Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is enough historical evidence outside of the Bible to conclude with some confidence that Jesus was born, baptized by John the Baptist, and put to death by Roman authorities.

Beyond that, some threads of historical fact might exist in the Gospels, especially in Mark, but it’s impossible to know for sure.

Obviously, the historical foundations were strong enough to support the construction of a theology and belief system that’s endured for over 2,000 years.

As a Christian, I don’t get tied up in knots over what’s history and what’s not. I remain a Christian because my beliefs challenge me to be a better human being, and remind me that there’s something greater to the universe and all creation.

All well and good and most of us can respect that. But you could have exactly those same beliefs without being Christian. I suppose Jews and Muslims could say the very same things -- there's nothing uniquely Christian about anything you said.

And where did I say that Christianity is the only true religion or the only path to God? Personally, I believe we’re all called to elevate/better ourselves in unique ways, and that God is too awesome to be fully captured, boxed in, or held hostage by any one belief system.

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:This thread has gone so far off the rails. Seems like the like the people who want to debate Jesus’ divinity or what “fulfill the law” means need to start their own threads.

Yup.

There is zero evidence of his divinity.

There is some evidence that he “most likely” existed in history.

I just don't see how the two issues can be separated. If the OP asks where did Christian theology come from? it has to assume the historical figure was divine or there wouldn't be any "theology." No one builds a religion about some itinerant preacher who spoke in nice parables and beatitudes.

Buddha, anyone?

There are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. You can't base a religion around someone who may or may not exist. And if he did exist, was he divine? And even if he was divine, how many class hours of comparative religion have you had?

a) there are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. Like Jesus, the evidence is circumstantial. b) Correct, you cannot base a religion around some one who is not divine. See the definition of "religion." (indeed Buddha was an atheist, so if Buddhism is a religion it's based on atheism). c) Buddha, like Jesus, has been elevated in death to godhood among some - indeed he is revered in parts of the world as Lord Buddha. d) as for hours of comparative religion, that's just silly, no answer needed.

How can Buddha die if he didn't exist? Atheists can't be Buddhists. Buddhism is anti-science.

Another person (or maybe the same one) confusing the existence of only circumstantial evidence with denying the existence -- two completely different things.

Another person. I am simply pointing out to the atheists that Buddhism seems to get a pass despite having the exact same problems as Christianity. It requires belief in supernatural elements, like rebirth and karma. There is no direct evidence for the founder. But for whatever reason, atheists give it a pass, and many practice it. Wikipedia devotes an entire page to proving the historicty of Jesus. Buddha gets a paragraph that says, "yeah, he existed."

They give it a pass because it's a philosophical system, not a religion. It has no deity and indeed it's founder was an atheist.

DP. It has temples and statues of its founder all across Asia. It has supernatural beliefs in karma and rebirth.

There are statues of the US founders across the county and the US capital city, Washington, DC has numerous monuments to its founders. We don't believe that they are gods.

In the Library of Congress there is a beautiful mosaic of the Goddess Minerva https://www.loc.gov/item/2007684425/ -- Roman Goddess of Learning, and everyone knows it's symbolic.

There's even a fresco in the center of the Capitol dome called the "Apotheosis of George Washington" that is pure symbolism. https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/art/apotheosis-washington

We don’t? We memorialize them. We have regular rituals on dedicated days to commemorate them and give thanks. We sing about them. We tell stories about them. We have dedicated or “sacred” places that serve as pilgrimage sites. I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss how many in this country view its Founders.

I think you're really grasping at straws here, So what's your defininition of "religion"?

Anonymous wrote:There is enough historical evidence outside of the Bible to conclude with some confidence that Jesus was born, baptized by John the Baptist, and put to death by Roman authorities.

Beyond that, some threads of historical fact might exist in the Gospels, especially in Mark, but it’s impossible to know for sure.

Obviously, the historical foundations were strong enough to support the construction of a theology and belief system that’s endured for over 2,000 years.

As a Christian, I don’t get tied up in knots over what’s history and what’s not. I remain a Christian because my beliefs challenge me to be a better human being, and remind me that there’s something greater to the universe and all creation.

All well and good and most of us can respect that. But you could have exactly those same beliefs without being Christian. I suppose Jews and Muslims could say the very same things -- there's nothing uniquely Christian about anything you said.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has gone so far off the rails. Seems like the like the people who want to debate Jesus’ divinity or what “fulfill the law” means need to start their own threads.

Yup.

There is zero evidence of his divinity.

There is some evidence that he “most likely” existed in history.

I just don't see how the two issues can be separated. If the OP asks where did Christian theology come from? it has to assume the historical figure was divine or there wouldn't be any "theology." No one builds a religion about some itinerant preacher who spoke in nice parables and beatitudes.

Buddha, anyone?

There are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. You can't base a religion around someone who may or may not exist. And if he did exist, was he divine? And even if he was divine, how many class hours of comparative religion have you had?

a) there are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. Like Jesus, the evidence is circumstantial. b) Correct, you cannot base a religion around some one who is not divine. See the definition of "religion." (indeed Buddha was an atheist, so if Buddhism is a religion it's based on atheism). c) Buddha, like Jesus, has been elevated in death to godhood among some - indeed he is revered in parts of the world as Lord Buddha. d) as for hours of comparative religion, that's just silly, no answer needed.

How can Buddha die if he didn't exist? Atheists can't be Buddhists. Buddhism is anti-science.

Another person (or maybe the same one) confusing the existence of only circumstantial evidence with denying the existence -- two completely different things.

Another person. I am simply pointing out to the atheists that Buddhism seems to get a pass despite having the exact same problems as Christianity. It requires belief in supernatural elements, like rebirth and karma. There is no direct evidence for the founder. But for whatever reason, atheists give it a pass, and many practice it. Wikipedia devotes an entire page to proving the historicty of Jesus. Buddha gets a paragraph that says, "yeah, he existed."

They give it a pass because it's a philosophical system, not a religion. It has no deity and indeed it's founder was an atheist.

DP. It has temples and statues of its founder all across Asia. It has supernatural beliefs in karma and rebirth.

There are statues of the US founders across the county and the US capital city, Washington, DC has numerous monuments to its founders. We don't believe that they are gods.

In the Library of Congress there is a beautiful mosaic of the Goddess Minerva https://www.loc.gov/item/2007684425/ -- Roman Goddess of Learning, and everyone knows it's symbolic.

There's even a fresco in the center of the Capitol dome called the "Apotheosis of George Washington" that is pure symbolism. https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/art/apotheosis-washington

We don’t? We memorialize them. We have regular rituals on dedicated days to commemorate them and give thanks. We sing about them. We tell stories about them. We have dedicated or “sacred” places that serve as pilgrimage sites. I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss how many in this country view its Founders.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has gone so far off the rails. Seems like the like the people who want to debate Jesus’ divinity or what “fulfill the law” means need to start their own threads.

Yup.

There is zero evidence of his divinity.

There is some evidence that he “most likely” existed in history.

I just don't see how the two issues can be separated. If the OP asks where did Christian theology come from? it has to assume the historical figure was divine or there wouldn't be any "theology." No one builds a religion about some itinerant preacher who spoke in nice parables and beatitudes.

Buddha, anyone?

There are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. You can't base a religion around someone who may or may not exist. And if he did exist, was he divine? And even if he was divine, how many class hours of comparative religion have you had?

a) there are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. Like Jesus, the evidence is circumstantial. b) Correct, you cannot base a religion around some one who is not divine. See the definition of "religion." (indeed Buddha was an atheist, so if Buddhism is a religion it's based on atheism). c) Buddha, like Jesus, has been elevated in death to godhood among some - indeed he is revered in parts of the world as Lord Buddha. d) as for hours of comparative religion, that's just silly, no answer needed.

How can Buddha die if he didn't exist? Atheists can't be Buddhists. Buddhism is anti-science.

Another person (or maybe the same one) confusing the existence of only circumstantial evidence with denying the existence -- two completely different things.

Another person. I am simply pointing out to the atheists that Buddhism seems to get a pass despite having the exact same problems as Christianity. It requires belief in supernatural elements, like rebirth and karma. There is no direct evidence for the founder. But for whatever reason, atheists give it a pass, and many practice it. Wikipedia devotes an entire page to proving the historicty of Jesus. Buddha gets a paragraph that says, "yeah, he existed."

They give it a pass because it's a philosophical system, not a religion. It has no deity and indeed it's founder was an atheist.

DP. It has temples and statues of its founder all across Asia. It has supernatural beliefs in karma and rebirth.

There are statues of the US founders across the county and the US capital city, Washington, DC has numerous monuments to its founders. We don't believe that they are gods.

In the Library of Congress there is a beautiful mosaic of the Goddess Minerva https://www.loc.gov/item/2007684425/ -- Roman Goddess of Learning, and everyone knows it's symbolic.

There's even a fresco in the center of the Capitol dome called the "Apotheosis of George Washington" that is pure symbolism. https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/art/apotheosis-washington

+1 Very well stated.

There is enough historical evidence outside of the Bible to conclude with some confidence that Jesus was born, baptized by John the Baptist, and put to death by Roman authorities.

Beyond that, some threads of historical fact might exist in the Gospels, especially in Mark, but it’s impossible to know for sure.

Obviously, the historical foundations were strong enough to support the construction of a theology and belief system that’s endured for over 2,000 years.

As a Christian, I don’t get tied up in knots over what’s history and what’s not. I remain a Christian because my beliefs challenge me to be a better human being, and remind me that there’s something greater to the universe and all creation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has gone so far off the rails. Seems like the like the people who want to debate Jesus’ divinity or what “fulfill the law” means need to start their own threads.

Yup.

There is zero evidence of his divinity.

There is some evidence that he “most likely” existed in history.

I just don't see how the two issues can be separated. If the OP asks where did Christian theology come from? it has to assume the historical figure was divine or there wouldn't be any "theology." No one builds a religion about some itinerant preacher who spoke in nice parables and beatitudes.

Buddha, anyone?

There are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. You can't base a religion around someone who may or may not exist. And if he did exist, was he divine? And even if he was divine, how many class hours of comparative religion have you had?

a) there are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. Like Jesus, the evidence is circumstantial. b) Correct, you cannot base a religion around some one who is not divine. See the definition of "religion." (indeed Buddha was an atheist, so if Buddhism is a religion it's based on atheism). c) Buddha, like Jesus, has been elevated in death to godhood among some - indeed he is revered in parts of the world as Lord Buddha. d) as for hours of comparative religion, that's just silly, no answer needed.

How can Buddha die if he didn't exist? Atheists can't be Buddhists. Buddhism is anti-science.

Another person (or maybe the same one) confusing the existence of only circumstantial evidence with denying the existence -- two completely different things.

Another person. I am simply pointing out to the atheists that Buddhism seems to get a pass despite having the exact same problems as Christianity. It requires belief in supernatural elements, like rebirth and karma. There is no direct evidence for the founder. But for whatever reason, atheists give it a pass, and many practice it. Wikipedia devotes an entire page to proving the historicty of Jesus. Buddha gets a paragraph that says, "yeah, he existed."

They give it a pass because it's a philosophical system, not a religion. It has no deity and indeed it's founder was an atheist.

DP. It has temples and statues of its founder all across Asia. It has supernatural beliefs in karma and rebirth.

There are statues of the US founders across the county and the US capital city, Washington, DC has numerous monuments to its founders. We don't believe that they are gods.

In the Library of Congress there is a beautiful mosaic of the Goddess Minerva https://www.loc.gov/item/2007684425/ -- Roman Goddess of Learning, and everyone knows it's symbolic.

There's even a fresco in the center of the Capitol dome called the "Apotheosis of George Washington" that is pure symbolism. https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/art/apotheosis-washington

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:This thread has gone so far off the rails. Seems like the like the people who want to debate Jesus’ divinity or what “fulfill the law” means need to start their own threads.

Yup.

There is zero evidence of his divinity.

There is some evidence that he “most likely” existed in history.

I just don't see how the two issues can be separated. If the OP asks where did Christian theology come from? it has to assume the historical figure was divine or there wouldn't be any "theology." No one builds a religion about some itinerant preacher who spoke in nice parables and beatitudes.

Buddha, anyone?

There are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. You can't base a religion around someone who may or may not exist. And if he did exist, was he divine? And even if he was divine, how many class hours of comparative religion have you had?

a) there are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. Like Jesus, the evidence is circumstantial. b) Correct, you cannot base a religion around some one who is not divine. See the definition of "religion." (indeed Buddha was an atheist, so if Buddhism is a religion it's based on atheism). c) Buddha, like Jesus, has been elevated in death to godhood among some - indeed he is revered in parts of the world as Lord Buddha. d) as for hours of comparative religion, that's just silly, no answer needed.

How can Buddha die if he didn't exist? Atheists can't be Buddhists. Buddhism is anti-science.

Another person (or maybe the same one) confusing the existence of only circumstantial evidence with denying the existence -- two completely different things.

Another person. I am simply pointing out to the atheists that Buddhism seems to get a pass despite having the exact same problems as Christianity. It requires belief in supernatural elements, like rebirth and karma. There is no direct evidence for the founder. But for whatever reason, atheists give it a pass, and many practice it. Wikipedia devotes an entire page to proving the historicty of Jesus. Buddha gets a paragraph that says, "yeah, he existed."

They give it a pass because it's a philosophical system, not a religion. It has no deity and indeed it's founder was an atheist.

DP. It has temples and statues of its founder all across Asia. It has supernatural beliefs in karma and rebirth.

I'll grant you this but Buddha is revered as a teacher, not a deity. It's apples and oranges. And the karma and rebirth are from Hinduism, which Buddhism split off from.

Plenty of Buddhists believe in karma and

Buddhists have committed genocide against Tamils in Sri Lanka and against the Rohingya in Myanmar. Arguing there aren’t organized Buddhist groups led by warlike leaders isn’t tenable.

? Who argued that? I must have missed it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has gone so far off the rails. Seems like the like the people who want to debate Jesus’ divinity or what “fulfill the law” means need to start their own threads.

Yup.

There is zero evidence of his divinity.

There is some evidence that he “most likely” existed in history.

I just don't see how the two issues can be separated. If the OP asks where did Christian theology come from? it has to assume the historical figure was divine or there wouldn't be any "theology." No one builds a religion about some itinerant preacher who spoke in nice parables and beatitudes.

Buddha, anyone?

There are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. You can't base a religion around someone who may or may not exist. And if he did exist, was he divine? And even if he was divine, how many class hours of comparative religion have you had?

a) there are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. Like Jesus, the evidence is circumstantial. b) Correct, you cannot base a religion around some one who is not divine. See the definition of "religion." (indeed Buddha was an atheist, so if Buddhism is a religion it's based on atheism). c) Buddha, like Jesus, has been elevated in death to godhood among some - indeed he is revered in parts of the world as Lord Buddha. d) as for hours of comparative religion, that's just silly, no answer needed.

How can Buddha die if he didn't exist? Atheists can't be Buddhists. Buddhism is anti-science.

Another person (or maybe the same one) confusing the existence of only circumstantial evidence with denying the existence -- two completely different things.

Another person. I am simply pointing out to the atheists that Buddhism seems to get a pass despite having the exact same problems as Christianity. It requires belief in supernatural elements, like rebirth and karma. There is no direct evidence for the founder. But for whatever reason, atheists give it a pass, and many practice it. Wikipedia devotes an entire page to proving the historicty of Jesus. Buddha gets a paragraph that says, "yeah, he existed."

They give it a pass because it's a philosophical system, not a religion. It has no deity and indeed it's founder was an atheist.

DP. It has temples and statues of its founder all across Asia. It has supernatural beliefs in karma and rebirth.

I'll grant you this but Buddha is revered as a teacher, not a deity. It's apples and oranges. And the karma and rebirth are from Hinduism, which Buddhism split off from.

Plenty of Buddhists believe in karma and

Buddhists have committed genocide against Tamils in Sri Lanka and against the Rohingya in Myanmar. Arguing there aren’t organized Buddhist groups led by warlike leaders isn’t tenable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has gone so far off the rails. Seems like the like the people who want to debate Jesus’ divinity or what “fulfill the law” means need to start their own threads.

Yup.

There is zero evidence of his divinity.

There is some evidence that he “most likely” existed in history.

I just don't see how the two issues can be separated. If the OP asks where did Christian theology come from? it has to assume the historical figure was divine or there wouldn't be any "theology." No one builds a religion about some itinerant preacher who spoke in nice parables and beatitudes.

Buddha, anyone?

There are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. You can't base a religion around someone who may or may not exist. And if he did exist, was he divine? And even if he was divine, how many class hours of comparative religion have you had?

a) there are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. Like Jesus, the evidence is circumstantial. b) Correct, you cannot base a religion around some one who is not divine. See the definition of "religion." (indeed Buddha was an atheist, so if Buddhism is a religion it's based on atheism). c) Buddha, like Jesus, has been elevated in death to godhood among some - indeed he is revered in parts of the world as Lord Buddha. d) as for hours of comparative religion, that's just silly, no answer needed.

How can Buddha die if he didn't exist? Atheists can't be Buddhists. Buddhism is anti-science.

Another person (or maybe the same one) confusing the existence of only circumstantial evidence with denying the existence -- two completely different things.

Another person. I am simply pointing out to the atheists that Buddhism seems to get a pass despite having the exact same problems as Christianity. It requires belief in supernatural elements, like rebirth and karma. There is no direct evidence for the founder. But for whatever reason, atheists give it a pass, and many practice it. Wikipedia devotes an entire page to proving the historicty of Jesus. Buddha gets a paragraph that says, "yeah, he existed."

They give it a pass because it's a philosophical system, not a religion. It has no deity and indeed it's founder was an atheist.

DP. It has temples and statues of its founder all across Asia. It has supernatural beliefs in karma and rebirth.

I'll grant you this but Buddha is revered as a teacher, not a deity. It's apples and oranges. And the karma and rebirth are from Hinduism, which Buddhism split off from.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has gone so far off the rails. Seems like the like the people who want to debate Jesus’ divinity or what “fulfill the law” means need to start their own threads.

Yup.

There is zero evidence of his divinity.

There is some evidence that he “most likely” existed in history.

I just don't see how the two issues can be separated. If the OP asks where did Christian theology come from? it has to assume the historical figure was divine or there wouldn't be any "theology." No one builds a religion about some itinerant preacher who spoke in nice parables and beatitudes.

Buddha, anyone?

There are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. You can't base a religion around someone who may or may not exist. And if he did exist, was he divine? And even if he was divine, how many class hours of comparative religion have you had?

a) there are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. Like Jesus, the evidence is circumstantial. b) Correct, you cannot base a religion around some one who is not divine. See the definition of "religion." (indeed Buddha was an atheist, so if Buddhism is a religion it's based on atheism). c) Buddha, like Jesus, has been elevated in death to godhood among some - indeed he is revered in parts of the world as Lord Buddha. d) as for hours of comparative religion, that's just silly, no answer needed.

How can Buddha die if he didn't exist? Atheists can't be Buddhists. Buddhism is anti-science.

Another person (or maybe the same one) confusing the existence of only circumstantial evidence with denying the existence -- two completely different things.

Another person. I am simply pointing out to the atheists that Buddhism seems to get a pass despite having the exact same problems as Christianity. It requires belief in supernatural elements, like rebirth and karma. There is no direct evidence for the founder. But for whatever reason, atheists give it a pass, and many practice it. Wikipedia devotes an entire page to proving the historicty of Jesus. Buddha gets a paragraph that says, "yeah, he existed."

They give it a pass because it's a philosophical system, not a religion. It has no deity and indeed it's founder was an atheist.

DP. It has temples and statues of its founder all across Asia. It has supernatural beliefs in karma and rebirth.

Muhammad’s historicity is similarly debated. The Quran was written down 20 years after his death (echos of Paul). The Hadith were written 2-3 hundred years later. There’s no record the Muslim conquerors across North Africa mentioned Mohammed or Islam, nor did their conquered subjects, until about 80 years in.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

https://compassthroughchaos.medium.com/muhammad-is-as-real-as-the-lord-of-the-rings-5322b0bbe1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has gone so far off the rails. Seems like the like the people who want to debate Jesus’ divinity or what “fulfill the law” means need to start their own threads.

Yup.

There is zero evidence of his divinity.

There is some evidence that he “most likely” existed in history.

I just don't see how the two issues can be separated. If the OP asks where did Christian theology come from? it has to assume the historical figure was divine or there wouldn't be any "theology." No one builds a religion about some itinerant preacher who spoke in nice parables and beatitudes.

Buddha, anyone?

There are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. You can't base a religion around someone who may or may not exist. And if he did exist, was he divine? And even if he was divine, how many class hours of comparative religion have you had?

a) there are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. Like Jesus, the evidence is circumstantial. b) Correct, you cannot base a religion around some one who is not divine. See the definition of "religion." (indeed Buddha was an atheist, so if Buddhism is a religion it's based on atheism). c) Buddha, like Jesus, has been elevated in death to godhood among some - indeed he is revered in parts of the world as Lord Buddha. d) as for hours of comparative religion, that's just silly, no answer needed.

How can Buddha die if he didn't exist? Atheists can't be Buddhists. Buddhism is anti-science.

Another person (or maybe the same one) confusing the existence of only circumstantial evidence with denying the existence -- two completely different things.

Another person. I am simply pointing out to the atheists that Buddhism seems to get a pass despite having the exact same problems as Christianity. It requires belief in supernatural elements, like rebirth and karma. There is no direct evidence for the founder. But for whatever reason, atheists give it a pass, and many practice it. Wikipedia devotes an entire page to proving the historicty of Jesus. Buddha gets a paragraph that says, "yeah, he existed."

They give it a pass because it's a philosophical system, not a religion. It has no deity and indeed it's founder was an atheist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has gone so far off the rails. Seems like the like the people who want to debate Jesus’ divinity or what “fulfill the law” means need to start their own threads.

Yup.

There is zero evidence of his divinity.

There is some evidence that he “most likely” existed in history.

I just don't see how the two issues can be separated. If the OP asks where did Christian theology come from? it has to assume the historical figure was divine or there wouldn't be any "theology." No one builds a religion about some itinerant preacher who spoke in nice parables and beatitudes.

Buddha, anyone?

There are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. You can't base a religion around someone who may or may not exist. And if he did exist, was he divine? And even if he was divine, how many class hours of comparative religion have you had?

a) there are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. Like Jesus, the evidence is circumstantial. b) Correct, you cannot base a religion around some one who is not divine. See the definition of "religion." (indeed Buddha was an atheist, so if Buddhism is a religion it's based on atheism). c) Buddha, like Jesus, has been elevated in death to godhood among some - indeed he is revered in parts of the world as Lord Buddha. d) as for hours of comparative religion, that's just silly, no answer needed.

How can Buddha die if he didn't exist? Atheists can't be Buddhists. Buddhism is anti-science.

Another person (or maybe the same one) confusing the existence of only circumstantial evidence with denying the existence -- two completely different things.

Another person. I am simply pointing out to the atheists that Buddhism seems to get a pass despite having the exact same problems as Christianity. It requires belief in supernatural elements, like rebirth and karma. There is no direct evidence for the founder. But for whatever reason, atheists give it a pass, and many practice it. Wikipedia devotes an entire page to proving the historicty of Jesus. Buddha gets a paragraph that says, "yeah, he existed."

Since someone asked. Christianity makes the most logical sense to me. At work I’m steeped in logic and quantitative analysis. And I simply can’t believe that an omnipotent God cares what I eat or how I bathe. Or that God chooses to elevate one people over others. I find Jesus’ message of loving your enemy crucial in this age when the world is connected by the internet in split seconds. I’m a very progressive Christian: I follow the Christ who thought even nonbelievers could be more godlike than those who just demonstrate how they go through empty rituals.