Is Christianity based on older myths?

[SteveII]

For starters, Jesus doesn't meet the requirements for the Jewish messaiah.

http://www.jewsforjudaism.ca/resources-i...sh-messiah

The son of god was supposed to be called Emanuel, and be the prince of peace. Instead we have a guy named Jesus who says he comes to bring a sword. Not peace. He wants you to love your neighbor as yourself, but hate yourself. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but doesn't speak against slavery, tells his followers to steal for him, and tells them to bring his enemies before him and kill them.

Except the Jews who think he is the messiah disagree. Here is a synopsis of their position and how the OT is compatible with Jesus as the Messiah.

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/jesus/messiah

Your reference about sword is Jesus talking about the persecution the disciples would face. He did not tell them to take up a sword, but there was going to be violence and betrayal--even from family and friends.

Hate yourself? You'll have to expound on that. Perhaps read the context first.

Slavery? Steal? Kill? Can you provide references?

---

appeal to authority

No, not quite. I said your claim that Jesus never existed would be a minority view--not making an argument of Jesus' existence. I have brought evidence why I consider you you to be in the minority. Do you have some evidence to show why this is not a minority view?

Is there a point in repeating yourself? Yes, I know that historians and scholars who devote themselves to the subject overwhelmingly agree that Jesus existed, despite the fact that they pretty much disagree on every other relevant inquiry we might pursue further to avoid an agnostic view on who Jesus was. That you cite secularists who disagree with me is not an argument. Hey look, a Catholic priest who believes Jesus didn't actually exist! http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_L._Brodie
Does Brodie's story prove anything? Well, it proves that the in-crowd doesn't like anyone who suggests a radical shift in their traditional paradigm, but that's about it.

I'm sorry. There was several posts in a row that more than suggested I back up my position that believing Jesus never existed is a minority view.

Back to that. You dismissed my entire post by saying that whomever dreamed all this up had plenty of time since Jesus was "not a historical figure". If you believe there was a vast conspiracy, and we, for argument's sake, say that the early church had a library of world religions in which to copy its myths, do you have a reasons why someone would go through all that trouble?

Isn't it substantially more probably that the early church just believed what they said?