Does the Bible call Atheists fools?

[Jester]

It came up in another thread that there was some disagreement over the translation of Psalm 53:1, which (in clasic King James) is:

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

It has been presented (by myself), that "There is no God." should be translated as "No, God." My reasons for doing so will be listed in the first response.

The official question, then: What is the most accurate translation of this verse?

[Jester]

Thanks for this, you blew away my jadedness about getting thorough and clear responses. This was excellent; really easy to follow and see just where you were coming from.

Okay, now to my responses:

1. His writings attest to it. It is self-evident.

I'm not a believer in self-evidence as a form of proof myself.

2. Why would he lie?

Why would the writers of other texts lie?

3. Most of his writings agree with much of the modern Xian Bible - are they false?

I personally don't take issue with his agreement with other texts, but mainly his exclusion of certain points, as well as the idea that such exclusion is necessary for salvation.

4. Marcion doesn't embellish like the newer Xian writers. His is more accurate to the earlier texts.

I was under the impression that his bible was newer than the cannonized texts. Their basic theology is in the oldest known documents regarding Christ. I would say that the cannonized books are true to these documents.

5. He only accepts the writings written from Jesus's time, unlike the Heretical Bible of Nicene, et al.

All of the books of the New Testament, with the exeption of John (which is controversial) were written in the first century.
Incedentally, the cannonized Bible was not the product of Nicence. It was an informal consensus until being officially recognized by the Chalcedon Council in 451.

6. "he shall be known by his works": Marcion was a wealthy, pious and happy man. He was kind, loving and generous and had no deceit in his soul.

I do not attack Marcion's character, but have not seen evidence that his generosity was great enough to conclude that he must have known a truth far greater than those with whom we are comparing him.

7. He performed miracles that only God could have given him.

Could you provide a reference or some evidence of this?
Moreover, I will have to be convinced that a person must be accurate in his/her theology to be used by God for miracles. My own understanding leads me to doubt this.

8. "Baring-Gould also says: "Marcion was too conscientious and earnest a man, wilfully to corrupt a gospel "[Lost and Hostile Gospels, p.241]."[/qutoe]I'm willing to believe that he believed it.

Canon Westcott is equally explicit in acquitting Marcion from the accusation made against him by the early fathers of the church. He says: "Tertullian and Epiphanius agree in affirming that Marcion altered the text of the books which he received, to suit his own views...

I'll believe that some resorted to dishonest means to try to discredit him. This does not mean that his writings should be acceptable, however, merely that I should be wary of such discrediting.

Answer for yourself: Does it stand to reason that Marcion would leave passages in his collection of written apostolic tradition and the Pauline epistles which opposed what he believed and taught but yet omitted key passages that supported this Gnostic theology if they existed in the documents he collected?

I agree that he seems, thus far, to have been an honest man. I don't oppose the content of the book, so far as I understand it. I simply disagree with his decision to reject other books which are, in my opinion, also credible.

Don't underestimate the hatred of the Church Father for anything opposed to what they considered "orthodoxy."

I don't see how this is relivant. I'm don't disagree with Marcion based on their testimony.

Marcion is a perfect example of one who taught what the earliest Christians held to be true and dear; that "the Christ" was a "Divine Concept" within all mankind; exemplified in a theophany, Jesus, who was sent from Heaven.

I'm not sure we can conclude that these were the beliefs of the earliest Christians. Obviously, I doubt this. I disagree with Marcion, not in that I think he was some kind of fraud, but that he seems to have reinterpreted the Christian narrative with a Greek understanding. While this may have been a sincere attempt at understanding the truth, that is not what the documents say. I'd be wary of this kind of reinterpretation without outside support.

Some writers still persist in repeating the old slander. But the more candid and intelligent opinion of Westcott and Baring-Gould, is supported by Semler, Griesbach, Loeffler, Schmidt, Schleiermacher, Hahn, and many other scholars. Simply said the hatred of such reputed Church Fathers like Tertullian and Epiphanius caused a slander of not only Marcion and the faith of the earliest Christians but was the impetus for the literary corruption of the First New Testament where these earliest concepts and religious beliefs about "the Christ" have been lost to all but those with the necessary knowledge to know better; few possess it.

The content of the early texts have been confirmed in the modern era. While slander does, sadly, still exist, there is no reason to believe that the early church leaders altered the texts. Even if they had motivation to do so (which is doubtful), the books were far to widespread for this to be a possibility.

Granted there are some scholars who, no doubt, will side with Marcion. I would point out, however, that the majority do not, and that the integrity of the documents we have seems to speak against his teachings.


I think I have given you enough to establish Marcion as the greatest man of Xianity since Paul.

[Goat]

Thanks for this, you blew away my jadedness about getting thorough and clear responses. This was excellent; really easy to follow and see just where you were coming from.

Okay, now to my responses:

1. His writings attest to it. It is self-evident.

I'm not a believer in self-evidence as a form of proof myself.

2. Why would he lie?

Why would the writers of other texts lie?

3. Most of his writings agree with much of the modern Xian Bible - are they false?

I personally don't take issue with his agreement with other texts, but mainly his exclusion of certain points, as well as the idea that such exclusion is necessary for salvation.

4. Marcion doesn't embellish like the newer Xian writers. His is more accurate to the earlier texts.

I was under the impression that his bible was newer than the cannonized texts. Their basic theology is in the oldest known documents regarding Christ. I would say that the cannonized books are true to these documents.

5. He only accepts the writings written from Jesus's time, unlike the Heretical Bible of Nicene, et al.

All of the books of the New Testament, with the exeption of John (which is controversial) were written in the first century.
Incedentally, the cannonized Bible was not the product of Nicence. It was an informal consensus until being officially recognized by the Chalcedon Council in 451.

6. "he shall be known by his works": Marcion was a wealthy, pious and happy man. He was kind, loving and generous and had no deceit in his soul.

I do not attack Marcion's character, but have not seen evidence that his generosity was great enough to conclude that he must have known a truth far greater than those with whom we are comparing him.

7. He performed miracles that only God could have given him.

Could you provide a reference or some evidence of this?
Moreover, I will have to be convinced that a person must be accurate in his/her theology to be used by God for miracles. My own understanding leads me to doubt this.

8. "Baring-Gould also says: "Marcion was too conscientious and earnest a man, wilfully to corrupt a gospel "[Lost and Hostile Gospels, p.241]."[/qutoe]I'm willing to believe that he believed it.

Canon Westcott is equally explicit in acquitting Marcion from the accusation made against him by the early fathers of the church. He says: "Tertullian and Epiphanius agree in affirming that Marcion altered the text of the books which he received, to suit his own views...

I'll believe that some resorted to dishonest means to try to discredit him. This does not mean that his writings should be acceptable, however, merely that I should be wary of such discrediting.

Answer for yourself: Does it stand to reason that Marcion would leave passages in his collection of written apostolic tradition and the Pauline epistles which opposed what he believed and taught but yet omitted key passages that supported this Gnostic theology if they existed in the documents he collected?

I agree that he seems, thus far, to have been an honest man. I don't oppose the content of the book, so far as I understand it. I simply disagree with his decision to reject other books which are, in my opinion, also credible.

Don't underestimate the hatred of the Church Father for anything opposed to what they considered "orthodoxy."

I don't see how this is relivant. I'm don't disagree with Marcion based on their testimony.

Marcion is a perfect example of one who taught what the earliest Christians held to be true and dear; that "the Christ" was a "Divine Concept" within all mankind; exemplified in a theophany, Jesus, who was sent from Heaven.

I'm not sure we can conclude that these were the beliefs of the earliest Christians. Obviously, I doubt this. I disagree with Marcion, not in that I think he was some kind of fraud, but that he seems to have reinterpreted the Christian narrative with a Greek understanding. While this may have been a sincere attempt at understanding the truth, that is not what the documents say. I'd be wary of this kind of reinterpretation without outside support.

Some writers still persist in repeating the old slander. But the more candid and intelligent opinion of Westcott and Baring-Gould, is supported by Semler, Griesbach, Loeffler, Schmidt, Schleiermacher, Hahn, and many other scholars. Simply said the hatred of such reputed Church Fathers like Tertullian and Epiphanius caused a slander of not only Marcion and the faith of the earliest Christians but was the impetus for the literary corruption of the First New Testament where these earliest concepts and religious beliefs about "the Christ" have been lost to all but those with the necessary knowledge to know better; few possess it.

The content of the early texts have been confirmed in the modern era. While slander does, sadly, still exist, there is no reason to believe that the early church leaders altered the texts. Even if they had motivation to do so (which is doubtful), the books were far to widespread for this to be a possibility.

Granted there are some scholars who, no doubt, will side with Marcion. I would point out, however, that the majority do not, and that the integrity of the documents we have seems to speak against his teachings.


I think I have given you enough to establish Marcion as the greatest man of Xianity since Paul.

There are a possibility that a number of the new testament books were written int the early second century.. 1 peter, 2 peter, luke , acts, 1/2/3 john as well as the gospel of John, and 1/2 timothy. It appears that the author of Luke/Acts could very well have used Josephus as a source, which would put the writing of that in the very very late 1st century, or into the second century.

The vast majority of the marcion bible was a subset of the cannon. As a matter of fact, the marcion bible didn't have any book in it that was not accepted by the coucil of Nicea, he just rejected 3 of the gospels, and the old testament.

[byofrcs]

I know this isn't quite dead-on the topic, but perhaps it is pertinent that a pastor once pointed out to me that the "there is" is added into that scripture for the English translations. It is arguable that the actual scripture is "a fool says in his heart 'no, God'".

1. Have you checked up on this? You have to either acknowledge that your pastor is lying, or every bible - except mine - is lying.

The trouble with this passage, as it’s been explained to me, is that this line can be translated either way, and that English translators have apparently been unanimous about the particular interpretation. Even the pastor that argued this pointed out that there is no translation that actually removes the “there is�, but this argument is easy to confirm if you can check the Hebrew in Strong’s dictionaries.
The Hebrew word "�ין" is generally translated as “no� or “not�. It is a negation that can simply mean no, but can also mean “does not exist�. As such, both translations are grammatically correct. As to which one is meaningfully accurate:

The reason why I believed the pastor, other than that he seemed to have no reason to be lying, was that the standard translation doesn’t make historical sense. Atheism didn’t exist at the time of writing. Unless we’re considering the idea that God inspired the writer to comment on a future belief (which doesn’t strike me as true at all), then the translation I pointed out makes much more sense.

2. Since I don't follow the heretical bible most people do, my bible doesn't say this.

I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here.

3. So, I checked the Modern Xian's Bible. It doesn't say "fool". Quote below.

I may just be misunderstanding, but perhaps there’s some confusion about which verse we’re discussing? The reference is Psalm 53:1.
If, however, you were making the point that there are other places in the Bible where people are referred to as being disobedient to God without being specifically referred to as fools, I’ll agree. I would add, however, that the implication that this is a foolish act would be implicit in such cases.

4. This is a Psalm: a song. Has anyone wondered what kind of nuts wrote this?

Many people have wondered a great deal about who wrote each section of the Bible. More to your point, I’d say that all people are a bit nutty, but that this is not particularly so. Poems and songs are not logical dissertations, the images are not supposed to be practical.

If your bible says something different, then you have the wrong bible.

My Bible is a different translation, of course, but I’ve checked enough to know that it’s not any more “wrong� than any translation.

I also might add that the entire Psalm calls EVERYONE foolish and stupid.

Indeed it does. The Bible maintains that no one follows God as we should, and any comment talking about those who foolishly rebel against God specifically references “believers� and “unbelievers� alike.

Let me translate: God looked down on the children of men and didn't see one person understand and seek God. Not one.

I agree.

It's just a passage from a hideous book that ugly people with menial minds quote because they lack so much other power over their own lives. They hide behind the authority of their heretical book - that was made by fools (as proven by the Psalm) and lash out at people who don't want to believe in their evil Santa.

Be careful here, this is debating a group of people, rather than the issue.

Read the whole not the part and the answer is clear. To me the passage shows that Atheism has always been a part of society, though it would have been an unspoken (heartfelt) part.

The subject is the "fool". If we step over the disputed "No, God"/ "No God" then the fool is corrupt, and does abominable works and no good.

Is this all fools ? Unlikely - fools are just foolish, not evil. So the "No God" is a modifier. Today we call that "atheism".

Given the understanding that some will spontaneously come to the conclusion that there is no God, then there is a need to denigrate this intrinsic understanding. It starts off mildly as a claim to foolishness and then continues in a vitriolic character assassination. Simple gutter politics.

This debate on the "fool" claim is trivial compare to the hatred in the rest of the paragraph, which appears to be studiously avoided. Given the punishments that religions inflict on the others within, it would be have been foolish to voice any atheism but in modern western society it is just (only just) becoming possible to come out.

We know that religion has no monopoly on morality and the concept of right and wrong that atheists are neither more nor less likely to be corrupt, do abominable works and no good (in fact western secular societies with high levels of organic atheism (i.e. coerced) have a greater societal health than theistic ones.

Those that wrote the Psalm may have known this too. I suspect the Pastor knows this too so inventing a new backstory.

[Word_Swordsman]

I personally think that one concept Marcion had should have been adopted by Christianity, and that is abandoning the old testament. You christians got the entire "Old Testament" wrong anyway.

You have no idea how many times Jesus referenced the Hebrew Tanach as authoritative in His debates with Jews. Apparently Marcion was also blind to that. Jesus showed the Father of Christianity as the same that presided over the pages of the Tanach as spoke to Him. Yahweh is God throughout the Bible. Marcion was chief heretic of heretics, a shame to the Church for his writings, not the documents he accepted. His heresy is in his rejections of truths. He allowed Satan to choose which books to accept.

From the first century onward there have been numerous Christians believing Christianity is an offspring of Judaism, a remodeled Jewish religion. Judaisers caused Paul and other apostles many problems. Christianity is a NEW covenant prophesied in the Tanach to replace the old Mosaic Covenant, but not to destroy the old. The God of the Tanach also told the Jews He would show the Gentiles the same light afforded them, in the New Covenant.

Christians, by instruction of the Holy Spirit, arrive at a proper understanding of the purpose of the Tanach (Old Testament) and why it is included in many Bibles. Besides the obvious things we learn from it, much of the teachings of the New Testament would remain mysterious without knowing the background of the Tanach, particularly the Torah portion. The God of the New Covenant requiring sacrifice of His own son, forgiving sin on the basis of the blood of Jesus?

In no case will any atheist, agnostic, or any other Bible skeptic or backslider have any influence on the Church except to remain on guard against the Deception, which reminds us it is still here due to existence and clamoring of those anti-Christ groups. You keep the Church alert. Marcion had a few good things going, but his works are not valued by the Church today. It's one of those bad apple in the barrel things. Marcion simply got side tracked by the Devil who would have been pleased for the Church to lose sight of the core work of God concerning the blood of Jesus.

[Goat]

I personally think that one concept Marcion had should have been adopted by Christianity, and that is abandoning the old testament. You christians got the entire "Old Testament" wrong anyway.

You have no idea how many times Jesus referenced the Hebrew Tanach as authoritative in His debates with Jews. Apparently Marcion was also blind to that. Jesus showed the Father of Christianity as the same that presided over the pages of the Tanach as spoke to Him. Yahweh is God throughout the Bible. Marcion was chief heretic of heretics, a shame to the Church for his writings, not the documents he accepted. His heresy is in his rejections of truths. He allowed Satan to choose which books to accept.

Well, you know, neither do you. The writings that actually reference what are supposed to be the teachings of Jesus were written decades after he was supposedly crucified. Yes, you are taking it as an authority... but there obviously was disagreement. Yes, Marcion rejects many of the scripture you accepted,
but the ancient church fathers, because of political motivations, rejected many scriptures too. You reject many of the other scriptures that were sought out and destroyed by the early church (post council of Nicea)

From the first century onward there have been numerous Christians believing Christianity is an offspring of Judaism, a remodeled Jewish religion. Judaisers caused Paul and other apostles many problems. Christianity is a NEW covenant prophesied in the Tanach to replace the old Mosaic Covenant, but not to destroy the old. The God of the Tanach also told the Jews He would show the Gentiles the same light afforded them, in the New Covenant.

Christians, by instruction of the Holy Spirit, arrive at a proper understanding of the purpose of the Tanach (Old Testament) and why it is included in many Bibles. Besides the obvious things we learn from it, much of the teachings of the New Testament would remain mysterious without knowing the background of the Tanach, particularly the Torah portion. The God of the New Covenant requiring sacrifice of His own son, forgiving sin on the basis of the blood of Jesus?

In no case will any atheist, agnostic, or any other Bible skeptic or backslider have any influence on the Church except to remain on guard against the Deception, which reminds us it is still here due to existence and clamoring of those anti-Christ groups. You keep the Church alert. Marcion had a few good things going, but his works are not valued by the Church today. It's one of those bad apple in the barrel things. Marcion simply got side tracked by the Devil who would have been pleased for the Church to lose sight of the core work of God concerning the blood of Jesus.

Yes, a number of Christians believe that they are the 'true jews', but their teachings have been corrupted by Paul, and his paganistic theology. Yes,
the modern church does not accept marcion, but as far as I can see, the modern church is corrupted by Pauline theology. Much of the more southern parts of the U.S. have been corrupted by the Millerite interpretations of the Bible, including such heresies as a the reinterpretation of baptism, the rapture, and the tribulation.

[Word_Swordsman]

Yes, a number of Christians believe that they are the 'true jews', but their teachings have been corrupted by Paul, and his paganistic theology. Yes,
the modern church does not accept marcion, but as far as I can see, the modern church is corrupted by Pauline theology. Much of the more southern parts of the U.S. have been corrupted by the Millerite interpretations of the Bible, including such heresies as a the reinterpretation of baptism, the rapture, and the tribulation.

In your opinion and that of enemies of the Church Paul did that, but the great majority of Church Fathers beginning with Peter commended his teachings which established the major part of Church doctrine which never contradicts the teachings of the Christ. Enemies of the Church hate Paul for giving us perfect understanding of Jesus as the Christ, also being the Jew's Messiah. Your assertion makes a fool of Peter and attacks the whole of the Bible.

The teachings of Paul and Jesus on those subjects you list are perfectly aligned, something that drives atheists nuts. But we Christians understand how it is atheists must continue to disparage Paul, in so doing discrediting Jesus in your own minds. Your comments are but further proof atheists are called fools by God and anyone understanding the word of God.

Luke 24:25 "Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:"

Even men that did know God have a certain condemnation equal to that of atheists.
Romans 1:21-25 "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. [22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, [23] And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. [24] Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: [25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

All such people share the same destiny of eternal destruction.

[Word_Swordsman]

Well, you know, neither do you. The writings that actually reference what are supposed to be the teachings of Jesus were written decades after he was supposedly crucified. Yes, you are taking it as an authority... but there obviously was disagreement. Yes, Marcion rejects many of the scripture you accepted,
but the ancient church fathers, because of political motivations, rejected many scriptures too. You reject many of the other scriptures that were sought out and destroyed by the early church (post council of Nicea)

Again, you don't understand how Christians were able to sort the false from the true. Those long held as true by the widespread churches remained, while those not bearing the earmarks of divine inspiration were discarded, like the works of Marcion. Care to see a list of Jesus' references to the Tanach, even equating Moses' writings to be the word of God?

As for the record in writing decades after Jesus lived on earth, would you then obey your own rule of biographical writings and discard all written of someone decades after their death? If you do then you provide yet another reason God calls atheists fools.

[Goat]

Yes, a number of Christians believe that they are the 'true jews', but their teachings have been corrupted by Paul, and his paganistic theology. Yes,
the modern church does not accept marcion, but as far as I can see, the modern church is corrupted by Pauline theology. Much of the more southern parts of the U.S. have been corrupted by the Millerite interpretations of the Bible, including such heresies as a the reinterpretation of baptism, the rapture, and the tribulation.

In your opinion and that of enemies of the Church Paul did that, but the great majority of Church Fathers beginning with Peter commended his teachings which established the major part of Church doctrine which never contradicts the teachings of the Christ. Enemies of the Church hate Paul for giving us perfect understanding of Jesus as the Christ, also being the Jew's Messiah. Your assertion makes a fool of Peter and attacks the whole of the Bible.

The teachings of Paul and Jesus on those subjects you list are perfectly aligned, something that drives atheists nuts. But we Christians understand how it is atheists must continue to disparage Paul, in so doing discrediting Jesus in your own minds. Your comments are but further proof atheists are called fools by God and anyone understanding the word of God.

Luke 24:25 "Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:"

Even men that did know God have a certain condemnation equal to that of atheists.
Romans 1:21-25 "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. [22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, [23] And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. [24] Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: [25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

All such people share the same destiny of eternal destruction.

Hum.. the Roman's 1:21-25 sounds like it is talking about a certain type of believer more than the atheists. It sounds like 'when they knew god' and 'vain in their imaginations' sounds more descriptive of those people who label themselves as 'fundamentalists' than any atheist. It sounds like those people who are extremely sure and proud of their faith.

Luke also does not sound like it is addressing thsoe who do not believe in God. It sounds like it is addressed to the type of believer that is too confident in themselves, rather than in God.

And no, I don't see how the teachings of Paul and the teachings of Jesus are aligned at all. Paul's message is about the messanger, and for the most part, the
teachings attributed to Jesus are how to live.

There is a big difference between looking at the messenger, and looking at the message. The people who follow Paul look at the messenger.. and the message does not seem to be followed.. or at least be nearly as important.


Oh, and no, Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah. The Jewish Messiah is identified by certain tasks that have to be accomplished, but since those tasks are as of yet uncompleted, Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah.

He is the Christian messiah, who so happens to be Jewish, but that is a different matter.

[Word_Swordsman]

Hum.. the Roman's 1:21-25 sounds like it is talking about a certain type of believer more than the atheists. It sounds like 'when they knew god' and 'vain in their imaginations' sounds more descriptive of those people who label themselves as 'fundamentalists' than any atheist. It sounds like those people who are extremely sure and proud of their faith.

It "sounds" a certain way to you via the voice of Satan. I don't know of any "fundamentalist" Christians supplanting God with images and idols of beasts. You should read the chapter, thereby gaining the context. The Christian boast is in the Lord and His word. You mistake that as a personal boasting of ourselves.

Luke also does not sound like it is addressing thsoe who do not "believe in God. It sounds like it is addressed to the type of believer that is too confident in themselves, rather than in God.

Again, you act upon the "sounds" of Satan.

And no, I don't see how the teachings of Paul and the teachings of Jesus are aligned at all. Paul's message is about the messanger, and for the most part, the teachings attributed to Jesus are how to live.

Again, Satan distorts all those teachings in your own mind. Of course you can't
"see" how Paul amplifies on the teaching of Jesus. I can't hold that against you since you are blinded by the Devil. I can only point it out to you.

There is a big difference between looking at the messenger, and looking at the message. The people who follow Paul look at the messenger.. and the message does not seem to be followed.. or at least be nearly as important.

Again, the "Rock" of the Christian confession, Peter disputes your distorted view.

Oh, and no, Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah. The Jewish Messiah is identified by certain tasks that have to be accomplished, but since those tasks are as of yet uncompleted, Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah.

He is the Christian messiah, who so happens to be Jewish, but that is a different matter.

OK, so let's see what you have on the unfulfilled tasks you refer to. Even the Christian texts pertaining to the Christ include tasks to be done during the last days, which are not yet. How can you prove against future tasks that are impossible to fulfill until the proper time? What applied in former times must be compared to what the prophecies said of Christ (Messiah) in those times. Saying Jesus didn't finish the job before the time for the job is foolishness. He will return to finish it all.

[Cathar1950]

Well, you know, neither do you. The writings that actually reference what are supposed to be the teachings of Jesus were written decades after he was supposedly crucified. Yes, you are taking it as an authority... but there obviously was disagreement. Yes, Marcion rejects many of the scripture you accepted,
but the ancient church fathers, because of political motivations, rejected many scriptures too. You reject many of the other scriptures that were sought out and destroyed by the early church (post council of Nicea)

Again, you don't understand how Christians were able to sort the false from the true. Those long held as true by the widespread churches remained, while those not bearing the earmarks of divine inspiration were discarded, like the works of Marcion. Care to see a list of Jesus' references to the Tanach, even equating Moses' writings to be the word of God?

As for the record in writing decades after Jesus lived on earth, would you then obey your own rule of biographical writings and discard all written of someone decades after their death? If you do then you provide yet another reason God calls atheists fools.

I am sure he understands and that you are not only in error but have a slighted view of the selection process.
The proto-orthox selected the writings because they had a Pauline tendency and the ones that were picked stayed because they either were being used or had a questionable tradition behind them. The so-called letter of Peter is known as a forgery and from Paul's letters we know Peter and others withdrew from Paul.
Jesus didn't make any references that we know of as all we have is his later followers words about Jesus.
We certainly question the claims made in other ancient writings when it comes to questionable stories and calling someone a fool because they question writings that should be questions is rather self promoting.