Do you follow the religion of your ancestors or did you pick your own?

[Anonymous]

Sort of both? Culturally Catholic due to ancestors but not spiritually Catholic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you follow an Abrahamic religion and you're not currently Jewish, then no. This applies to all Christians (Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, etc) and Muslims (Sunni, Shia, etc)

Not so. The core claim of Christianity is that it is the faithful continuation of Old Testament faith.

Modern Rabbinic Judaism is a separate religion that was developing during the late Second Temple period but then was further adapted after AD 70. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbinic_Judaism

As you wrote, they "claim" it. Still doesn't make it true. Either way, still silly distinctions over made up stories. It's like people arguing over who shot first in the original star wars. It doesn't matter. It's a story. Period.

So you went looking for truth and beauty, and this is what you came up with? Fingers in your ears and "lalalalalala"? I remember kids saying this kind of thing in 7th grade, but surely...

Nice attempt at trying to change subject. It's not the PP fault for stating the obvious.

But it's a very low IQ take, kind of a failure of our education system. Atheist scholars: https://ehrmanblog.org/my-book-did-jesus-exist-an-answer-to-the-mythicists/

What's your point? Even if there were any evidence that a real person existed, all the stories are just that, stories. In other words, myths.

How does this go in your mind?
1. It's all myth
2. Well okay, some of the people are real, but ALL the stories are myths (which is a kind of self-refuting argument)

Now what? Not ALL of the stories can be myths, because that would mean the people didn't exist. It would be like saying that there was a person named George Washington, but nothing true can be known about him. It's incoherent.

Your post certainly is.

/DP who is pretty sure the PP meant the supernatural BS.

It sounds like we're working our way through a syllogism, at least!

So now:
3. Well okay, some of the people are real, and some of the stories are real, but if I can't explain a story naturally then it's myth.

No.

If you can't show evidence for something then there is no reason to believe it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you follow an Abrahamic religion and you're not currently Jewish, then no. This applies to all Christians (Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, etc) and Muslims (Sunni, Shia, etc)

Not so. The core claim of Christianity is that it is the faithful continuation of Old Testament faith.

Modern Rabbinic Judaism is a separate religion that was developing during the late Second Temple period but then was further adapted after AD 70. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbinic_Judaism

As you wrote, they "claim" it. Still doesn't make it true. Either way, still silly distinctions over made up stories. It's like people arguing over who shot first in the original star wars. It doesn't matter. It's a story. Period.

So you went looking for truth and beauty, and this is what you came up with? Fingers in your ears and "lalalalalala"? I remember kids saying this kind of thing in 7th grade, but surely...

Nice attempt at trying to change subject. It's not the PP fault for stating the obvious.

But it's a very low IQ take, kind of a failure of our education system. Atheist scholars: https://ehrmanblog.org/my-book-did-jesus-exist-an-answer-to-the-mythicists/

What's your point? Even if there were any evidence that a real person existed, all the stories are just that, stories. In other words, myths.

How does this go in your mind?
1. It's all myth
2. Well okay, some of the people are real, but ALL the stories are myths (which is a kind of self-refuting argument)

Now what? Not ALL of the stories can be myths, because that would mean the people didn't exist. It would be like saying that there was a person named George Washington, but nothing true can be known about him. It's incoherent.

Bad example to use Washington. There is mountains of evidence of his existence.

Using your "reasoning" the cherry tree story is real because he was real (hint it was made up).

Who is the incoherent one?

Washington is a deliberate example because of the mountains of evidence.

There are mountains of evidence for the existence of Christ and the apostles.

There are more and better mountains for Washington

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you follow an Abrahamic religion and you're not currently Jewish, then no. This applies to all Christians (Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, etc) and Muslims (Sunni, Shia, etc)

Not so. The core claim of Christianity is that it is the faithful continuation of Old Testament faith.

Modern Rabbinic Judaism is a separate religion that was developing during the late Second Temple period but then was further adapted after AD 70. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbinic_Judaism

As you wrote, they "claim" it. Still doesn't make it true. Either way, still silly distinctions over made up stories. It's like people arguing over who shot first in the original star wars. It doesn't matter. It's a story. Period.

So you went looking for truth and beauty, and this is what you came up with? Fingers in your ears and "lalalalalala"? I remember kids saying this kind of thing in 7th grade, but surely...

Nice attempt at trying to change subject. It's not the PP fault for stating the obvious.

But it's a very low IQ take, kind of a failure of our education system. Atheist scholars: https://ehrmanblog.org/my-book-did-jesus-exist-an-answer-to-the-mythicists/

What's your point? Even if there were any evidence that a real person existed, all the stories are just that, stories. In other words, myths.

How does this go in your mind?
1. It's all myth
2. Well okay, some of the people are real, but ALL the stories are myths (which is a kind of self-refuting argument)

Now what? Not ALL of the stories can be myths, because that would mean the people didn't exist. It would be like saying that there was a person named George Washington, but nothing true can be known about him. It's incoherent.

Bad example to use Washington. There is mountains of evidence of his existence.

Using your "reasoning" the cherry tree story is real because he was real (hint it was made up).

Who is the incoherent one?

Washington is a deliberate example because of the mountains of evidence.

There are mountains of evidence for the existence of Christ and the apostles.

There are more and better mountains for Washington

We agree: it's a difference of degree, not of kind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you follow an Abrahamic religion and you're not currently Jewish, then no. This applies to all Christians (Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, etc) and Muslims (Sunni, Shia, etc)

Not so. The core claim of Christianity is that it is the faithful continuation of Old Testament faith.

Modern Rabbinic Judaism is a separate religion that was developing during the late Second Temple period but then was further adapted after AD 70. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbinic_Judaism

As you wrote, they "claim" it. Still doesn't make it true. Either way, still silly distinctions over made up stories. It's like people arguing over who shot first in the original star wars. It doesn't matter. It's a story. Period.

So you went looking for truth and beauty, and this is what you came up with? Fingers in your ears and "lalalalalala"? I remember kids saying this kind of thing in 7th grade, but surely...

Nice attempt at trying to change subject. It's not the PP fault for stating the obvious.

But it's a very low IQ take, kind of a failure of our education system. Atheist scholars: https://ehrmanblog.org/my-book-did-jesus-exist-an-answer-to-the-mythicists/

What's your point? Even if there were any evidence that a real person existed, all the stories are just that, stories. In other words, myths.

How does this go in your mind?
1. It's all myth
2. Well okay, some of the people are real, but ALL the stories are myths (which is a kind of self-refuting argument)

Now what? Not ALL of the stories can be myths, because that would mean the people didn't exist. It would be like saying that there was a person named George Washington, but nothing true can be known about him. It's incoherent.

Bad example to use Washington. There is mountains of evidence of his existence.

Using your "reasoning" the cherry tree story is real because he was real (hint it was made up).

Who is the incoherent one?

Washington is a deliberate example because of the mountains of evidence.

There are mountains of evidence for the existence of Christ and the apostles.

Lol. Mountains of evidence for a real Jesus. Provide just a fraction of it.

Oh dear. Someone missed out on a liberal arts education.

If there is so much proof, why such a struggle to provide even one little iota?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you follow an Abrahamic religion and you're not currently Jewish, then no. This applies to all Christians (Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, etc) and Muslims (Sunni, Shia, etc)

That's an odd take. None of my ancestors were Jewish.

The religious antecedents were.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you follow an Abrahamic religion and you're not currently Jewish, then no. This applies to all Christians (Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, etc) and Muslims (Sunni, Shia, etc)

Not so. The core claim of Christianity is that it is the faithful continuation of Old Testament faith.

Modern Rabbinic Judaism is a separate religion that was developing during the late Second Temple period but then was further adapted after AD 70. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbinic_Judaism

As you wrote, they "claim" it. Still doesn't make it true. Either way, still silly distinctions over made up stories. It's like people arguing over who shot first in the original star wars. It doesn't matter. It's a story. Period.

So you went looking for truth and beauty, and this is what you came up with? Fingers in your ears and "lalalalalala"? I remember kids saying this kind of thing in 7th grade, but surely...

Nice attempt at trying to change subject. It's not the PP fault for stating the obvious.

But it's a very low IQ take, kind of a failure of our education system. Atheist scholars: https://ehrmanblog.org/my-book-did-jesus-exist-an-answer-to-the-mythicists/

What's your point? Even if there were any evidence that a real person existed, all the stories are just that, stories. In other words, myths.

How does this go in your mind?
1. It's all myth
2. Well okay, some of the people are real, but ALL the stories are myths (which is a kind of self-refuting argument)

Now what? Not ALL of the stories can be myths, because that would mean the people didn't exist. It would be like saying that there was a person named George Washington, but nothing true can be known about him. It's incoherent.

What your failed reasoning is missing is that even if a person who we would call Jesus was real, it does not make it true that he was the son of some God, born to a virgin, or that he died and came back to life. This all equals a myth.

For the religious defender, where is the proof of any of this? I thought you said there were "mountains" of evidence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you follow an Abrahamic religion and you're not currently Jewish, then no. This applies to all Christians (Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, etc) and Muslims (Sunni, Shia, etc)

Not so. The core claim of Christianity is that it is the faithful continuation of Old Testament faith.

Modern Rabbinic Judaism is a separate religion that was developing during the late Second Temple period but then was further adapted after AD 70. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbinic_Judaism

As you wrote, they "claim" it. Still doesn't make it true. Either way, still silly distinctions over made up stories. It's like people arguing over who shot first in the original star wars. It doesn't matter. It's a story. Period.

So you went looking for truth and beauty, and this is what you came up with? Fingers in your ears and "lalalalalala"? I remember kids saying this kind of thing in 7th grade, but surely...

Nice attempt at trying to change subject. It's not the PP fault for stating the obvious.

But it's a very low IQ take, kind of a failure of our education system. Atheist scholars: https://ehrmanblog.org/my-book-did-jesus-exist-an-answer-to-the-mythicists/

What's your point? Even if there were any evidence that a real person existed, all the stories are just that, stories. In other words, myths.

How does this go in your mind?
1. It's all myth
2. Well okay, some of the people are real, but ALL the stories are myths (which is a kind of self-refuting argument)

Now what? Not ALL of the stories can be myths, because that would mean the people didn't exist. It would be like saying that there was a person named George Washington, but nothing true can be known about him. It's incoherent.

What your failed reasoning is missing is that even if a person who we would call Jesus was real, it does not make it true that he was the son of some God, born to a virgin, or that he died and came back to life. This all equals a myth.

Correct. For example --- just because there was a real King named Nickolas who was very generous, doesn't mean the myth of Santa Claus is true. That is, it doesn't mean that there is a guy living at the North Pole making toys for Christian children (only), with the help of elves, that he delivers on Christmas Eve via a flying sleigh with 8 tiny reindeer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you follow an Abrahamic religion and you're not currently Jewish, then no. This applies to all Christians (Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, etc) and Muslims (Sunni, Shia, etc)

Not so. The core claim of Christianity is that it is the faithful continuation of Old Testament faith.

Modern Rabbinic Judaism is a separate religion that was developing during the late Second Temple period but then was further adapted after AD 70. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbinic_Judaism

As you wrote, they "claim" it. Still doesn't make it true. Either way, still silly distinctions over made up stories. It's like people arguing over who shot first in the original star wars. It doesn't matter. It's a story. Period.

So you went looking for truth and beauty, and this is what you came up with? Fingers in your ears and "lalalalalala"? I remember kids saying this kind of thing in 7th grade, but surely...

Nice attempt at trying to change subject. It's not the PP fault for stating the obvious.

But it's a very low IQ take, kind of a failure of our education system. Atheist scholars: https://ehrmanblog.org/my-book-did-jesus-exist-an-answer-to-the-mythicists/

What's your point? Even if there were any evidence that a real person existed, all the stories are just that, stories. In other words, myths.

How does this go in your mind?
1. It's all myth
2. Well okay, some of the people are real, but ALL the stories are myths (which is a kind of self-refuting argument)

Now what? Not ALL of the stories can be myths, because that would mean the people didn't exist. It would be like saying that there was a person named George Washington, but nothing true can be known about him. It's incoherent.

What your failed reasoning is missing is that even if a person who we would call Jesus was real, it does not make it true that he was the son of some God, born to a virgin, or that he died and came back to life. This all equals a myth.

For the religious defender, where is the proof of any of this? I thought you said there were "mountains" of evidence?

That's probably what was said by the clergy person who told pp that Jesus was a real person

[Anonymous]

I’m an atheist but I support the religion of my ancestors because it is the reason we have western civilization and I have freedom, rights, and prosperity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you follow an Abrahamic religion and you're not currently Jewish, then no. This applies to all Christians (Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, etc) and Muslims (Sunni, Shia, etc)

Not so. The core claim of Christianity is that it is the faithful continuation of Old Testament faith.

Modern Rabbinic Judaism is a separate religion that was developing during the late Second Temple period but then was further adapted after AD 70. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbinic_Judaism

As you wrote, they "claim" it. Still doesn't make it true. Either way, still silly distinctions over made up stories. It's like people arguing over who shot first in the original star wars. It doesn't matter. It's a story. Period.

So you went looking for truth and beauty, and this is what you came up with? Fingers in your ears and "lalalalalala"? I remember kids saying this kind of thing in 7th grade, but surely...

Nice attempt at trying to change subject. It's not the PP fault for stating the obvious.

But it's a very low IQ take, kind of a failure of our education system. Atheist scholars: https://ehrmanblog.org/my-book-did-jesus-exist-an-answer-to-the-mythicists/

What's your point? Even if there were any evidence that a real person existed, all the stories are just that, stories. In other words, myths.

How does this go in your mind?
1. It's all myth
2. Well okay, some of the people are real, but ALL the stories are myths (which is a kind of self-refuting argument)

Now what? Not ALL of the stories can be myths, because that would mean the people didn't exist. It would be like saying that there was a person named George Washington, but nothing true can be known about him. It's incoherent.

Bad example to use Washington. There is mountains of evidence of his existence.

Using your "reasoning" the cherry tree story is real because he was real (hint it was made up).

Who is the incoherent one?

Washington is a deliberate example because of the mountains of evidence.

There are mountains of evidence for the existence of Christ and the apostles.

There are more and better mountains for Washington

We agree: it's a difference of degree, not of kind.

Not really -- all the Washington stuff could have happened -- i.e., none of it is supernatural. All of the Jesus stuff that forms Christianity (e.g., rising from the dead) is supernatural. Jesus (or someone) said some good things, but that's all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you follow an Abrahamic religion and you're not currently Jewish, then no. This applies to all Christians (Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, etc) and Muslims (Sunni, Shia, etc)

Not so. The core claim of Christianity is that it is the faithful continuation of Old Testament faith.

Modern Rabbinic Judaism is a separate religion that was developing during the late Second Temple period but then was further adapted after AD 70. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbinic_Judaism

As you wrote, they "claim" it. Still doesn't make it true. Either way, still silly distinctions over made up stories. It's like people arguing over who shot first in the original star wars. It doesn't matter. It's a story. Period.

So you went looking for truth and beauty, and this is what you came up with? Fingers in your ears and "lalalalalala"? I remember kids saying this kind of thing in 7th grade, but surely...

Nice attempt at trying to change subject. It's not the PP fault for stating the obvious.

But it's a very low IQ take, kind of a failure of our education system. Atheist scholars: https://ehrmanblog.org/my-book-did-jesus-exist-an-answer-to-the-mythicists/

What's your point? Even if there were any evidence that a real person existed, all the stories are just that, stories. In other words, myths.

How does this go in your mind?
1. It's all myth
2. Well okay, some of the people are real, but ALL the stories are myths (which is a kind of self-refuting argument)

Now what? Not ALL of the stories can be myths, because that would mean the people didn't exist. It would be like saying that there was a person named George Washington, but nothing true can be known about him. It's incoherent.

Bad example to use Washington. There is mountains of evidence of his existence.

Using your "reasoning" the cherry tree story is real because he was real (hint it was made up).

Who is the incoherent one?

Washington is a deliberate example because of the mountains of evidence.

There are mountains of evidence for the existence of Christ and the apostles.

There are more and better mountains for Washington

We agree: it's a difference of degree, not of kind.

Not really -- all the Washington stuff could have happened -- i.e., none of it is supernatural. All of the Jesus stuff that forms Christianity (e.g., rising from the dead) is supernatural. Jesus (or someone) said some good things, but that's all.

Supernatural does not mean impossible. You begin with a false premise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you follow an Abrahamic religion and you're not currently Jewish, then no. This applies to all Christians (Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, etc) and Muslims (Sunni, Shia, etc)

Not so. The core claim of Christianity is that it is the faithful continuation of Old Testament faith.

Modern Rabbinic Judaism is a separate religion that was developing during the late Second Temple period but then was further adapted after AD 70. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbinic_Judaism

As you wrote, they "claim" it. Still doesn't make it true. Either way, still silly distinctions over made up stories. It's like people arguing over who shot first in the original star wars. It doesn't matter. It's a story. Period.

So you went looking for truth and beauty, and this is what you came up with? Fingers in your ears and "lalalalalala"? I remember kids saying this kind of thing in 7th grade, but surely...

Nice attempt at trying to change subject. It's not the PP fault for stating the obvious.

But it's a very low IQ take, kind of a failure of our education system. Atheist scholars: https://ehrmanblog.org/my-book-did-jesus-exist-an-answer-to-the-mythicists/

What's your point? Even if there were any evidence that a real person existed, all the stories are just that, stories. In other words, myths.

How does this go in your mind?
1. It's all myth
2. Well okay, some of the people are real, but ALL the stories are myths (which is a kind of self-refuting argument)

Now what? Not ALL of the stories can be myths, because that would mean the people didn't exist. It would be like saying that there was a person named George Washington, but nothing true can be known about him. It's incoherent.

Bad example to use Washington. There is mountains of evidence of his existence.

Using your "reasoning" the cherry tree story is real because he was real (hint it was made up).

Who is the incoherent one?

Washington is a deliberate example because of the mountains of evidence.

There are mountains of evidence for the existence of Christ and the apostles.

Lol. Mountains of evidence for a real Jesus. Provide just a fraction of it.

Oh dear. Someone missed out on a liberal arts education.

If there is so much proof, why such a struggle to provide even one little iota?

There is no struggle. I provided a link at an earlier point in the discussion. But here is another good summary from a secular scholar.
https://ehrmanblog.org/gospel-evidence-that-jesus-existed/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you follow an Abrahamic religion and you're not currently Jewish, then no. This applies to all Christians (Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, etc) and Muslims (Sunni, Shia, etc)

Not so. The core claim of Christianity is that it is the faithful continuation of Old Testament faith.

Modern Rabbinic Judaism is a separate religion that was developing during the late Second Temple period but then was further adapted after AD 70. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbinic_Judaism

As you wrote, they "claim" it. Still doesn't make it true. Either way, still silly distinctions over made up stories. It's like people arguing over who shot first in the original star wars. It doesn't matter. It's a story. Period.

So you went looking for truth and beauty, and this is what you came up with? Fingers in your ears and "lalalalalala"? I remember kids saying this kind of thing in 7th grade, but surely...

Nice attempt at trying to change subject. It's not the PP fault for stating the obvious.

But it's a very low IQ take, kind of a failure of our education system. Atheist scholars: https://ehrmanblog.org/my-book-did-jesus-exist-an-answer-to-the-mythicists/

What's your point? Even if there were any evidence that a real person existed, all the stories are just that, stories. In other words, myths.

How does this go in your mind?
1. It's all myth
2. Well okay, some of the people are real, but ALL the stories are myths (which is a kind of self-refuting argument)

Now what? Not ALL of the stories can be myths, because that would mean the people didn't exist. It would be like saying that there was a person named George Washington, but nothing true can be known about him. It's incoherent.

Bad example to use Washington. There is mountains of evidence of his existence.

Using your "reasoning" the cherry tree story is real because he was real (hint it was made up).

Who is the incoherent one?

Washington is a deliberate example because of the mountains of evidence.

There are mountains of evidence for the existence of Christ and the apostles.

There are more and better mountains for Washington

We agree: it's a difference of degree, not of kind.

Not really -- all the Washington stuff could have happened -- i.e., none of it is supernatural. All of the Jesus stuff that forms Christianity (e.g., rising from the dead) is supernatural. Jesus (or someone) said some good things, but that's all.

Supernatural does not mean impossible. You begin with a false premise.

Supernatural does mean impossible. It is not a false premise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you follow an Abrahamic religion and you're not currently Jewish, then no. This applies to all Christians (Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, etc) and Muslims (Sunni, Shia, etc)

Not so. The core claim of Christianity is that it is the faithful continuation of Old Testament faith.

Modern Rabbinic Judaism is a separate religion that was developing during the late Second Temple period but then was further adapted after AD 70. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbinic_Judaism

As you wrote, they "claim" it. Still doesn't make it true. Either way, still silly distinctions over made up stories. It's like people arguing over who shot first in the original star wars. It doesn't matter. It's a story. Period.

So you went looking for truth and beauty, and this is what you came up with? Fingers in your ears and "lalalalalala"? I remember kids saying this kind of thing in 7th grade, but surely...

Nice attempt at trying to change subject. It's not the PP fault for stating the obvious.

But it's a very low IQ take, kind of a failure of our education system. Atheist scholars: https://ehrmanblog.org/my-book-did-jesus-exist-an-answer-to-the-mythicists/

What's your point? Even if there were any evidence that a real person existed, all the stories are just that, stories. In other words, myths.

How does this go in your mind?
1. It's all myth
2. Well okay, some of the people are real, but ALL the stories are myths (which is a kind of self-refuting argument)

Now what? Not ALL of the stories can be myths, because that would mean the people didn't exist. It would be like saying that there was a person named George Washington, but nothing true can be known about him. It's incoherent.

Bad example to use Washington. There is mountains of evidence of his existence.

Using your "reasoning" the cherry tree story is real because he was real (hint it was made up).

Who is the incoherent one?

Washington is a deliberate example because of the mountains of evidence.

There are mountains of evidence for the existence of Christ and the apostles.

Lol. Mountains of evidence for a real Jesus. Provide just a fraction of it.

Oh dear. Someone missed out on a liberal arts education.

If there is so much proof, why such a struggle to provide even one little iota?

There is no struggle. I provided a link at an earlier point in the discussion. But here is another good summary from a secular scholar.
https://ehrmanblog.org/gospel-evidence-that-jesus-existed/

So Jesus existed. That doesn't mean he's the son of God. God is in the realm of the supernatural.