Of course, Christianity claims to be the true continuation of Judaism.  You know as well as I do that Christians trace their beginnings all the way to the beginning of time, unlike Islam or Buddhism for example.

Alleged martyrdoms of alleged eyewitnesses.  You have nothing but scripture to back up the claims.

Not true, as I think we

A counterfeit twenty looks the same as a real twenty.  They both claim to be the same thing, but one is actually what it claims to be, while the other is an imitation.

Unless they are both counterfeit.  That's my position, you know.  You folks are all playing with Monopoly money and pretending that it is real.

Trust in authority might trigger a belief or a doubt, but it is not enough to sustain it.

How come you don

Well, yeah but then Islam is simply an offshoot of Judaism as well in your book. You caught me in my bias there .  The point I was trying to make is that the Koran wasn

See, here is where I get confused.  You say that a historical Jesus is no threat to your worldview, but then why do you apply different standards to any evidence surrounding Christianity?  What makes you treat Jesus differently?  Even IF there were no manuscript evidence by eyewitnesses for Jesus, why do you not reject the existence of other historical figures for whom we lack eyewitness evidence?

I have my attitudes and speculations, as do you, but I am honestly looking into the history of these things.  In all honesty, I do question what the sources could have been for the claims made by those men.  Their claims are only as good as their sources, which may have been nothing more than hearsay.  I would prefer information that came from a source untainted by Christian bias.

I find that position somewhat absurd as every time you are presented with a document mentioning some early Christian figure, you consider it tainted by Christian bias.  Of course what you are looking for doesn

My point was that ANY religion with a creation myth can claim to be the oldest religion.  The question is how long the adherents of the particular religious creed in question have been around.  All adherents of an Abrahamic doctrine believe that they are the one true continuation of the Biblical tradition.  Some think that God is insulted by all the others.
Still, you have narrowed your choices down, correct?  Isnt that what we were attempting to do?
I'm not sure what you mean here.  I hold all three religions to be equally viable, which is to say not at all.