You have no valid claim to 'truth'. Just because you proclaim it to be truth, doesn't make it so. Just because a book (or collection of books) proclaim itself/themselves to be truth, does not make it so. You've been taught all your life to take at face value the claims of old texts written in more primitive times, and you feel convicted in these beleifs because you've been conditioned to feel that way. Had you been born in Afghanistan, you'd probably be a Muslim--actually, given that you're probably the most unhinged Christian on this forum, I wouldn't be surprised if the Afghani version of you was a jihadist.
You beleive the Bible because it says that it is the truth, and you beleive that because the Bible says that it is the truth, and you beleive that because the Bible says that it is the truth, and you beleive that to be truth, and you beleive that because the Bible says that it is the truth . . .
That is the nature of your 'truth'; unsubstantiated, self-referencing BS.
Christian 'truth's used to be far more diverse when Christianity was in it's infantcy. There was a wide, massively conflicting array of views surrounding Jesus. The purpose of the Nicea Council was to reign in the splintered religion and consolidate it into a single narrative, and thus the canonical texts came to be known as such. This was done entirely for political reasons, as a people divided by religion are more difficult to govern.
Not even the canonical texts line up perfectly--they certainly weren't hand-picked by Yahweh, himself. Luke and Matthew, for instance, tell conflicting versions of the birth of Christ. We can't even be certain that the people attributed to those books actualy wrote them; the earliest known texts were written decades after the death of Christ, and it was not uncommon for authors to credit well-known figures for their writing in order to lend them credibility.
