Is Christianity based on older myths?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Ok, let's work it from another angle. What concrete evidence do you have that suggests the gospels (as an example) were actually written by the apostles entitled? Just anything, what is it?

Here's the thing - the bible is the claim. The things in the bible are the claims made that constitute the entire biblical claim. With me thus far? Why should I, as someone who is skeptical of claims with no substance, take your word about the truth value behind that claim over the null hypothesis that it's all bunk until proven otherwise?

And here's the other thing that you haven't even touched upon since 10 pages back where your own conclusion preceded the subsequent discussions. Whether the Jesus myth is real or not is irrelevant when compared to the claims of divinity which are (again) held within the bible. for that, you'd need to present something to match in incredibleness [sic] of the constituent claim[s], to which thus far I've seen the same amount as you convincing us that the story of Jesus existing is even real in the first place.

If I write that the early church, Paul, John, Peter, and James (epistle writers) believed that Jesus was God, died and rose again, you (and 10 of your friends) will just reply: prove it.

Welcome to reality. I'm really, genuinely sorry that in your life thus far you've never come up against someone who asked for evidence of a claim you were making. I hope the experience hasn't been too traumatic.

If I write that the multiple attestation of miracles is evidence that a miracle did happen, you (and 10 of your friends) will just reply: prove it, hearsay is not evidence (when it is).

As above ^^

I also want to remind you that, aside from everything you written being total nonsense, hearsay is in fact not evidence. If you're trying to convince us that there exists a supreme being that lived on the Earth 2000~ years ago and who has the ability to affect everything, then what you're going to need to do is grow up, put your big boy pants on, and realise that you'll need to match the extraordinary claim with extraordinary evidence. Does hearsay fit that bill to you?

If I write that the alternative is a massive deception and there are not good reasons for a massive deception, you (and 10 of your friends) will just reply: prove it. (Or the more ignorant will say for money and power.)

As above ^^

Money and power is a legitimate reason as to why someone might invent a story. As you've ignored however, time and time again in fact, nobody knows for sure. not us, and certainly not you. Indeed, going back through the thread, it's you whose been forwarding this claim that the only counter was entirely about money and power, not 'us'.

The difference between us is that, whilst we air on the side of caution and view the (un-evidenced) claims with skepticism, you default to 'Well, can disprove it, so it must be right!' This is puerile, and means any case you present that doesn't contain evidence in its base can be easily dismissed.

If I write that most scholars believe that Jesus existed and even that his baptism and crucifixion really happened, you (and 10 of your friends) will just reply: prove it, appeal to authority.

So I won't write those things again.

you just did, lol.

But seriously, when you get your head out of your arse and realise that, given a different situation about a different story or a different supernatural 'divine' character you'd be asking the exact same goddamn questions, drop me a line so I can remind you how right I was will you?

Maybe when you do that you'll actually respond to the rebuttals put to you instead of not posting what you've posted before whilst posting it, eh?