All of it is invented. All reasonable evidence points to The Bible and other religious texts being the products of human beings.

The questions that remain are why these inventions (were they altruistic or attempts at control,power over people). Either way were they a good or bad thing - or neither. Does any of the good achieved outweigh the abuses and negative aspects of religious zealotry? Would history be a more violent or least violent picture without belief in a supernatural being?

Does religion serve a purpose in the modern world? No matter what I or other Atheists assert, it seems to serve a purpose for many irrespective of pedantics about texts.

Hi Poirot. It is a hard thing to distill into a message on here. I would encourage you to look at things from the opposite perspective. By this I mean, challenge the things that people tell you are true (eg. Science/Archaeology/Philosophy has disproved the Bible) and really test it. I know many who have done this and come away convinced of the truth of the Bible.

Some reading I have done which has helped me include writings by John Lennox (Oxford Professor of Mathematics, degrees in Science and Philosophy and whatever else takes his fancy). When he debates people such as Richard Dawkins, Peter Singer, etc they don't do to well...

Older books would be Frank Morrison (Who Moved The Stone) and Josh McDowell (Evidence that Demands a Verdict). Both were people who set out to disprove Christianity and ended up believing it.

Bottom line is that I can't prove any of this to you but even the best efforts (and there have been many) of great minds throughout history have put not even a dent in Christianity.

Well I've just read a John Lennox article on line and I don't find him at all persuasive. He is basically a proponent of intelligent design - God made the universe, and allows humans to 'discover' the laws by which it operates. I wonder how he explains non-believers being allowed the same rights of discovery as believers

Rational-Debate, I guess that works the same way as contries run by despots are often called Democratic Republics

"The way forward for the Church is not a retreat into a literal and hence historical reading of Scripture."

Trouble is, Peter, without a literal reading of Scripture the Church has neither a way forward nor a way back. If original sin is nonsense -- as of course it is -- then the idea of a human sacrifice for the redemption of original sin is also nonsense, and the activities of Jesus, whether historical or mythological, were utterly futile. Jesus's claim to be listened to relies on the assumption that he had privileged access to the Head Honcho of the Universe; without that he has no more claim on our time than Socrates, Confucius or the author of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

When the Bible is judged on its merits rather than its supposed divine origins, it turns out to be a jumble of misogyny, bigotry and exhortations to slaughter, coupled with a few fairy stories and some erotic poetry. Cut the umbilical cord to God, and you're left with a Bronze Age version of Cole's Funny Picture Book.

Rational debate.
My apologies. The use of the word "invent" here is not up to the task. It would suggest that the author of Luke acted alone and was not guided by the Spirit that he is especially fond of invoking. A better description of the composition of biblical texts is that they arise out of the theological reflection of a community of belief; the Church. They are not therefore "invented" but are a response gathered from insights into the meaning of the person of Christ, his ministry death and presence in the church.

Thank you for your comment.
Peter Sellick