Which is the typical, immature, anti-intellectual mockery that I expect from Atheists. It always goes there for some reason.
Anti-intellectual?
Muhammed is said to have ascended into heaven, bodily, on horseback. You don't believe that, do you?
I really want to know how you, objectively, distinguish between "far fetched claims" and "real things".
The problem with that is the impeccable historical accuracy of the Bible.
But the Bible isn't of "impeccable historical accuracy".That lead to all kinds of apologets trying to bring different accounts into line.
And that is a real problem. You cannot claim "impeccable accuracy", when you have to start to find explanations for why things are not "impeccably accurate".
The Illiad isn't history.
Neither is the Bible. But both
contain historical facts. As, to give another "anti-intellectual" example, does "Spiderman".
The Koran and the Bible defy any kind of meaningful comparison.
Only if you don't want to make a comparison.
Either someone is a myth or they are not a myth.
No. "Someone" is a very complex entity... and can contain elements of history and myth.
Alexander the Great doesn't have to be a "myth" in order for some of the stories told about him to be myths.
George Washington can still be the First President of the USA without having to have chopped down a single cherry tree in his whole life.
No, you don't know what you're talking about. Jesus is the central focus of the Bible. The resurrection of Jesus is the vindication of not only Jesus' teachings but of the entire OT that looked forward to His coming and his death on the cross and resurrection. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, nothing about the Bible matters because it would mean that everything prophesied about Him was a lie and that He lied about his own resurrection. If Jesus is still dead, there is no Christianity.
Why? It would be a false religion, just like all the other religions that you don't believe in... but it would still exist.
People can be wrong in their beliefs, even in their most sincere beliefs. You accept that for every single non-Christian (and a lot of Christians who disagree with your position). So why can't you accept it for yourself.
I am not saying that you are wrong. I am just saying that you
can be wrong.
But they are not authentic Christians. Authentic Christianity is based on Jesus' resurrection. There are all kinds of people who consider themselves "christians" for reasons that have nothing to do with Jesus. There is a cultural "christianity" out there, but I am not talking about those charlatans and misled people. Authentic, biblical Christianity is solely based on resurrection of Jesus.
As I said: I don't want to go into an apologetic debate about the doctrines or "truths" of Christianity.
I just want you to understand how it looks from the point of view of someone who
does not believe in your claims. Not "does not understand your claims." or "Does hate your claims." or something like that.
Just pure, simple scepticsm.
Here you are, and telling me that all those who do not agree with you are "not authentic Christians." These people, on the other hand, tell me that you are "not an authentic Christian". When I ask them for an objective means to distinguis between you and them, you tell me that "I don't know what I am talking about." Just as they tell me.
Well, fine. But then don't blame me for your disagreements.
Which is not true at all.
Really? Then put your money where your mouth is. Demonstrate to me that YOU have a real relationship with Jesus, and others do not.
So far, not a single skeptic has been able to demonstrate anything compelling that would demonstrate that Jesus is a mythological figure.
I am really starting to wonder if you indeed listen to me, or just to the echo inside your head.
I repeatedly said that I do not try to demonstrate that Jesus
is a mythological figure. I am only trying to show you that he
could be.
