Perhaps I am looking for some evidence from you to refute the history of Scriptures.
True a poster made the claim “history tells the story.” For a believer that is reassuring or even for a seeker. But for the skeptic as yourself, it matters not. So please present your case on why the OT and NT Scriptures are myth and lack historical evidence.
As an aside note, I try to be fair in all discussions. So I have to give you notice that in order to make your claim against the Scriptures you may just have to read them, examine them.
“Perhaps I am looking for some evidence from you to refute the history of Scriptures.”
Which scriptures? Buddhist? And why?
“True a poster made the claim “history tells the story.” For a believer that is reassuring or even for a seeker. But for the skeptic as yourself, it matters not.”
So history doesn’t matter to me?
“So please present your case on why the OT and NT Scriptures are myth and lack historical evidence.”
Why? Are you confusing me with someone else?
How can, what in all honesty appears to be an obvious and logical refutation of the statement “A myth can’t survive 2,000 years.” by providing only one group of myths, (Hinduism or Shintoism or Ancient Egyptian religions and myths could also have been presented as examples), translates into an obligation to provide you with evidence disproving the one you prescribe to?