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

[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.

[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:

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.

We've covered quite a lot of ground from earlier, then, when PPs were saying there's no evidence for Jesus. Which is ludicrous. EP Sanders (Duke University) also has an interesting book on this point.
https://www.amazon.com/Historical-Figure-Jesus-P-Sanders/dp/0140144994

[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:

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.

Perhaps Google is not working where you are, but if you consult any dictionary or thesaurus you will find that you are wrong. Words have real definitions.

[Anonymous]

Yes and no. I am a patrilineal Jew (who converted) so I am practicing the religion of one half of my family tree.

[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/

I read the Ehrman piece. Nowhere does he say that Jesus is supernatural. Only that Jesus was a human being.

[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:

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.

Fairies are supernatural. Do you believe in fairies? Santa Claus is supernatural - no human being could survive at the North Pole. Do you still believe in Santa Claus.

[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)

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

I am not following your logic.

Most Christians (like me) are descended from gentiles. So even if you claim that Christians believe that their religion is the same as the religion of the Old Testament, the people of the Old Testament aren't our ancestors. My ancestors were practicing pagan religions in Western Europe when Christianity arrived.

[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:

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.

Perhaps Google is not working where you are, but if you consult any dictionary or thesaurus you will find that you are wrong. Words have real definitions.

Pp - I'm really sorry that you are finding that you've been misled and that you misunderstood or confused supernatural with existing as a human being. Jesus may well have been a human being. He was not supernatural - not the son of God, not born of a virgin. Those are all stories. Supernatural stories. Things that can't happen, that can't be proven. They are religious beliefs.

[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:

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.

Perhaps Google is not working where you are, but if you consult any dictionary or thesaurus you will find that you are wrong. Words have real definitions.

Pp - I'm really sorry that you are finding that you've been misled and that you misunderstood or confused supernatural with existing as a human being. Jesus may well have been a human being. He was not supernatural - not the son of God, not born of a virgin. Those are all stories. Supernatural stories. Things that can't happen, that can't be proven. They are religious beliefs.

No need to apologize. Supernatural things are indeed things that can't be proven by scientific inquiry. That doesn't mean supernatural things can't happen--that's a different claim altogether.

You do know there are countless Christian/Jewish/Muslim scientists who fully understand that their scientific inquiry could never "prove" supernatural events, right? It's a category error.

Claiming supernatural events are impossible is a bold (and unsupported) claim.

[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:

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.

Perhaps Google is not working where you are, but if you consult any dictionary or thesaurus you will find that you are wrong. Words have real definitions.

Pp - I'm really sorry that you are finding that you've been misled and that you misunderstood or confused supernatural with existing as a human being. Jesus may well have been a human being. He was not supernatural - not the son of God, not born of a virgin. Those are all stories. Supernatural stories. Things that can't happen, that can't be proven. They are religious beliefs.

No need to apologize. Supernatural things are indeed things that can't be proven by scientific inquiry. That doesn't mean supernatural things can't happen--that's a different claim altogether.

You do know there are countless Christian/Jewish/Muslim scientists who fully understand that their scientific inquiry could never "prove" supernatural events, right? It's a category error.

Claiming supernatural events are impossible is a bold (and unsupported) claim.

Supernatural events are only possible outside of nature. They are super-natural. People will believe whatever they want to -- in your case whatever they are determined to believe. And many people do believe in the supernatural. Intelligent people. They just don't try to prove it. It's a belief. It requires faith, not facts.

[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:

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.

Perhaps Google is not working where you are, but if you consult any dictionary or thesaurus you will find that you are wrong. Words have real definitions.

Pp - I'm really sorry that you are finding that you've been misled and that you misunderstood or confused supernatural with existing as a human being. Jesus may well have been a human being. He was not supernatural - not the son of God, not born of a virgin. Those are all stories. Supernatural stories. Things that can't happen, that can't be proven. They are religious beliefs.

No need to apologize. Supernatural things are indeed things that can't be proven by scientific inquiry. That doesn't mean supernatural things can't happen--that's a different claim altogether.

You do know there are countless Christian/Jewish/Muslim scientists who fully understand that their scientific inquiry could never "prove" supernatural events, right? It's a category error.

Claiming supernatural events are impossible is a bold (and unsupported) claim.

There is no evidence any supernatural events have ever occurred.

None.