Like I said we classify all history that involves magic as fiction. If Julius Ceaser wrote that he flew around on a dragon like Aegon Targaryen it would immediately be classified as bullshit by every historian. We would probably still believed that Julius Caesar existed just not in a magical capacity. Now we can give Julius Caesar a benefit of a doubt if you can show us a skeletal remains of a dragon buried next to Julius Caesar's tomb or something we can't ignore/deny. But until that day any magic = fiction.
I already explained to you why even one claim from the bible is false it cannot be called infallible word of god. Answer me this if the bible makes frequent, mistakes, false claims, hundreds of contradictions can you call it a word from a perfect, all powerful, infallible god? Really think about this. Either your god is a liar or its not his word. Who's word is it then? >> its obviously man made word.
Also you have no proof jesus rose from the dead so the obvious conclusion there was no resurrection. Why do you keep insisting that he did while not supplying the required reipts?
What historical, philosophical, textual support does the bible have that Tripitaka or the Quran or Bhagavad Gita doesn't? Does LoTR has more legitimacy than three little pigs because it has a much more expansive lore and textual support? Is Napoleon not real because he has less historical and philosophical support than Einstein? Does it make Christianity more real because the bible is thicker than Avesta? Is one religion more legitimate because its oral and not textual?
Which religion has more support doesn't in any way impact its authenticity all you are doing is making arguments ad populum.
Disagreement is about evidence or lack thereof. My default starting position was neutral I have moved from the neutral position to "christianity is fake" BECAUSE there is no good evidence to think otherwise.
You are in the "christianity is true" position and cannot explain or provide good reasons how you ended up there. You don't have proof only reasons and logic. Right now we are examining those reasons and I am pointing out how they are faulty or no good.
Btw I have gone back and noticed your reply regarding my question how hebrew slaves got their hands on so much gold. The passage partly explained how it would be possible so I will acknowledge that one particular plot hole made sense. That isn't to say there are thousand other plot holes and contradictions you still haven't explained. Just to let you know I am not some unreasonable troll who denies everything. Although I could have easily missed it because I tend to skim over the spam bible quotes you and others leave behind.
I appreciate you acknowledging the point about the gold. That's exactly how these discussions should workâwe both concede points when the evidence supports it.
I also agree with you on one thing: if the Bible repeatedly made demonstrably false claims, that would be a serious problem for the claim that it is inspired by God. Where we differ is that I don't think you've established that conclusion.
I think we've also finally identified the real disagreement.
You said:
"Any magic = fiction."
That's your starting premise.
Mine is different.
I don't begin by classifying every miracle as fiction. I first ask whether God exists. If God exists, then miracles are at least possible. If God does not exist, then they are not.
That's why we reach different conclusions when we examine the resurrection.
You also asked what Christianity has that other religions don't.
I don't judge religions by how many followers they have, how many pages their books contain, or how detailed their stories are. I evaluate each religion individually based on its historical claims, philosophical coherence, textual preservation, and the evidence supporting its central claims.
That's why comparing Christianity to The Lord of the Rings misses the point. Tolkien openly wrote fiction. Christianity presents itself as history and can be investigated as such. Whether it succeeds is a matter of evidence, not genre.
Finally, you said I have "no proof."
I agree that I don't have proof in the mathematical or scientific sense. Neither of us does.
History rarely provides that level of certainty.
What it provides is evidence that people weigh differently.
You've looked at the evidence and concluded Christianity is false.
I've looked at much of the same evidence and concluded Christianity is true.
That's not because one of us has a proof that the other lacks. It's because we assess the evidence differently, beginning from different philosophical assumptions about whether God and miracles are possible.
At least now we've identified where our disagreement actually lies.