akhalteke

Tell me about it.

But not the hippy apparently.

You say barn like its a bad thing. Care for a frollic in the hay? Well, straw really.

But, like a cute halloween hippy. Not like muffun top!

apparently scott thinks so... and he also thinks i'm a hippy too Yer a good smelling hippy though.

Shitty ass polish potato vodka should be classified as assault!

My door is always open

Yeah. So how's Enumclaw treatin' ya, Gimp? Huh. Little ways away from Enumclaw there ol' chum.

ummm....what are you sayin? i often wreak of horse shit and leather..... That you would fit in great down here!

i just have to wonder how in the hell you know what's in kev's piehole??? You have it on your mouth. It is not hard to put 2 and 2 together.

I wreak of horse shit and leather. Gotta love the titty bars in this town!

no. I have a black eye and I want revenge!

...would rather throw a jab.

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. No fucking shit. What was this all about? Did Jesus exist. So, you can go home now with your tail tucked and drown your sorrows in boone's farm and maui wowie.

cogito ergo sum boner can's say that since he doesn't think and here is proof of that

Is this supposed to be proof? Dude.....the Bible is NOT proof. Nor is this crap..... Why kev? Is all history crap? You know Kev, you have a lot in common with neo-nazis. They also have irrational ideologies based on fear and hatred and choose to ignore or re-write history. You should check em out next time you are in idaho.

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?

Precisely the point.

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.

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.

Ghengis Khan? Just a story to get little kids in Siberia to stay close to home.

Napoleon? Fake attempt for the French to have military pride.

The revolutionary war was really all a farce. Some patriotic dribble to motivate youngsters to volunteer for the 1st WW.

Better get Kev's mouth checked, I am sure he could use some Acyclovir right now.