Ever think about who we assasinate?

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Ill spell it out really clearly. Whether Jesus is a character in a story, has NO relevancy to whether he really existed or not, in this particular context. Are you two stupid to see this? because I can put it in coloring book form if you need more help.

[/ QUOTE ]

Make a really crappy youtube video, and talk as slowly and monotonously as possible. I hear those types of arguments are very persuasive.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO you guys look at that stance incorrectly. He knew that in order for our country to survive, these states simply couldn't secede if they felt like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a question being begged there.

[ QUOTE ]
I would assume both of you would agree that the civil war had little to do directly with slavery. Most of what I have read indicate it was an economic issue heavily involving trade and tariffs. I could be wrong though.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're on the right track.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Ill spell it out really clearly. Whether Jesus is a character in a story, has NO relevancy to whether he really existed or not, in this particular context. Are you two stupid to see this? because I can put it in coloring book form if you need more help.

[/ QUOTE ]


"Jesus" IS (underline underline underline) a character in a story. If you want to claim the existence of some person some time ago, then that's fine and we can look at that, but don't use the name of a fictional personage.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
When you spend 90% of your day bitching about america, and how [censored] of a country it is, it is entirely reasonable for me to expect him to know major historical figures of our country.

[/ QUOTE ]

Robert Kennedy is not a "major historical figure" IMO.

Malcom X is more of one, but still not particularly in the upper echelons of the overall American historical big picture.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And we all know what he was getting at with teh jesus comment....google historical jesus, there is more evidence supporting the existence than not.

[/ QUOTE ]



To this point, I do agree, but that doesn't mean I think there isn't room for legitimate debate. I don't know if I would use the word 'evidence', but yeah, if I had to place a bet on whether he existed or not, I'd wager that he did.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know one way or the other, but there are probably 1000+ times as many people looking for evidence that Jesus existed than looking for evidence that he didn't, so it doesn't seem surprising that there is more evidence of the former in the historical record. It's also a lot easier to prove a positive than a negative.

[/ QUOTE ]

there are many many many historians that have no agenda whatsoever, using the scientific process that believe a historical jesus existed. Just because it is jesus, doesnt mean that historians are changing the way they investigate these things, they arent out to prove or disprove, they are there to gather any and all facts and come to a conlclusion.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And we all know what he was getting at with teh jesus comment....google historical jesus, there is more evidence supporting the existence than not.

[/ QUOTE ]



To this point, I do agree, but that doesn't mean I think there isn't room for legitimate debate. I don't know if I would use the word 'evidence', but yeah, if I had to place a bet on whether he existed or not, I'd wager that he did.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know one way or the other, but there are probably 1000+ times as many people looking for evidence that Jesus existed than looking for evidence that he didn't, so it doesn't seem surprising that there is more evidence of the former in the historical record. It's also a lot easier to prove a positive than a negative.

[/ QUOTE ]

there are many many many historians that have no agenda whatsoever, using the scientific process that believe a historical jesus existed. Just because it is jesus, doesnt mean that historians are changing the way they investigate these things, they arent out to prove or disprove, they are there to gather any and all facts and come to a conlclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]


A direct question is probably quicker:


Do you believe that there was a human being around two thousand years ago who flew up into the air without the help of a hurricane or flying gear?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
there are many many many historians that have no agenda whatsoever, using the scientific process that believe a historical jesus existed. Just because it is jesus, doesnt mean that historians are changing the way they investigate these things, they arent out to prove or disprove, they are there to gather any and all facts and come to a conlclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Scientific process? Do you mean scientific method?

Because if so, I doubt any reputable historian actually thinks there's a way to 'prove' Jesus existed as an empirical reality.

I think you mean something along the lines of "historians use the methodology of historical research", which is hardly 'scientific' in most cases.

[Dane S]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And we all know what he was getting at with teh jesus comment....google historical jesus, there is more evidence supporting the existence than not.

[/ QUOTE ]



To this point, I do agree, but that doesn't mean I think there isn't room for legitimate debate. I don't know if I would use the word 'evidence', but yeah, if I had to place a bet on whether he existed or not, I'd wager that he did.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know one way or the other, but there are probably 1000+ times as many people looking for evidence that Jesus existed than looking for evidence that he didn't, so it doesn't seem surprising that there is more evidence of the former in the historical record. It's also a lot easier to prove a positive than a negative.

[/ QUOTE ]

there are many many many historians that have no agenda whatsoever, using the scientific process that believe a historical jesus existed. Just because it is jesus, doesnt mean that historians are changing the way they investigate these things, they arent out to prove or disprove, they are there to gather any and all facts and come to a conlclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think historians who work for the Vatican or Christian universities are likely to search for evidence that Jesus didn't exist?

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And we all know what he was getting at with teh jesus comment....google historical jesus, there is more evidence supporting the existence than not.

[/ QUOTE ]



To this point, I do agree, but that doesn't mean I think there isn't room for legitimate debate. I don't know if I would use the word 'evidence', but yeah, if I had to place a bet on whether he existed or not, I'd wager that he did.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know one way or the other, but there are probably 1000+ times as many people looking for evidence that Jesus existed than looking for evidence that he didn't, so it doesn't seem surprising that there is more evidence of the former in the historical record. It's also a lot easier to prove a positive than a negative.

[/ QUOTE ]

there are many many many historians that have no agenda whatsoever, using the scientific process that believe a historical jesus existed. Just because it is jesus, doesnt mean that historians are changing the way they investigate these things, they arent out to prove or disprove, they are there to gather any and all facts and come to a conlclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]


A direct question is probably quicker:


Do you believe that there was a human being around two thousand years ago who flew up into the air without the help of a hurricane or flying gear?

[/ QUOTE ]


again, no relevancy.


Do I believe that there was a historical figure living 2000 years ago, that taught a good message of peace and love, and had a following of people who agreed with this message? yes. Am I retarded enough to believe every word of the bible, or that there wasnt embellishments by the writers hand picked by the Nicean Council to be included? no.


again, I just want to re-iterate the distaste I have for neilso, and his ignorance and assumptions.

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe that there was a human being around two thousand years ago who flew up into the air without the help of a hurricane or flying gear?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. And his first miracle wasn't turning water into wine. It was walking across the school swimming pool, in an effort to impress a girl enough to go to the prom with him.