Let's by pass that stage and skip straight onto proving Jesus existed.

Have a look at that - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus (Yes I know it's wiki, check the facts for yourself)

And once your done you might want to look up about the ossuary that was found with 'James brother of Jesus' written on it.

Your statement about me using argument ad-poulum may sound clever, but in reality, the fact that there is a lot of people who believe it isn't my point, it's that there is a lot of people more knowledgable on the subject than you or I who practicaly all agree a person named Jesus was born between 2 and 7 BC and that he was baptised by a man named John and crucified for blasphemy.

Lansdowne5

Can't you read? The second line says:

"For disputes about the existence of Jesus and reliability of ancient texts relating to him, see Historicity of Jesus"

So clearly Jesus life is disputed!

Did you know about the tomb found with Joseph, 2 Marys, Jesus and some of his brothers found at around the time of Jesus death? Problem is that Jesus bones are in it. There were many people called Jesus living in that area at that time. Its the same problem with the relic you describe.

You do know what a fallacy is? Its an invalid argument - just like the ad-populum argument you keep on dragging up (I believe it just because most other people do). Where is your evidence that Jesus was born between 2 and 7 BC? Why is there no evidence from Roman cruxifictions or burials of the time?

[QUOTE="diz360"]

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

I've never heard that about Moses. He killed one man and repented for what he had done. I've never ever heard anything about him killing 3000 Hebrews, the Bible doesn't say it so what are you getting that from?

mindstorm

Exodus 32:26-28:

32:36 So Moses stood at the entrance of the camp and said, "Whoever is for the Lord, come to me." All the Levites gathered around him,

32:27 and he said to them, "Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, 'Each man fasten his sword on his side, and go back and forth 59 from entrance to entrance throughout the camp, and each one kill his brother, his friend, and his neighbor.'"

32:28 The Levites did what Moses ordered, and that day about three thousand men of the people died.

Nice huh?

He said Moses killed 3000 men. Not that the Lord instructed Moses to tell the Levites to kill 3000 men.

So, by the same token, Hitler was a nice bloke too?! Moses gave the order...

Way not to not take responsibility for your actions. Typical!

Do you think anyone could hear the Lord tell Moses to tell his men to kill each other? Would it just have seemed as if Moses alone told his men to kill each other?

You seem to know little about the book you covet so.

God has the power to bring a person to life and to send a person to their death. This is not murder because he is God. There is a difference between what Moses did and what Hitler did. The Israelites deserved their fate for turning from God (we all deserve that fate however, but God is merciful). What Hitler did had no biblical grounds and he only did what he did based upon his own beliefs, not what God had commanded of him

"Sending a person to their death" as you put it is murder. It seems you excuse God's vengeful and murderous ways. You then say that all people that turn away from God deserve this fate, but God is merciful.

If that is true, then how can you say non-believers deserve death when you say God does not think so any more. Why would this benevolent God allow the deaths of many millions of innocent children in the last 2 millenia?

As I said before, How did anyone else know that Moses was following instructions from God? As far as they knew, they were following instructions from Moses in the story.

I can't understand what you mean by "biblical grounds". Hitler used a Christian message in many of his publicspeeches, so perhaps he thought he was being commanded by God too. Many murderers and devient psychos seem to justify their horrendous acts by claiming a hotline to God.

Get what? I never denied that you can't say anything as a 100% certainty.

Wrong, almost all Historians believe that there is more historical and archeological evidence of Jesus of Nazereth existing than of Julius Caesar himself.

Lansdowne5

Then you can't say Jesus existed with 100% certainty...

Give me a source for your wild and fallacious argument ad-populum.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="diz360"]

[QUOTE="domatron23"]Yup he existed allright. Shame on the 15 people who voted no.Funky_Llama

Shame? Why?

How can you be certain that Jesus Christ existed?

How can you be certain Juleus Caesar existed?

You can't. Of course, he almost certainly did, but certainty is impossible.

Clearly.

Finally, he gets it!

I think its interesting to note that there is far more evidence of Caesar from the time of his life than can be said for Jesus - and from a far wider number of sources. Its also interesting to see how our perceptions of Caesar have changed as new evidence about his life is discovered.

Yup he existed allright. Shame on the 15 people who voted no.domatron23

Shame? Why?

How can you be certain that Jesus Christ existed?

I used to be in a band called Iconoclast, back in 1981.

[QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

I've never heard that about Moses. He killed one man and repented for what he had done. I've never ever heard anything about him killing 3000 Hebrews, the Bible doesn't say it so what are you getting that from?

Lansdowne5

Exodus 32:26-28:

32:36 So Moses stood at the entrance of the camp and said, "Whoever is for the Lord, come to me." All the Levites gathered around him,

32:27 and he said to them, "Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, 'Each man fasten his sword on his side, and go back and forth 59 from entrance to entrance throughout the camp, and each one kill his brother, his friend, and his neighbor.'"

32:28 The Levites did what Moses ordered, and that day about three thousand men of the people died.

Nice huh?

He said Moses killed 3000 men. Not that the Lord instructed Moses to tell the Levites to kill 3000 men.

So, by the same token, Hitler was a nice bloke too?! Moses gave the order...

Way not to not take responsibility for your actions. Typical!

Do you think anyone could hear the Lord tell Moses to tell his men to kill each other? Would it just have seemed as if Moses alone told his men to kill each other?

You seem to know little about the book you covet so.

42

[QUOTE="diz360"]

Romans needn't have feared crucifiction - and they were the people documenting all aspects of the Judean civilisation at that time, especially radical groups of rebels.

Theokhoth

Tacitus.

Josephus.

No, they didn't live during that time. But that is irrelevant. If it were somehow an argument, then we'd have reason to believe Socrates, Alexander the Great and Gameliel the Younger did not exist, along with a slew of other historical characters.

They both were written some 50 years after Jesus' alledged death and share a mistake in the job title of Procurator for Pilate. They writing style of the passages referring to Jesus are out of the context of one of the authors. It has been evidenced that early Christian scribes changed much documentation as the early church created its doctrine.

Why wouldn't the Romans have noticed Jesus? He was supposed to be preaching to audiences of 5000 and more (by accounts), so must have been a big topic for Roman discussion at the time.

We have archaeology from the Alexander the Great, naming the date of his death. Accounts of his actions come from a greater number of independent sources. Evidence for Socrates comes from Plato's writings from the time of his life.

There is far more direct evidence of Socrates or Alexander the Great then there is of Jesus.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="diz360"]

:lol: Said the guy who cited nothing but Wikipedia! Also, I gave two sources, each one loaded with sources of their own. The conspiracyscience one WASN'T BIASED AT ALL.

My links were clearly from a wide variety of sites. Anyone reading this thread can see the shared source of information you gave to try refuting the previous religious influence question. It's pointless posturing about it.

"English atheist." Very unbiased.:roll:

How do you know this? I've searched his site and can find no indication of this. And UK too? Are you sure you're not making this up too?

Yes, but not making up new figures who, by not existing, changed the world.:lol:

Absolutely it is - or was. The world's changing without all that now, thankfully.

And?

So, you seem to agere that Hellenism does share many traits with Christianity. Why is this?

Like hell they are."English atheist?" "About.com?"

Anyone that cares to click them will see the links go to many useful sites. Where did you get the "English atheist" from? I dispute I linked to that site. I thought you did with your conspiracy science site.

Um, that "partisan propaganda machine" is a website dedicated to debunking conspiracies with science; hence the name, "conspiracyscience." The author of that website, as I have told you, is not a Christian apologist or even a Christian!:lol:

How do you know this? I would be fairly convinced he is a Christian. To deny some of the patent truths as hs does on his site must take some great faith.

Pro-tip: People can study religion without being religious.The historical consensus; as in, the ENTIRE HISTORICAL community, NOT just "religious scholars," is that Jesus DID exist. You cannot deny that. And it is not an argument ad populum, as I am citing authorities, not just random webpages or wikipedia articles.

Of course I can deny this rubbish. There are plenty of historians that see no credible evidence of Jesus Christ. How can you say the ENTIRE HISTORICAL community - a clearly crazy, false and ranting response (and an ad-populum fallacy) without accounting for historians of other or no faith.

The point that you ignored: The fact that ten "historians" say "no" while ten thousand say "yes"to the existence ofJesus does not give credibility to your ten "historians."

Neither, by virtue of the ad-populum fallacy, does yours. Proof can only be made positively since disproof is a logical fallacy. It means the burden of proof is on the extant amd the rational position is skeptical.

Which they do.

Christian indifference is on the rise, so maybe not for much longer!

I'll respond how I like and am able. I am not responding to you out of context.

I know I have to be aware of your ability. Yes, you were - as I described.

Guess what? The same goes for Alexander the Great!:lol: That has nothing to do with historiography. By this standard, Socrates didn't exist.:lol:

Tosh - look at the immense amount of evidence discovered for Alex the Great, like in archaeology of the time. The writings about him were far more comprehensive and from far more varied sources, as they would have been, considering his conquests.

Again, irrelevant to historiography.

Well, that makes historiography and inexact and interpretive method then. Why pin your faith on it?

Oh, then we're not allowed to write about the Civil War now?:lol:

I'm just assigning credibility to evidence. Would I believe something someone told someone else over 50 years ago?

*Yawn* Blank claim is blank.

I'm tired of your reluctance to see the obvious errors in the re-write too.

Socrates.

Plato hung out with him and therefore had first hand experience That's eye-witness testimony!

Like English atheists.

English atheists. English atheists. Pieces of 8 - Sqwark!

Conspiracyscience is secular.:roll: I used one tekton article; and he is completely right.

How do you know? - and how do you know?

Logical contradiction there.

Not necessarily. The myth often precedes the man!

-Jiggles-

Pretty colors.

Rather a dull and circular debate though. It seems that you accept the Hellenistic origins of Christianity, yet still deny Chritianity has been based on the myths of previous religions.