Hinduism and Zoroastrianism beat us hands down
I am not aware of any historical evidence in Hinduism and the rest. They have legends told as legends, and they have moral and philosophical teachings told as such. We have a human chain. Besides, indeed I am not a Christian merely because I believe certain miracles took place, but also because the Christian religion makes logical and moral sense, and the miracles fit in the Christian worldview. It is a productive system of thought. It is possible for other people to think something similar about other religions and derive some benefit from that; that doesn't make me wrong.
that [Christ makes a reference to Jonah's story] doesn't prove that Jonah story actually happened
Sure it does. The alternative is that Jesus implied that his death and resurrection is likewise a legend that did not happen, or that Jesus while being God believed a falsehood.
If in your imagination you believe that you can actually fly who am I to say you can't fly in your imagination?
Yes, if I have a private revelation, for example, of Mary, as some people get, you don't have to share im my belief. The revelation of Christ, however, was public: His teaching, miracles, trial, death, and resurrection were all public events. It is true that some miracles of the Bible are possibly literary devices of some kind or are legendary, and it is possible to retain one's Christian faith while disputing the factual nature of those. As far as I know, the Church does not teach that every miraculous event in the Bible is a historical fact. However, we have enough miracles a disbelief in which excommunicates: the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection and ascention, the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and some others. It becomes a strange, quite a bit schizophrenic personal theology to separate the minor miracles from these and proclaim them all fiction.
Who actually saw Christ resurrect?
They saw Christ die, and then they saw him walk, talk, fish, eat, touched His wounds, etc. Again, theories exist that explain it away, but direct evidence is that the death and resurrection did happen.
Kosta”that [Christ makes a reference to Jonah’s story] doesn’t prove that Jonah story actually happened”
Alex: “Sure it does. The alternative is that Jesus implied that his death and resurrection is likewise a legend that did not happen, or that Jesus while being God believed a falsehood.”
Alex what you say doesn’t follow at all. +Basil the Great, Isaac the Syrian etc, etc spoke of the allegorical nature of OT stories and I doubt that any of them entertained the notion that Christ’s death and resurrection were legendary.
I hate to tell you, but aside from historical names and places to which the stories have been attached, historical Judaism is in the same boat. There is evidence of Judaism as a historical fact, but not of its myths and legends, just as there is evidence of Christianity, but there is no evidence of anything else except from sources with a vested interest. The "historicity" of Biblical events is a matter of belief and not of fact. There is no solid evidence of any Jews being in Egypt, Exodus, Slaughter of the Innocents, extra biblical accounts of crucifixion, or resurrection etc. (and no, Jospehus' much plagiarized account is not "evidence")
They have legends told as legends...We have a human chain
We also have legends and we have a human chain but with a twist. The Gospels are unsigned. The apostolic authorship of the Gospels is an afterthought made late in the 2nd century. We have facts embellished with unsupported claims.
Besides, indeed I am not a Christian merely because I believe certain miracles took place, but also because the Christian religion makes logical and moral sense, and the miracles fit in the Christian worldview
Christianity makes a lot of moral sense. It teaches that it is better to coexist in love than in hate. It also has a (Platonic) human role model we should strive to imitate, thereby becoming better human beings. We all know that love feels good and hate feels bad. So, there is an element even of Pavlovian stimulus-response behavior present.
There is an element of psychological conditioning in it: behavior that results in rewards tends to be repeated. In other words, it becomes a habit. The world is generally better off if it is producing and benefiting rather than destroying and hurting.
But, other religions make moral sense as well, even if they lack in a viisble, humanly cocneivable role model. They all aim at some sort of "love" condition, peace and satisfaction. Some are more altruistic then others, but the elements are all there. Late (Post-Babylonian, messianic) Judaism and Islam have escatholigical and soteriological beliefs, but so does Zoroastrianism, form which Judaism acquired its messianic beliefs along with the introduction of dualism.
Buddhism leads to eventual nirvana. Ancient Egyptian religions had soteriological overtones as well. The mechanisms and different, but the end result is the same.
It is a productive system of thought
So are other religions, Alex. Hinduism is the oldest written religion, older than the Ten Commandments. Which religion is not productive? Islamic philosophy and science was very advanced at one time.
It is possible for other people to think something similar about other religions and derive some benefit from that; that doesn't make me wrong
Beliefs are not wrong. But they are beliefs, not facts. They become wrong when they become the measure of reality, of worse, become the reality. Hope is not a guarantee.
Alex: Sure it does. The alternative is that Jesus implied that his death and resurrection is likewise a legend that did not happen, or that Jesus while being God believed a falsehood
That doesn't follow. Look, myth and legend is how people learned and probably still learn to a large extent. The Serbs managed to turn their disastrous (and blundering) defeat in Kosovo in 1398 into a moral victory. The resistance to the Nazi occupation of Serbia and Greece is believed to have delayed the invasion of Russia and contributed to the demise of Hitler's army due to late start and an early winter. Some of it may be true (late start), but the weather was not influenced by the Serbs' and Greeks' resistance!
It cold have just as easily been a late winter in which case the history would have been quite different. or it could have been an early invasion along with a late winter, in which case the outcome of WWII might have been rather different. But I am sure it makes the Serbs and Greeks feel good to magnify their part in slowing down the enemy, just as it makes the Serbs feel bitter-sweet about being defeated in Kosovo Polye in 1389, and growing spiritually and morally strong from the cross that was imposed upon them. They are feel-good rationalizations. And they are false associations even if their message is useful and profitable.
According tot he Gospels, Alex, not by anyone else. The Gospels are a biased source. They are no diffreent than, say, Egyptians making a habit of not mention of their defeats. We have extrabiblical evidence of Christians, but not of Christ miracles or resurrection. Again, there are only two eyewitnesses in the New Testament. The other nine wrote nothing. And the aposotlic authoriship of the Gospels is a late second century claim. Until then, no one refers ot any of the Gospel verses by the name of the Apostle.
Indeed, for someone who wa so visible, and public, in addition to someone who was such a "threat" to the Sanhedrin and even to Rome, it is really remarkable that nothing official has been written by either Jewish or Roman sources, given that we have documents of much more mundane nature.
Some of these are impositions by the Church. If we are going to go by the Seven Ecumenical Councils, then pretty much what's in the Creed is what makes one Christian, and real presence is not part if. But, anyone who was ever in an Orthodox Church knows that in order for someone to receive communion, one must recite the words that affirm the belief in the Real Presence "I also believe that this is truly Your pure Body and that this is truly Your precious Blood..." which is an ecclesial imposition and not a Credal statement.
Excommunication in the Catholic vernacular and the orthodox usage is like and day. In the East it merely means you are denied communion. In the west, by a definition adopted in 1912, the Catholic Church equates it with anathema. Someone who denies the Virgin Birth, or the Resurrection of the Lord would be anathematized rather than just excommunicated. Excommunication in the East is usually of a temporary nature, as part of penance.
They saw Christ die, and then they saw him walk, talk, fish, eat, touched His wounds, etc
Who saw him die? Who saw him resurrect? John? The disciple he loved is only presumed to be John. There are other candidates. Does John say he saw him die. Other authors describe events in great detail as if they were there, but they weren't. So, whose "eyewitness" version(s) are they conveying?
Alex: Sure it does. The alternative is that Jesus implied that his death and resurrection is likewise a legend that did not happen, or that Jesus while being God believed a falsehood.
That's the exact argument I earlier made concerning a disbelief in the truth of the Exodus story and Jesus' celebration of the Passover. The alternative is that Jesus was spiritually observing a fable. That just can't be true.