Who is Jesus to you?

a reply to: kwakakev

Don't be fools. Jesus is who he said he is.

I already told you,” Jesus replied, “but you did not believe. The works I do in My Father’s name testify on My behalf. But because you are not My sheep, you refuse to believe. My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them out of My hand.My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all. No one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand.I and the Father are one.”

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. If you had known Me, you would know My Father as well. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him.”

Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us.”

Jesus replied, “Philip, I have been with you all this time, and still you do not know Me? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words I say to you, I do not speak on My own. Instead, it is the Father dwelling in Me, performing His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me—or at least believe on account of the works themselves.

Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever believes in Me will also do the works that I am doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in My name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Med for anything in My name, I will do it.

If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot receive Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you do know Him, for He abides with you and will be in you.

I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. In a little while the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you are in Me, and I am in you. Whoever has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me. The one who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and reveal Myself to him.”

“Lord, why are You going to reveal Yourself to us and not to the world?”

Jesus replied, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word. My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. Whoever does not love Me does not keep My words. The word that you hear is not My own, but it is from the Father who sent Me.

All this I have spoken to you while I am still with you. 26But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you.


The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I think those that reject faith fail to realize that they have just redirected it to rely on their own understanding of things.

I think those folks all have a form of secular faith in something, they just don’t wish to admit it.

originally posted by: Degradation33
We've been playing your game so far.

Who is We?... I thought I was talking to you. Or is this a multiple personality thing? Or are you bringing friends to the debate that I'm not aware of?... Strange... and what "game"?... Are you paranoid too?... There is no game, just you ridiculously fighting facts and reality. Look, it's ok to lose a debate, but at least try to keep your composure a bit, you are literally giving away how unbalanced you are. But well, if you want that, suit yourself.

originally posted by: Degradation33
Why the hell Rome would refer to The Kingdom of Judah (Romanized as Judea). Obviously this was a kingdom that existed to be annexed repeatedly by different empires.

The fact that the Romans talked about a Judaea, doesn't make the myth of the Israel Kingdom true, nor even the idea of a "Kingdom of Judah". They are three different things. And EVEN in the case that Israel really existed, it would have been eliminated 800 years before this alleged "kingdom of Judah" you are trying to push now. They are completely disconnected in time. Your argumentation fails in everyway, and you lie practically in every line. You are literally saying something like: "ok, if there are apples in my bag, that means that the mail man is at the door"... Romans talked about a Judaea, a king Herod appears named in a coin, but without context. All the rest is your own fantasy based on written documents like the Bologna Torah, which doesn't have more than 1.000 years, and you are trying to use it as evidence for events that occurred "allegedly", 3.000 years ago.

originally posted by: Degradation33
What is the history that removes the Jews from Judah? Isn't that the name of one of those original 12 tribes of Israel? Like the Levites. Why would they acknowledge a lineage that never existed or make reference to it?

It could be that the Kingdom of Judah refers to the original 12 tribes of the mythical Israel?... Yes, it can be. BUT, for the 100th time, there is no hard evidence to support that. The only thing you have to back your biblical claims is the Bible itself. Yes, your position is silly as that. Specially when it is more than clear that the Bible is a compendium of lies and stolen myths from other cultures, etc. Do you trust in a pathological liar that lies to you all the time?... Well, seems like you do. Good luck with that!

a reply to: NorthOfStuff

No one can provide evidence of something that didn't exist. Even a child understands that. The fact that you are asking for something like that puts you in the worst light possible. Complete dark ignorance, in fact. Sorry, for real.

History is a field of study, it cannot be correct or incorrect by itself, ever. There are theories which are backed by hard evidence, theories which are not backed by evidence and (like in the case of the bible), theories which are not backed by evidence and that there are abundant records which show that it is made of lies and stolen myths from Sumerians and Babylonians.

You can believe whatever you want, but you cannot refute the fact that the myth of the flood, for example,was stolen from ancient Sumer. There is hard archeological evidence of that, plenty. So, the conclusion is that this famous Patriarch of Israel called Noah, was a total fictitious character, invented by someone to appropriate a myth that belonged to another nation and to make it look like one of the "great accomplishments" of Israel... lies which some supremacists bastards use to call themselves "the selected people of God".

Well, this Hebrew myth of Noah and the flood IS clearly a complete bunch of bullcrap. Even the Jewish scholars acknowledge this. So, no idea what the hell you think you have "correct", but I guess it might not be very much. Sorry, to inform you that.

a reply to: ltrz2025



I don’t think that I said things plainly enough.

If someone claims that the history of the last 2000, and many more, years of civilization is null and void then they are the ones that should provide the evidence.

Not just “this is fake, this is forged”, but evidence. Even then it’s not proof, it’s just evidence.

In court both sides present evidence, only one side compiles the truth with it.

a reply to: NorthOfStuff

Man... how can I tell you this without making you feel bad....

I respect whatever belief you have. If it makes you happy, keep it in your heart, believe it, treasure it. If you feel it true, it is true for you, and you don't need to debate it with anyone else, trust me, it'll make no difference. I'm actually very glad to know that you found something that fills your heart. Honestly.

That being said, your words make little sense and you are kind of saying the same thing over and over, I cannot honestly continue an exchange of this nature like this. I already explained to you that it is IMPOSSIBLE to provide evidence of something that doesn't exist. If something doesn't exist, what proof can it leave?...

You also refuse to accept verifiable facts (like the lies and stolen myths in the Bible) and you don't understand that HISTORY is not a "thing", but a field of study, a field of debate, theories and science. I never wrote the words "null" or "void" at all, I simply assessed the hard evidence that we do have and that we don't have. So you are in a dead end street, intellectually speaking.

I very respectfully decline to continue conversating with you about this subject, because I don't think it will bring you or me anything.

Much love.

a reply to: ltrz2025

So just to be clear you take no issue with any of the other empires existence except those associated with Jews. The Hellenistic, Persian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Roman accounts are all fine, but the Hebrew one is where you draw the line?

Egyptians, Hittites, Sumerians, Mitanni, Assyrians, Babylonians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Arameans, Amorites, Persians, Greeks and Romans are all cool but Israelites are the only lied about civilization?

I think its awesome when they find Canaanite inscriptions from the 9th century that contain extrabiblical references to David. And from a science and ancient culture perspective. It's cool that theres some truth in ancient accounts like The Book of Kings paralleling other cultures accounts. Why discount that as bad translation or forgery? What if it's a real Canaanite reference to a real King David?

a reply to: ltrz2025

Fair enough.

As a fond farewell may I say that you have nothing to prove but you have much to disprove.

The magnitude of what you propose requires a mountain of evidence to be considered truth.

Thanks for your time

a reply to: ltrz2025

If your interested.

Though I doubt you will be. The account of Utnapishtim's Ark is not even feasible, A large cube would not work.

creation.com...

Contrast that with Utnapishtim’s ark—this was a huge cube! It is harder to think of a more ridiculous design for a ship—it would roll over in all directions at even the slightest disturbance. However, the story is easy to explain if they distorted Genesis, and found that one dimension is easier to remember than three, ‘its dimensions must measure equal to each other’, and it seems a much nicer shape. The pagan human authors didn’t realize why the real Ark’s dimensions had to be what they were. But the reverse is inconceivable: that Jewish scribes, hardly known for naval architectural skills, took the mythical cubic Ark and turned it into the most stable wooden vessel possible!

Genesis is the original

The Gilgamesh Epic has close parallels with the account of Noah’s Flood. Its close similarities are due to its closeness to the real event. However, there are major differences as well. Everything in the Epic, from the gross polytheism to the absurd cubical ark, as well as the worldwide flood legends, shows that the Genesis account is the original, while the Gilgamesh Epic is a distortion.

A comparative study of the flood accounts in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis

creation.com...

The source of the Gilgamesh Epic
The date of the Gilgamesh Epic seems to be earlier than the reign of Hammurabi when Marduk succeeded to the supremacy in the Babylonian pantheon from Anu and Enlil40 because Anu and Enlil are still described as the chief deities (XI 15–16) in the Epic.41 At the same time, Heidel states, “It has long been recognized that the Gilgamesh Epic constitutes a literary compilation of material from various originally unrelated sources, put together to form one grand, more or less harmonious, whole.”42 Although the Gilgamesh traditions were distributed widely and numerous tablets have been discovered, unfortunately, a complete original text of the Gilgamesh Epic does not exist.43 The text and the date of composition of the extant manuscripts vary widely.44 The oldest version of the Epic, which is inscribed in the Babylonian dialect of Akkadian early in the second millennium B.C., is called the Old Babylonian Version.45 It is extant in a fragmentary state; therefore, its conclusion cannot be ascertained.46 A later version, the so-called “Standard Version,” consists of twelve tablets and is more complete.47 It was composed by Sin-leqe-unninni, a poet-editor who lived around the thirteenth century B.C.48 In this version the flood account appears in tablet XI. Moran discusses that account as follows:

It is generally conceded that the Flood was not part of the original epic, which may have referred to it, but only briefly. The long account in Tablet 11 seems to be told for its own sake. It seriously interrupts not only the flow of dialogue between Utnapishtim and Gilgamesh but the otherwise smooth and natural transition from the end of the Tablet 10, where Utnapishtim tells Gilgamesh about the assembly of the gods after the Flood, to Utnapishtim’s rhetorical question. Finally, the story as told here is not an independent account; it draws on an identifiable source, the myth of Atrahasis.49

Generally, the flood account in the Atrahasis Epic tablet III is regarded as the source of the Gilgamesh Epic tablet XI because of many common elements and wordings.50 Actually, the hero’s name Atrahasis, which denotes “the exceedingly wise,” is used as another cognomen of Utnapishtim, the hero of the flood account in the Gilgamesh Epic (XI 187).51 The date of the original composition of the Atrahasis Epic also seems to trace back to before the reign of Hammurabi because of the superiority given to Anu and Enlil in the Epic.52 Even though the extant oldest tablets of the Atrahasis Epic date to the days of King Ammizaduga (1646–1626 B.C.),53 it is obvious that they are not the original, but copies.54 However, Heidel expresses the opposite view that the flood account in the Atrahasis Epic might have been rooted in the Gilgamesh Epic tablet XI.55 Whether the Gilgamesh Epic was the source of the Atrahasis Epic or the opposite, it is also recognized that the Atrahasis Epic is probably the version edited from various traditional materials.56 Therefore, there seems to have existed an older version from which both accounts derived. Moran also states the reason why the flood account was added in the Gilgamesh Epic as follows:

It is also generally conceded that the one who added the story was the poet-editor of the prologue. He has a manifest interest in, and esteem for, “the knowledge of days before the Flood” that Gilgamesh brought back. He also speaks in the prologue of the secret things revealed by Gilgamesh but with only two formally identified, one of them the Flood Story. If the poet-editor was not the one who added the story, he certainly directs his reader to it and implies its importance.

In the learned world of Sin-leqe-unninni, the Flood Story is certainly important, in that it is knowledge that, were it not for Gilgamesh, would have been lost. And it is not just any knowledge. It is knowledge about the most terrible event in human history. It is knowledge about a terrible truth: the gods can destroy and one may never know why. A wise man, Gilgamesh, should know this.57

Thus, the date of the original text of the flood account of the Gilgamesh Epic is not certain, and yet Heidel suggests the possibility that the Epic originated in the Sumerian stories as follows:

To judge from the Sumerian fragments of the epic which have so far come to light and from the fact that Semitic Babylonians became in general the heirs of Sumerian culture and civilization, it appears reasonable to assume that also the other episodes in the Gilgamesh Epic were current in Sumerian literary form before they were embodied in the composition of this Semitic Babylonian poem. From this, however, it does not necessarily follow that all this material had its origin with the Sumerians, either in their former home or after they had occupied the plains of the Tigro-Euphrates Valley. Instead, the material itself may have originated, at least in part, with the Semitic Babylonians, from whom the Sumerians may have taken it over, adapting it to their own views and beliefs and giving it expression in their own script and language. But irrespective of the origin of the raw material, the earliest literary form of most, if not all, of the tales or episodes imbedded in the Gilgamesh Epic was doubtless Sumerian, as far as available evidence goes.58

In fact, Sumerian tablets also have some episodes which are in tablet III–V, VI, VII and XII of the Gilgamesh Epic.59 Furthermore, tablet XII is not congruous with tablet VII and VIII in the Epic.60 Finally, the Sumerian stories which are common to some parts of tablet XI do not mention Gilgamesh at all.61 Heidel also states that it is highly likely that Utnapishtim which means “the finder (or obtainer) of life”62 originated in the Sumerian deluge hero’s name, Ziusudra, which probably signifies “he who laid hold on life of distant days.”63

If it is correct that the flood account in the Gilgamesh Epic is derived from the Sumerian, and if one wishes to compare the Gilgamesh Epic and the Genesis accounts, it is important to know whether the Sumerian account derived from an historic event. Unfortunately, there is no clear evidence of this. Alster states that “It is often more or less tacitly assumed that the stories told in the Sumerian epics are based on actual historical events, or even that they reflect a so-called heroic age of the first half of the third millennium.”64 But he goes on to say:

However, it serves little purpose to discuss whether the stories contain anachronistic details, because, as is generally the case with legends and folktales, they telescope everything into exemplary behavior where the realistic is imagined, and they do not aim at correctness in any historical sense.65

Lambert also writes, “Myths are the final outcome of millennia of development, and have often lost much of their original seriousness and purpose. This can be seen in the case of Babylonian myth.”66 Thus, while one may say with some confidence that the flood account in the Gilgamesh Epic tablet XI traces back to the Sumerian story, it is more difficult to say whether that story reflects an historic event. If it does, the report of the event has been seriously distorted.

a reply to: ltrz2025

Well, this Hebrew myth of Noah and the flood IS clearly a complete bunch of bullcrap.

That's a great example of what your problem is:
Floods are real, they happen, most people in their life will experience at least one in varying degrees of severity.
There are two aspects of that myth:
1. 'In case of water build boat.' Which is totally sound survival advice, ancient wisdom.
2. Noah, the wise old man living in the mountain, hard to reach but 'magical' if you will, he has all the answers.

These are two tropes people can relate to they reverberate through time and cultures to this day.
The problem is again that you expect modern exclusive Jewishness in a cultural vacuum, which never existed especially not in pre-history.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: ltrz2025

So just to be clear you take no issue with any of the other empires existence except those associated with Jews. The Hellenistic, Persian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Roman accounts are all fine, but the Hebrew one is where you draw the line?

Egyptians, Hittites, Sumerians, Mitanni, Assyrians, Babylonians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Arameans, Amorites, Persians, Greeks and Romans are all cool but Israelites are the only lied about civilization?

It's not about me having any "issue", or about "drawing any line". That's childish. History is about evidence. There is PLENTY of hard evidence for the Hellenistic, Persian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Sumerian, Assyrian, Phoenician, Hittites, and Roman civilizations. Just travel to a good museum and you'll find innumerable amounts of artifacts, carvings, steles, statues, rolls, buildings, etc. All double checked, peer-reviewed, and even carbon dated when it was possible.

For a Hebrew, Israel, Jewish empire or civilization, there is no hard evidence at all, we established that, and even more, we have no evidence after 200 years or excavations in the Levant purposely looking for them. On the other hand, you have civilizations like the one in Gobekli Tepe, dated 13.000 years ago, who no one ever named, not even your precious bible, and the hard evidence for them is so overwhelming that their artifacts are literally piercing through the soil by themselves, with no excavation needed. I wonder, if the Bible claims that the world is only 6.000 years old (theory you must subscribe to as you defend that book so much), what the hell is Gobekli Teppe then?... Anyhoo

Then, what I told you about Israel, the same goes for Arameans and Amorites, since there is no real hard evidence that there were actually a group of people or nation named like that or lived in the way we have been told. It's all theoretical, with no hard evidence of any kind. Mittani has always been a conflictual one, there is very little evidence, and there are many disagreements on who they were or where they were located. Not trying to sound pedantic, it's just that history is something I dedicated a big chunk of my life.

Canaanites are a different thing. Canaanites encompass all the different people who lived in the region of Canaan. It wasn't a civilization or an empire, it was a collection of diverse nations/groups that lived in the same region. The fact that you are unaware of this it's a big thing if you are trying to discuss history, but nevermind, this is just ATS. Then, that silly and dishonest claim you make about the Canaanite inscriptions talking about "David" (you refer to the Tel Dan stele), has been utterly contested by Jewish scholars themselves. And even in the unlikely case that the inscription is naming a "David", that still doesn't prove that it's the David of the Bible. (read the wikipedia link you shared, it's right there, and find yourself some honesty).

Then, what you call "jews", or people of "jewish faith", like every human being in the western world, are all associated with all the civilizations and empires that went and came. We are ALL part of human history. But, you are mixing two different things, again. Jewish people exist and has all the right to exist, because these are people who label themselves like that and their beliefs and form of life SHOULD BE respected. That, still, doesn't make the mythical kingdom of Israel true, historically speaking. Sorry, bud.

Clearly now you are just circling around with nothing. I think you have had enough of time for today. Best.

originally posted by: NorthOfStuff
a reply to: ltrz2025

Fair enough.

As a fond farewell may I say that you have nothing to prove but you have much to disprove.

The magnitude of what you propose requires a mountain of evidence to be considered truth.

Thanks for your time

All the opposite. You are the one who claims that the mythical kingdom of Israel existed, so you are the one who has much to prove, and no hard evidence at all. For the 4th time, I cannot DISPROVE something that never existed. Then, the way you measure "magnitudes" is a completely subjective process of yours that makes no difference. Probably you are intimidated by the magnitude of the arguments I presented, but that's a different thing.

You're welcome.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: ltrz2025

Well, this Hebrew myth of Noah and the flood IS clearly a complete bunch of bullcrap.

That's a great example of what your problem is:
Floods are real, they happen, most people in their life will experience at least one in varying degrees of severity.
There are two aspects of that myth:
1. 'In case of water build boat.' Which is totally sound survival advice, ancient wisdom.
2. Noah, the wise old man living in the mountain, hard to reach but 'magical' if you will, he has all the answers.

These are two tropes people can relate to they reverberate through time and cultures to this day.
The problem is again that you expect modern exclusive Jewishness in a cultural vacuum, which never existed especially not in pre-history.

Glad to see that you've been reading from the back, seems like my posts attracted attention, and a few trolls too. That's always fun. :-D

1. Floods are real. That's true. Great observation.

2. The fact that the bible copied the flood myth from ancient Sumer and Babylon has been extensively studied for decades, proven, and even the most hardcore Jewish scholars have accepted it. The same with the myth of the Exodus, the story of Moses, etc. Hardcore Jewish scholars have accepted them as myth, because they simply can't correlate AT ALL with the hard evidence we have. Sure, I know, you don't like this, so it must be a lie... I got that before.

3. I don't expect anything. I'm simply looking for hard evidence, and there is none. Just tales, lies, stolen myths and potential, and disputed, misreading of three stones.

a reply to: infolurker

Lol, are you really trying to prove the reliability of Bible with an "opinion" from a pro-zionist, pro-bible, propaganda site called "creation.com"?...

You have some balls! :-D

a reply to: Peeple

Most probably a troll account which was created 7 days ago.

www.gotquestions.org...

Before Jesus says, “Do not cast your pearls before swine,” He says, “Do not give dogs what is sacred.” An analogy mentioning dogs is also used in Proverbs: “As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly” (Proverbs 26:11). A dual reference to swine and dogs is also found in 2 Peter 2:22, “Of [false teachers] the proverbs are true: ‘A dog returns to its vomit,’ and, ‘A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.’” In His sermon, Jesus uses dogs and pigs as representative of those who would ridicule, reject, and blaspheme the gospel once it is presented to them. We are not to expose the gospel of Jesus Christ to those who have no other purpose than to trample it and return to their own evil ways. Repeatedly sharing the gospel with someone who continually scoffs and ridicules Christ is like casting pearls before swine. We can identify such people through discernment, which is given in some measure to all Christians (1 Corinthians 2:15–16).

The command not to cast your pearls before swine does not mean we refrain from preaching the gospel. Jesus Himself ate with and taught sinners and tax collectors (Matthew 9:10). In essence, the instruction in Matthew 7:6 is the same that Jesus gave to His apostles when He said, “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town” (Matthew 10:14). We are to share the gospel, but, when it becomes apparent that the gospel is not welcome, we are to move on. We are responsible to share the good news; we are not responsible for people’s response to the good news. Pigs don’t appreciate pearls, and some people don’t appreciate what Christ has done for them. Our job is not to force conversions or cram the gospel down people’s throats; there’s no sense in preaching the value of pearls to swine. Jesus’ instruction to His apostles on how to handle rejection was to simply go elsewhere. There are other people who need to hear the gospel, and they are ready to hear it.

a reply to: infolurker

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: Peeple
Most probably a troll account which was created 7 days ago.

Lovely to see that, in your opinion, a person is a troll just because he recently joined the server. Arguments, intellectual honesty, respect, nothing of that matters. All that matters is the date I joined ATS... that's surely a super sophisticated way of reasoning, so sophisticated that it literally escapes my mind...

Thanks for showing that you ran out of arguments and had literally nothing else to cling to. It's usually an spectacular way to accept that you lost the debate :-D

Much love

a reply to: ltrz2025


lol it's a little sad but entertaining how you keep trying to turn 'myth' and 'hard evidence' into the basis of denying the cultural ancestry of modern Jewish heritage.
These two don't go together and it's over and over your unrealistic expectations and lack of understanding that feeds your extremism.

Keep looking for hard evidence in myths you poor misguided fool. You will never find any that's not how myths work. And after you took that hurdle maybe we can move on to discuss what cultural value myths have and why they don't need to be literally true.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: ltrz2025

Keep looking for hard evidence in myths you poor misguided fool. You will never find any that's not how myths work. And after you took that hurdle maybe we can move on to discuss what cultural value myths have and why they don't need to be literally true.

LMAO, you just confessed that you think the ancient kingdom of Israel is a myth, which was my point all along. I doubt you realized that, it's funny as hell :-D. Glad to see that you agree, thanks.

Then, for the 150th time, I don't deny anything. The lack of evidence, plus all the lies and stolen myths of the bible, attest that. I'm simply a messenger, an exposer, if you'd like. I know, you don't like this , and we know how emotional you get when you don't like something, like a fact. Stubborn little things.

So, if I simply explain that there is no hard evidence to prove the myth Jesus walked on water, just like I claim the same for the kingdom of Israel, am I also denying the cultural ancestry of all modern Christians as well? ... Oh, darn!... Then nothing can be questioned, even as contradictory and flimsy it sounds? You simply need to swallow the bible as it comes, New and Old Testament, and not even question one comma, otherwise you are denying a "cultural ancestry" that highly likely never existed?.... Interesting hyperbole.

What I do manage to read in all this childish attempt of ad hominem gibberish you wrote, is that apparently your only problem here is of personal nature. Apparently you are annoyed with your idea that I don't know how myths work, when I've been explaining it for hours. Anyway, believe what you want, but thanks for worrying so much about me and what I know or not. It's very kind of you, darling, to give me all this personal attention.

Regarding all the rest, sure, yeah, whatever... blah blah blah. Big kiss.

a reply to: ltrz2025

I keep saying that all the time, or what do you think I meant all this time I tried to explain to you that the cultural ancestry is not the same as the modern culture?

Your point was that hebrew and the Jewish culture was invented in the middle ages, which is still totally absurde.