archenemy

I'll take whatever she doesn't finish.

I'm gonna celebrate this weekend by climbing like a crazy woman and enjoying the view!

That's a good question. I guess one way to "prove" that people existed that long ago would be to look at the evolution of languages. We know from our own experience how language changes over time. It is dynamic, but not enough to form into a whole other language within our own lifetime, yeah? So how long would it take for a new language to grow from an old one? Hundreds of years perhaps? And how about to evolve into the many different languages we have? Certainly thousands. That, and carbon dating. I think he was talking about individual people. Like Ghengis Khan. Ah, right. Hmmmm. DNA studies in mummies? Aren't scientists able to trace the evolution of mitochondria DNA and be pretty darn specific about it? They couple that with carbon dating, written record, grave stones, oral tradition. I don't know what else... Do you know anything about science or do you just watch CSI on your lunch breaks at Wall Mart? Do I strike you as uneducated? BTW: that is an ad hominem attack. Also very weak.

That's reasonable. But the historians mentioned in this thread that wrote about Jesus were not writing about God. That whole Nicaea thing hadn't happened yet and there wasn't so much consistancy about all that. As for accuracy, either ya believe or ya don't. It's accurate or it is representative. Word of God or interpretation. No historian has the ability to make anyone believe what they chose not to believe. And that's probably a good thing.

That's a good question. I guess one way to "prove" that people existed that long ago would be to look at the evolution of languages. We know from our own experience how language changes over time. It is dynamic, but not enough to form into a whole other language within our own lifetime, yeah? So how long would it take for a new language to grow from an old one? Hundreds of years perhaps? And how about to evolve into the many different languages we have? Certainly thousands. That, and carbon dating. I think he was talking about individual people. Like Ghengis Khan. Ah, right. Hmmmm. DNA studies in mummies? Aren't scientists able to trace the evolution of mitochondria DNA and be pretty darn specific about it? They couple that with carbon dating, written record, grave stones, oral tradition. I don't know what else...

He acts tough on the internet, right up to the point where you call him out. Then, he slinks away, to hide for awhile...sort of like Puxatawnie (sp?) Phil...and then he comes back out of his hole. So all the goofy threats aren't really actionable, eh? At least they are amusing.

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. But I'll give you an answer to the question you should have asked. "Why would you bring up Stephen King in this discussion?" Well, my friend, let me tell you. It is an analogy. I used an analogy to show you the weakness in your feeble argument. Please note that I did not state my own personal beliefs in any way. Nor did I refute your beliefs. I only pointed out that your premise does not hold water. So you call all history revisionist history? Wow, you liberals really are paranoid. When someone who makes fun of Christians and was charged with the veracticy of the historical documents of the time says he existed, he probably did. Now, lets look at the proponderance of evidence you have thrusted forth: I see that it is difficult for you to follow the path of a debate. Let me slow it down for you. Not only do I not call all history revisionist history, I did not call any history revisionist history. What I am trying to draw your attention to is that if your arguments are not strong, then you will not be able to sway anyone to take any action at all. You were trying to get Kevbone to read works that mentioned Christ. You were also trying to get him to believe that because a non-Christian wrote about Jesus, He surely existed. This is not a strong debate point. Pick a better one. There are plenty to chose from (as you obviously must know from your extensive reading). So, I am still waiting for you to show me your evidence. If I have more evidence than you, how does that make your theory any more plauable than mine or even less so? Inquiring minds really can't wait to hear. What theory? I haven't posited one for you. What are you referring to?

That's a good question. I guess one way to "prove" that people existed that long ago would be to look at the evolution of languages. We know from our own experience how language changes over time. It is dynamic, but not enough to form into a whole other language within our own lifetime, yeah? So how long would it take for a new language to grow from an old one? Hundreds of years perhaps? And how about to evolve into the many different languages we have? Certainly thousands. That, and carbon dating.

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. But I'll give you an answer to the question you should have asked. "Why would you bring up Stephen King in this discussion?" Well, my friend, let me tell you. It is an analogy. I used an analogy to show you the weakness in your feeble argument. Please note that I did not state my own personal beliefs in any way. Nor did I refute your beliefs. I only pointed out that your premise does not hold water. So you call all history revisionist history? Wow, you liberals really are paranoid. When someone who makes fun of Christians and was charged with the veracticy of the historical documents of the time says he existed, he probably did. Now, lets look at the proponderance of evidence you have thrusted forth: I see that it is difficult for you to follow the path of a debate. Let me slow it down for you. Not only do I not call all history revisionist history, I did not call any history revisionist history. What I am trying to draw your attention to is that if your arguments are not strong, then you will not be able to sway anyone to take any action at all. You were trying to get Kevbone to read works that mentioned Christ. You were also trying to get him to believe that because a non-Christian wrote about Jesus, He surely existed. This is not a strong debate point. Pick a better one. There are plenty to chose from (as you obviously must know from your extensive reading).

What? Steven King described people that came back from the dead even though he wasn't Lazarus. That doesn't make it true. Stephen King wasn't a 1st century historian. Stunning bit of logic. Tacitus wasn't alive when Christ was. Hence the Historian part ace. And your assumption is that everything a historian writes is true.

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. But I'll give you an answer to the question you should have asked. "Why would you bring up Stephen King in this discussion?" Well, my friend, let me tell you. It is an analogy. I used an analogy to show you the weakness in your feeble argument. Please note that I did not state my own personal beliefs in any way. Nor did I refute your beliefs. I only pointed out that your premise does not hold water.

What? Steven King described people that came back from the dead even though he wasn't Lazarus. That doesn't make it true. Stephen King wasn't a 1st century historian. Stunning bit of logic. Tacitus wasn't alive when Christ was.

Man….shouldn’t I be telling you that…… Glad you said that. Please. Give me the mound of evidence that you sorted through to come to your brilliant and in no way politically charged opinion about the non-existence of a Jew 2000 years ago. How do you prove someone did not exist? I mean, isn't that the default state anyway? How would you prove that Schlomo Garzius didn't exist in 60 BC? Come on pal, you gotta do better than this.

What? Steven King described people that came back from the dead even though he wasn't Lazarus. That doesn't make it true.

What is it that you expect him to get from this list of illuminata that you are suggesting he read?

really? cool.

You really believe that Jesus existed! You are a fucking idiot! Hey Kev, do your self a favor and look up Cornelius Tacitus. You are really uneducated aren't you? For someone knowing so little, you sure do run your mouth. Those two things seem to go together--the mouth running and the ignorance.

I'm looking to chat with someone familiar with the area. Please PM me. Thanks, A

ONly if it is in metric.

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore you. How are you? Any taller?

This thread is disappointing.

I ride rollercoasters.

No, that's Neo, Nazi. Now that's funny.

Has ggk ever actually acted physically aggressive w/ someone on this site?

No pussy ever loved him back. That's why he is so mad. And this is very, very serious.