This is the second time you’ve demonstrated that you don’t understand plain English. The last time you stated a “more common definition of cult”, and then gave a less common definition of cult. When I quoted you the common definition of cult, you said “Dictionary definitions are not always the best source to go to.”
Now you’ve argued about something that was not stated, ie did Jesus exist historically. The sign in the picture is in the present tense. I also referred to the present tense, and used the word ‘exists’. There is no evidence Jesus exists!
You sound like you have a little information, and you’re then running your mouth off without thinking things through properly.
Now, as to whether someone named Jesus ever existed historically, AND whether the incredible (look up that definition before misunderstanding what that word means) things written by religious proponents is in any way accurate or true, I accept the findings of most recognized secular academic biblical scholars, such as Bart D. Ehrman (an American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. While Ehrman is a leading New Testament scholar, he has also achieved acclaim at the popular level, authoring four New York Times bestsellers) which is that it is improbable and impossible to prove that all the details and acts of Jesus as described in detail in the NT, is an accurate or true record of events, as the NT is so full of lies, forgeries and myths, and no original manuscripts exist.
You appear to believe the religious myths, but I don’t.
Wait… so you’re arguing that I’m misunderstanding you because of a poor and confusing word choice on YOUR part, and then you follow up by derailing with something completely irrelevant about religious myths? That’s not exactly what I’d call convincing.
It’s fair enough that the definition of cult that I used was not an entirely common one, but I ALSO said yours was simply not accurate and didn’t lead to a good comparison of religion versus cult- that argument you never addressed.
Bart D Ehrman is one person. Unfortunately, his area of expertise does not extend to knowing the context of NT, nor the nature of the culture. His conclusions are suspect for that reason, and subject to much criticism. The majority of his criticism of the bible is based around raising questions that he does not provide sufficient answers to. …And even at that, the things you’re quoting him as saying have nothing to do with anything I said: IE, that Jesus EXISTED. I said nothing about religious beliefs, nor did I say that you needed to believe in them. That Jesus is featured in them is still evidence that he existed. All the rest of that paragraph is an appeal to authority with no actual argument. If Ehrman(or you) is actually saying that the NT is ‘full of lies’, that is something that must be proven with alternative records of what really occurred, myths or miracle stories aside. Produce them, and/or explain what you mean.
But yes, yes I do believe in Christianity. I also believe in logic and science, and in finding multiple sources.