Like I already said, such a link provides an opportunity for the New Testament to be tainted that way, but neither makes it certain nor probable.
You're forgetting Christianity in that point in time was a new religion, based upon older religions. There's no way they've started from scratch again and frankly that's not what they did! This is really a fact and can easily be proven by just looking at Sumerian texts, other religions from that time and some popular ancient myths.
Many of the letters admonish those converts who attempt to hold on to parts of their former religions.
That's useful in a psychological sense, so of course they will. But they aren't talking about 'former religions' that in some ways have become part of Christianity. I don't think you can prove that the New Testament isn't full of Greek influences.
If you actually had a good look for yourself, you'd realise that it isn't that open to interpretation.
But that's where we disagree massively, as it clearly
is open to interpretation. It doesn't matter that my exemplary interpretation was a bit of a stretch, as your interpretation is even more of a stretch! At least my interpretations stick to the literal texts.
Instead, you give the impression that you have read some secular studies and articles on Christianity and taken their word for it.
I've read a whole lot of studies, but not just from people with a similar agnostic/atheist worldview as I have. I'm really a whole lot more neutral on the subject as you seem to think and pretty well informed for an "atheist".
I'm also really not taking their word for it, I'm looking at their evidence and as it's pretty damn solid, I just tend to agree.
You're whole idea of me evangelizing atheism is pure bs, but that's just your way of dealing with this kind of criticism I guess. And trust me, many Christians do exactly the same. It's easy to create this 'you're either with us or against us' kind of atmosphere with no room for logical explanations or different interpretations.
It's striking how fierce you believe in someone else's interpretation of the Bible, as if it's your own or even the one that makes most sense. It's easy to see many of these beliefs do not come from the Bible, but instead from your local organized religion.
It's also just pure funny to see how you do consider some parts to have a literal meaning, while in other cases you don't. It proves my point of how the popular theological content gathered out of the Bible is just an extremely relative interpretation with little to no true scriptural basis. I'm sure you will disagree, but I think you're the one who's biased here. (I'm not expecting you to agree with my interpretations at all by the way, if you believe that, you're missing the point.)
