correct context of it.

Instead of telling me how I am wrong, why not tell me how you are right.

Still, why not tell me how the list in the OP is NOT apocalyptic doomsday teachings and ways to gain salvation by you using Matthew, Mark and Luke? After all, those are the three main Gospels that tell us of Jesus's teaching.

 

That is wrong in so many ways that I'm not going to reply further to it. After all, if I'm not worthy of debating the Bible because I have no belief in it, there's so sense to reply to the rest of your post.

 

Look up the definitions of 'theory' and 'hypothesis' and then we may be able to proceed.

I'm not going to waste my time explaining myself as far as context goes. Tell me the correct context in the list of the OP and then maybe we will be able to proceed.

I am being inconsiderate? I haven't insulted any one personally. I have responded to every post to me. And -06's quote in the OP infers Christianity, at any rate.

You will have to point out these assumptions I make. I would like to discuss them.

 

I'd just like to get back to the OP. There's too many tangents here. So what do you do when something doesn't come true? How does one handle the teachings of an itinerant teacher who failed?

Of course, one must use the Gospels only because that's where the teachings are given. Any and all letters of Paul cannot be used do to other difficulties.

 

I guess without an open mind it's not worth discussing.... no need to continue with this... i wish you the best in your endeavors

 

It's common sense. If you don't believe what the Bible says then how can someone use what's in the Bible to make their case and if you can't use the Bible in the debate then what's the point of debating the Bible.

 

You simply proved my point that this discussion will go nowhere.

For me to sit here and explain every aspect of Jesus' teachings would take a bit longer than I have. Where you are failing to lift discussion here is in the fact that you haven't narrowed the discussion to any single point. I don't owe you that and since you already have everything "critically" dissected, my understanding would do you no good. That IS my central theme in my last post. You are here instigating, not trying to truly understand. God knows you don't want your heart to deceive you.

I think Ajax nailed it with his post. You want to know why you are here bashing? Because there is an unsettled something in your mind that you can't quite get rid of. There is something seemingly perfect in how the Earth is the right distance from the sun or the way nature interacts. That something led you to read the Bible, supposedly, for however many years you claimed, regardless of the fact you have NO faith in it. If you really want to know why that it is, I have an answer for that one. Romans 1:20, Hebrews 11:1, and Isaiah 40:26 define it.

That is the reason for insistent bashing on Christian beliefs. This unquenchable need to discuss something you have no belief in will continue to nag you until you understand what it is that you are looking for. I don't go to Buddhist or Islamic sites and bash their beliefs... because there is no incessant nagging in my brain to do so. I know this, because I was there for years justifying my own way of living, minimizing the Bible, and picking and choosing what to believe.

When I say your heart must be open, its nonnegotiable. I will discuss any single point you may want elaboration on, but I have zero faith in you actually understanding.

I will start with this:

I'm sorry you fail to see the gain. The gain, other than obvious moral goodness evident in Jesus' teachings, is salvation.

There is plenty of evidence that Jesus did exist historically. The critics that say otherwise are forgetting how soon after His death the New Testament was written. Its not likely that a small group of disciples could raise the most significant religion in history off a faked individual as little as 90 years later. I say 90 because John was 90 when he wrote Revelations. All the other letters and Gospels were written by then. That would be like us going back in history and saying that Charlie Brown died for our sins around 1920. That simply wouldn't fly. My grandmother is still here to tell me otherwise. When Revelations was written, there was still people alive on earth that were there when Jesus was crucified (at least 500 witnesses were there by historical accounts).

Jesus did speak of the Apocalypse to the disciples. Matt 24 is a great example. He was reassuring the disciples in that particular instance. I'm not sure why that is reason not to follow Him?

YOU may believe that the kingdom is a "superstitious belief", but this goes back to your inability do anything other than scratch the surface. And you speak of this as if it should have already happened. I will refer you to Mark 13:

Is that the critical thinking that you've been speaking of? You kind of sound as if the kingdom not currently being established is proof of non-existence, but Jesus' teachings seem to indicate that is not the case because no one knows when. Since Christianity currently has an estimated 2,200,000,000,000 followers and that's the highest number of any religion, I'd say that its getting pretty close. Do we need to discuss how many Bibles are in existence? (My own opinion is that the time has not arrived because the word has to reach every single human in order to be rejected or accepted- that's just my supposition. Only God knows and that, I am ok with.) Does any of the information in Revelations or in Jesus' teachings ring true today? All good questions.

So the original question of "what do we do with the man named Jesus?" My answer- accept or reject. It's up to you. I think -06 had it right in his post you quoted for the OP in this thread. If you are asking me, its clear. I accept Him. Everyone has to make up their own mind.

 

Thanks and the same to you.

 

If you don't believe in Naziwm, then you have no reason to say anything about Hitler or his policies. If you believe in Stalin's communism then you cannot make a comment about it. If you don't believe in Wiccanism, then you can't discuss it. If a person has read the Bible but yet does not believe, he cannot discuss it.

At least using your logic.

Sorry, but that just doesn't work. And people call ME closed minded.

 

Perhaps.

Yes I have. Read the OP. Better yet, let me paraphrase myself. Jesus's teachings were apocalyptic in nature, preaching the end of the world and the ways, according to him to gain salvation...and that the end of the world didn't come. We his teachings are questionable ethics as a side to the OP. THAT is the smallest point I can make.

-06's quote I linked to is a legitimate question. What to do with the man named Jesus...especially since his prediction did not come true. I am villanized in that I take the teachings out of context, yet no one tells me what the correct context is.

I'll not be answering any more questions on "atheism" or off topic posts that do not pertain to the op. If anyone has questions to ask me or comments other than the OP, I'd be happy to answer them in another thread.

 

There is very reason to critically evaluate the Bible.

 

Generally speaking, I don't believe in any of the above. Since I don't, I don't troll forums from the above trying to disprove their points by saying their doctrine can't be used in the argument. Its a circular argument. If I was interested in any of the above, I would go there open and ask to try and understand their beliefs. I would ram in head first with assertions.

Ajax point stands. If everything in the Bible is false, there is no point in discussing it with you. Absolutely no point. If you are indeed open, then there would be discussion.

I answered your original question. You gave no response and you are still asking for "discussion". Its as simple as make a decision for yourself. Its that simple. What sort of open ended question is "what should we do with?" Do with, what you please. I am. I choose to follow Christ. If you don't believe, so be it.

If "what are we to do" is supposed to get some kind of open ended answer, you probably won't find much of one. Its as simple as reject or accept. Despite the grand canyon that you try to build between denominations, that is fundamental to all denominations that can be called Christian.

 

First I'll make note of the analogy and inferred insult that I am trolling this forum.

I made an assertion about Jesus's teachings that everyone here says I took out of context. I still have no evidence from anyone to prove me wrong. You people don't seem to realize that a person can read an owners manual and consider it faulty or wrong or simply unbelievable and still have the right to make comments about it.

Everything in the Bible is not false. There was such a person as Pontius Pilate that can be verified. But Jesus's divinity cannot be verified, nor his teachings. If one is of the opinion that the Bible is true because it says it's true, that is also a circular argument.

I think that if one wants to debate the details of a particular institutionalized religion with a proponent of that religion one should know as much as one can about that particular religion on boths side of the debate. However I don't feel it necessary to read the 'owners manual' of a particular institutionalised religion to dismiss it as a valid world view if the 'owners manual' posits the existence of unverified and unverifiable god(s). The existence of god(s) has yet to be proved in any reasonable, verifiable, testable and objective way. Thus any world view based on the presumption of the existence of god(s) is fatally flawed.

I have read bits of the bible and had bits read to me in church when I was a kid (to the age of 17). It didn't hang together then and after reading it as an adult for over 15 years, I see no reason that it is reasonable to believe it or any better now.

I'm waiting for someone to tell me what context I should be reading the Bible in.

Ask -06. He's the one that originally asked the question.

That's fine and I have no problem with that.

Then -06 will have the same answer from you as you give me.

But it's not that simple. It's not just black and white, something I discussed a bit ago. Some people are literalist. Some people think that the United States should go back to Mosiac Law as far as punishment is concerned. Some people don't believe that Jesus was divine but that his teachings are an ethical world view. Some are gospelers only and many others believe in Paul.

It ain't that simple.

The grand canyon of Christianity is much larger than you think it is. It's not my problem that most Christians willingly blind themselves to see it.

Basically, I think that debating Biblical truth values is futile in that nothing gets resolved. But I like doing it. It makes people think about what they believe instead of taking in the generous shovelfuls of religion from a preacher, minister, priest, what have you.

So let's pick one of the teachings:
[FONT=&quot]Deny yourself. How does one deny himself? One way is to not accumulate wealth.
Matt 6: 19-25:[/FONT]
19:Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: 20But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
21For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
22The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
23But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
24No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
25Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?


Luke 18: 18-25:
18And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 19And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
20Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
21And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.
22Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
23And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.
24And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
25For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.



If you have already accumulated wealth, Jesus says to get rid of it:
Luke 18-25
Luke 10
Matt.19
Mark 10
Matthew 13:44-46

Now, these are some of the teachings Jesus said in the Gospels. Why was he teaching this? So people could get into heaven. Why is he teaching that? Because the end of the world was close at hand.

Tell me where I've taken anything out of context...if you please.

 

Now we are getting somewhere. Yes. Deny yourself. The first thing a Christian has to is accept Christ as a personal Savior. In that, you have to die to self. That simply means out with the old and in with the new. You are living to a new example. Now to "riches"...
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

The discussion is clear and I will focus on verses 21 and 24. Note that Jesus is talking to a man of many riches. Jesus is indicating that your heart is where your money is. It falls in with Joshua's warnings (23:8) and the Law in that "you should have no Gods before Me." Money can be an idol god just as a likeness of baal can be. You have quoted the parable of the talents earlier (Matt 25:14-30). This parable has a dual meaning in dealing with money and creating God's kingdom. It all falls under this question- "What did YOU do with what God gave you?" Is Jesus saying that one should not work or worry about money at all? No. There are numerous warnings against idleness. Jesus had the ability as a child to become a preacher/prophet (Luke 2:39-52) which would mean no work under the Mosaic treatments of Levitical preacher-types. Instead, he became a manual laborer (carpenter) until the time was right (Mark 6:3). Idleness is covered well by old and new testament (2 Thes 3:6-15) (Josh 18:3- Joshua is on my mind- I happen to be studying it at the moment ). Paul also had the right to be paid as an apostle, but he waived that right (1 Cor 9).
In a nutshell:
Money can be worshiped as any idol
Wealth is a gift from God- what did you do with what God gave you?
Idleness is not Biblical
"Ever seen a hurse with a luggage rack?"
The application is clear. Its really easy to apply today with our "gotta have it" culture. How many people work themselves to death to get the newest TV or a bigger house? Other cultures say Americans "live to work" v. "works to live". If you are spending that time working for new or drooling (coveting) over what's next, you are wasting 2 things- the time and money that God gave you. This teaching falls in line with dying to self.

In verse 22, Jesus indicates that this man fails in one aspect- he has put an idol before God. Can you imagine this guy living by the law in what he thinks is every aspect, only to find out that idols aren't just likenesses to a god? Hence the sorrowfulness in verse 24. That is sinking feeling. Man is selfish. This ties us back to dying to self. Verse 25 sums up Jesus' point and my explanation. By nature, a rich man worships money. One becomes rich by making money the center of one's life. If money is the center, God cannot be. "no gods before ME"

-We've covered Luke 18.
-In Luke 10:4, you are taking the verse a bit out of context. Nowhere in Luke 10 does Jesus say that people should sale their wealth. What He does say is don't worry about it- God will provide. The purpose of not taking a moneybag is to make haste. He wants the 72 to deliver the message now, not later.
-Matt 19:16-30 is the same instance as in Luke 18-25, just by a different account/author. We've already covered that.
-Mark 10:17-31 is the same instance as in Luke 18-25, just by a different account/author. We've already covered that.

"You are to have no Gods before me" is the answer from the law. In the New Testament, its explained by Jesus in "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind". This is also known as the Great Commandment. It encompasses everything that the Law was meant to do in the relationship between God and man. He is teaching this because He is getting the Apostles prepared to go and spread the word. Jesus knows what is coming to Him. You keep getting stuck on this Apocalyptic thing, when most of Jesus' teaching was directed at preparing disciples and readying them to understand the sacrificial lamb. Jesus spent one teaching on the Apocalypse- commonly known as the Olivet Discourse. You have taken a single discourse and viewed everything He taught through that lens. My guess is you probably get fixated on Matt 24:34 as well. You have to understand the context of Jesus' teachings. Let's look at Matt 24:34-

If you take verse 34 out of context, you can wrongly come to the conclusion that Jesus is predicting the Apocalypse by the end of the generation. This is not the case. What He says is that all the signs will begin before the generation has passed. How much turmoil was there immediately post Christ? Everything that He said would happen, did. From Christians being persecuted (fed to lions comes to mind) to false prophets. Was the temple not destroyed within that generation? There is an inherent time gap. Its explained in the fig tree. The fig is the last tree to bloom in Jerusalem. The time referenced is "after the tender leaves are put out". This implies the second coming will be some time later. If you were waiting on a fig tree to bloom, you would think its never coming. That is the point He is trying to make. There is no definitive time known for the second coming. This is reiterated 2 verses later with:

Despite this, you assert that the coming was supposed to of happened during the 1st century.

This brings me to my conclusion- you supposedly read critically. When you read, did you try yo understand the fig tree? Or did you latch onto the surface (24:34)? You have to remember when you read, Jesus gave these teachings to different men than us on a Mountain on the East side of Jerusalem thousands of years ago. To us, the fig may just be a tree. To them, it is associated with time... a long time. The sort of time that when you think it should be here, you have to wait longer. Hence why I say you have barely scratched the surface.

 

Really do not know where to start so let me start from what I think is the beginning of what we call the Bible today. The apostles fanned out from Jerusalem with in a few months after Jesus's resurection and ascension(witnessed by hundreds). Thousands believed in and witnessed for Jesus in and around town because they were eye witnesses to those events. Letters of encouragement, teaching, and even scolding were sent by the apostles to various churches as they sprang up in the northern Mediterrean areas. These became the books to the Romans, Ephesians, etc. The first four (NT) were individual accounts of Jesus's 3 yrs of ministry, crucifixion, resurection, teachings, and asencion into the sky. There are a few tossed in from Jesus's sibling(James I believe), and then the vision titled Revelation is the last book. This is only about the NT and will not go into the OT this post. Most of the NT was finished by 70-80 AD (a mere 20-30 yrs after His death) and accumulated soon there after into the "book". It was officially sanctioned later by the "church" and only those books that were written by the apostles and those with personal experiences with Jesus were included. There are many others that are of historical significance and important to know--but not to be considered as inspired by the Holy Spirit. Most all the writers gave their lives for doing so. What we have today is not a free gift but is paid for by the lives and freedom of them. If you chose not to believe in Jesus and His teachings then that is your decision. I sincerely hope you will contemplate that choice.