Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Options
1…4344464849…327

Comments

  • Options
    #1352
    The Quadratic Equation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭The Quadratic Equation


    :rolleyes:
    Zombrex wrote: »
    You must know very very few people.

    Must I ? So exactly how many people do I know ?
    Surely you must know ? lol
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Which demonstrates my point (some) Christians dismiss these cults as "nutjobs" but won't apply the same standards to their own religion because its the one they believe.

    Yes, because all Christians are into suicide cults :rolleyes:
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Oh right. So the rational logical reason why Christianity is true is that it all sounds perfect to you.

    Yes, that doesn't sound like anything a worshipper of a cult would say at all.

    Please excuse me, I have to ring the cult hypnotist again, I'm out of pills, and I have to gain persmission to be here.


  • Options
    #1353
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    Must I ?

    Yes, if you think you are the most skeptical person you know. Or perhaps that claim was simply nonsense.
    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    Yes, because all Christians are into suicide cults :rolleyes:

    Didn't the followers of Jesus die? Being prepared to die for something that is a lie is highly illogical isn't it. Thus Chrisitanity is true. That is the only rational conclusion (that of course and plus that it sounds perfect).

    Of course this means so is Heavens Gate. And so is Jonestown. So is Branch Davidian. Oh and radical Islam, they die all the time. And people don't die for things that are not true, right.

    Tell us again how skeptical a person you are TQE :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1354
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Yes, if you think you are the most skeptical person you know. Or perhaps that claim was simply nonsense.



    Didn't the followers of Jesus die? Being prepared to die for something that is a lie is highly illogical isn't it. Thus Chrisitanity is true. That is the only rational conclusion (that of course and plus that it sounds perfect).

    Of course this means so is Heavens Gate. And so is Jonestown. So is Branch Davidian. Oh and radical Islam, they die all the time. And people don't die for things that are not true, right.

    Tell us again how skeptical a person you are TQE :rolleyes:

    Here we go again.

    This has been covered many times here, as you well know. And you are not so forgetful as not to remember. Yet here we are again with you deliberately misrepresenting the Christian position.

    The Christian claim is not that if someone dies for something it must be true. The claim is that people die for things that they think is true.

    So, a Muslim dying for their faith, or a Christian dying for their faith in North Korea, is no indication whatsoever of whether the historical events behind their faith are true or not.

    But that is not what QE was saying, as you well know. He was pointing out that the eyewitnesses of Jesus' life, death and resurrection were prepared to die rather than change their accounts of what they had seen. So, any argument against their eye witness accounts should take into account that they genuinely believed that they had seen the things to which they testified.

    Now, there are arguments (albeit not very convincing ones) that can be advanced against this, and you are free to do so. In fact, if you want you can use the search function and cut and paste them, because you've been involved in this same debate before.

    But, please, be honest enough to address the actual points being raised. It does seem rather pointless trying the same tricks that you have used, and been caught out on, in the past. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59724340&postcount=222


  • Options
    #1355
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    But that is not what QE was saying, as you well know. He was pointing out that the eyewitnesses of Jesus' life, death and resurrection were prepared to die rather than change their accounts of what they had seen.

    Er, no that isn't what he was pointing out. He was asked why is Christianity real, not why do we think Christians actually believed what they believed. When challenged on this he didn't say he was just supporting the idea that Christians believed what they believed, he started talking about how perfect Christianity was and how it wasn't a suicide cult.

    You seem to spend most of your time altering and spinning your fellow Christian's arguments to make them sound less stupid. This in of itself should speak volumes to the rationality of Christian faith.


  • Options
    #1356
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Zombrex wrote: »
    When challenged on this he didn't say he was just supporting the idea that Christians believed what they believed,
    The Quadrartic Equation wrote:
    It is also quite logical to suppose that The Apostles really did believe what they preached, as they gave up their families, possessions, and homes in return for certain persecution and death to preach the Gospel.

    :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1357
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    :rolleyes:

    Yes, you might want to oh I don't know, read all the posts around the single line you quoted, including the question TQE was replying to and my follow up post

    Or if you like ask TQE how his answer in the context you assert he was using it actually answers Ciaran's and my questions.


  • Options
    #1358
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Yes, you might want to oh I don't know, read all the posts around the single line you quoted, including the question TQE was replying to and my follow up posts.

    I did read them, including the moment when you, rather transparently, tried to substitute your strawman for the one he had made about the apostles.

    Nowhere, at any point, did the TQE say that the willingness of people to die for a belief is proof that the said belief is true. He commented on the fact that the apostles (by definition eyewitnesses) believed that what they preached about Christ was true.

    The other posts really don't alter that at all. They are just you trying to slip in a transparently false claim that cults such as Heavens Gate or Jonestown were the same, and TQE having a good laugh at you.

    Then you tried to slip in something about radical Islam being prepared to die. Which, as anyone can see, has nothing to do with anything that TQE had said, but is exactly the same little trick you tried under your old screen-name with Jimitime two and half years ago.

    So stop dancing - you've been caught red-handed.


  • Options
    #1359
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    By the standards of 2,000 years ago, Jesus of Nazareth is very well attested. (Much better attested than, say, Plato.) We have the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, which all draw on a common source. We have the gospel of John, which is written by somebody who seems never to have read, or heard of, Matthew, Mark or Luke and which therefore represents an independent source. And we have the writings of Paul, all of whose letters predate Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. So he’s a third source. Paul, though, says little or nothing about miracles (except the resurrection, of course). On the whole, he says very little about the life and doings of Jesus. Matthew/Mark/Luke does deal with miracles, and so does John (though, often, not the same miracles)...........
    So, to sum up. The historiography on Jesus of Nazareth is actually pretty strong, and events that we would consider “miraculous” are attested in two distinct sources - three, in the case of the resurrection.
    Re these "eyewitness accounts"....
    As you point out above, Matthew, Mark, Luke appear to be all versions of the same story. And John is contradictory in places to the other three. Scholars generally agree that they were all written 50-100 years after Jesus' death. Not exactly eyewitness accounts then; more like the varying versions of either an eyewitness account or an urban legend, such as you would expect to find in different geographical regions after that length of time. No doubt the gospels would have continued to diverge if the early church authorities hadn't decided to standardise and write down what they already had at that stage. And of course there were many more gospels circulating at the time which they decided to leave out.

    Paul's writings, as you point out, make no mention of the miracles. This seems to suggest that the miracles doctrine came later. Even Paul, as the earliest written "source" never met Jesus; he was born around 5 years after Jesus' death. And considering he was a missionary, hardly an "independent" source either.

    What of the contemporary independent sources, eg the civil authorities? As the Roman governor or Prefect, Pontius Pilate would have been expected to keep Rome informed of any unusual occurrences; miracles occurring or any executed rebels coming back to life. But strangely...nothing.


  • Options
    #1360
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    recedite wrote: »
    Re these "eyewitness accounts"....

    As you point out above, Matthew, Mark, Luke appear to be all versions of the same story. And John is contradictory in places to the other three. Scholars generally agree that they were all written 50-100 years after Jesus' death.

    Ever heard of the Q document or Markian primacy. I suggest you look them up.
    Not exactly eyewitness accounts then; more like the varying versions of either an eyewitness account or an urban legend, such as you would expect to find in different geographical regions after that length of time.

    You would be wrong there. People could have eyewitness accounts which they dictated before they died. given they were in their thirties when Jesus died ( maybe even some in their late teens or eyewitnessess who were young children) the accounts could be written any time up to say 100 years of age . People did like to this age. That would mean at the outside some were alive in about 140AD. In fact writers sometimes write down their name
    as the person who the dictation is being made to.
    No doubt the gospels would have continued to diverge if the early church authorities hadn't decided to standardise and write down what they already had at that stage. And of course there were many more gospels circulating at the time which they decided to leave out.

    that is entirely true. And they did this hundreds of years after christ and moist of their writings coming from independent remote unconnected parts of the world agreed.
    Paul's writings, as you point out, make no mention of the miracles. This seems to suggest that the miracles doctrine came later. Even Paul, as the earliest written "source" never met Jesus; he was born around 5 years after Jesus' death. And considering he was a missionary, hardly an "independent" source either.

    Really? You know what he was before he was a Missionary? when Jesus was around?
    It is a bit rich accusing a witness of being biased in writing only what they say or heard.
    What of the contemporary independent sources, eg the civil authorities? As the Roman governor or Prefect, Pontius Pilate would have been expected to keep Rome informed of any unusual occurrences; miracles occurring or any executed rebels coming back to life. But strangely...nothing.


    Actually not nothing. several writings. But we have been over the "historicity of Jesus" before. About 300 years Earlier we had Socrates, Apparently one of the greatest philosophers ever - known even in Roman times as such. And alexander the Great one of the Greatest Military onn political minds ever.

    No writings from Socrates ever not even in his own time . He wrote nothing.
    No histories or writings survive from that time by anyone else about Socrates.
    SAme for Alexander.
    The best we have are histories from maybe 300 years later. Any originals seem to have disappeared. There are references other works of fiction about Socrates but no non fiction histories till about 300 years later.

    What of the contemporary independent sources, eg the civil authorities? As the Macedonian governor or General , Ptolemy would have been expected to keep Greece informed of any unusual occurrences; miracles occurring or any executed rebels coming back to life. But strangely...nothing

    Funny how nobody doubts Alexander or Socrates existed


  • Options
    #1361
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    recedite wrote: »
    Scholars generally agree that they were all written 50-100 years after Jesus' death.
    No, actually they don't.
    No doubt the gospels would have continued to diverge if the early church authorities hadn't decided to standardise and write down what they already had at that stage.
    That is an argument from imagination. It is also very dubious from a historical perspective. It appears that the Gospels were written in different locations, at separate times, and when there was no centralised church authorites.

    You can't have your cake and eat it.

    You can argue that the Gospels were written before 70 AD, in which you can conceivably imagine that the centralised authority was standardising them.

    You can also argue a later date, but then you have different churches in different locations with no such level of control.

    But you can't do both - not if you want to retain any credibility. After 70AD there would be no such level of control in church government for at least another 100 years.
    And of course there were many more gospels circulating at the time which they decided to leave out.
    Which has no relevance whatsoever.
    Paul's writings, as you point out, make no mention of the miracles. This seems to suggest that the miracles doctrine came later. Even Paul, as the earliest written "source" never met Jesus; he was born around 5 years after Jesus' death. And considering he was a missionary, hardly an "independent" source either.
    You don't think the Resurrection was a miracle?
    What of the contemporary independent sources, eg the civil authorities? As the Roman governor or Prefect, Pontius Pilate would have been expected to keep Rome informed of any unusual occurrences; miracles occurring or any executed rebels coming back to life. But strangely...nothing.
    You don't really know very much about how scanty the records are that have survived from Iperial Rome, do you? Do you honestly think that there is a vault somewhere with detailed records of every message that every Governor sent back to Rome about every incident and rumor?

    By the way, have you decided to admit the falsehood of the claims you made earlier in this thread about the Bible telling the Israelites to put ugly women to death, to set up harems, or to kill those women who refused to marry your captors? It seems a bit out of order that you dodged repeated requests to substantiate those claims, yet you still expect Christians to engage in discussion with you about the Bible?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1362
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    ISAW wrote: »
    Really? You know what he was before he was a Missionary? when Jesus was around?
    It is a bit rich accusing a witness of being biased in writing only what they say or heard.
    Are you saying Paul was around at the same time as Jesus?

    "Q" is a hypothetical document that would basically contain only the info common to certain gospels. You could draw it up yourself if you liked.


  • Options
    #1363
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    PDN wrote: »
    You can argue that the Gospels were written before 70 AD, in which you can conceivably imagine that the centralised authority was standardising them.

    You can also argue a later date, but then you have different churches in different locations with no such level of control.
    But you can't do both - not if you want to retain any credibility. After 70AD there would be no such level of control in church government for at least another 100 years.
    Not sure what the significance of 70 AD is for Christans? Anyhow, once the regional churches wrote down their versions, the divergence would have stopped. With the establishment of more centralised control later on, some gospels were made official doctrine, and others were edited out.

    As for whether "harems" existed in a bronze age polygamous society; it's splitting hairs really.. I thought we agreed to park that.


  • Options
    #1364
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    PDN wrote: »
    You don't think the Resurrection was a miracle?
    Sure it was.... it just seems odd that it was the only miracle that Paul knew about.


  • Options
    #1365
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70)

    Do you suppose that being unaware of this event weakens your position?


  • Options
    #1366
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    recedite wrote: »
    Sure it was.... it just seems odd that it was the only miracle that Paul knew about.

    What? :confused:

    Please elaborate.


  • Options
    #1367
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70)
    Do you suppose that being unaware of this event weakens your position?
    Eh?? The Jewish Revolt In Jerusalem? What's that got to do with Christians spread around the middle east?
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    What? :confused:
    Please elaborate.
    Christians say it best;
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Paul, though, says little or nothing about miracles (except the resurrection, of course).


  • Options
    #1368
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    recedite wrote: »
    As for whether "harems" existed in a bronze age polygamous society; it's splitting hairs really.. I thought we agreed to park that.

    We didn't agree to park anything.

    You made three false claims (of which the 'harems' one was the least bare-faced). You were challenged on several occasions to either sustantiate them or withdraw them. You have done neither.

    Which leaves some us wondering why we should engage in discussion with someone who is prepared to post untruths and then refuse to stand over them.

    Anyone can make a mistake - but it costs nothing to admit we were wrong.


  • Options
    #1369
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    recedite wrote: »
    Are you saying Paul was around at the same time as Jesus?

    duh! yeah. What is your problem with that?
    "Q" is a hypothetical document that would basically contain only the info common to certain gospels. You could draw it up yourself if you liked.

    Scholars have done so already. Im just suggesting you read about it.


  • Options
    #1370
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    recedite wrote: »
    Not sure what the significance of 70 AD is for Christans?

    How do you set a date in ancient Rome?
    Anyhow, once the regional churches wrote down their versions, the divergence would have stopped.
    Depends on what you mean by "divergence"
    None of them diverged from the core beliefs. Others did and continued to do so.
    They are called heretics or apostates.
    With the establishment of more centralised control later on, some gospels were made official doctrine, and others were edited out.

    Edited out of what?
    And what do you mean by "established central control" ?


  • Options
    #1371
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW wrote: »
    Ever heard of the Q document or Markian primacy. I suggest you look them up.



    You would be wrong there. People could have eyewitness accounts which they dictated before they died. given they were in their thirties when Jesus died ( maybe even some in their late teens or eyewitnessess who were young children) the accounts could be written any time up to say 100 years of age . People did like to this age. That would mean at the outside some were alive in about 140AD. In fact writers sometimes write down their name
    as the person who the dictation is being made to.


    that is entirely true. And they did this hundreds of years after christ and moist of their writings coming from independent remote unconnected parts of the world agreed.


    Really? You know what he was before he was a Missionary? when Jesus was around?
    It is a bit rich accusing a witness of being biased in writing only what they say or heard.



    Actually not nothing. several writings. But we have been over the "historicity of Jesus" before. About 300 years Earlier we had Socrates, Apparently one of the greatest philosophers ever - known even in Roman times as such. And alexander the Great one of the Greatest Military onn political minds ever.

    No writings from Socrates ever not even in his own time . He wrote nothing.
    No histories or writings survive from that time by anyone else about Socrates.
    SAme for Alexander.
    The best we have are histories from maybe 300 years later. Any originals seem to have disappeared. There are references other works of fiction about Socrates but no non fiction histories till about 300 years later.

    What of the contemporary independent sources, eg the civil authorities? As the Macedonian governor or General , Ptolemy would have been expected to keep Greece informed of any unusual occurrences; miracles occurring or any executed rebels coming back to life. But strangely...nothing

    Funny how nobody doubts Alexander or Socrates existed


    What could have and maybe and might have lived to this age or that age is meaningless in a historical discussion.

    Why do you think no one doubts the existance and/or achievements of Alexander as they do with Jesus ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1372
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    ISAW wrote: »
    duh! yeah. What is your problem with that?
    I refer you to wikipedia, the source of all knowledge;
    The life and times of St Paul
    (sorry if I burst your bubble)
    ISAW wrote: »
    How do you set a date in ancient Rome?
    The Julian calendar. And it's not my significant year, it's PDN's.


    Edited out of what?
    And what do you mean by "established central control" ?

    Gospels like these were dropped at conferences like this one, where the recently established church authorities agreed on which bits they were going to agree to promote, going forward.
    The more of this stuff you read, the crazier it gets.


  • Options
    #1373
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    recedite wrote: »
    Gospels like these were dropped at conferences like this one, where the recently established church authorities agreed on which bits they were going to agree to promote, going forward.
    The more of this stuff you read, the crazier it gets.

    Well, you'd have to read it first to know if it's crazy or not. Your link states what those of us who get our information from real history rather than The Davinci Code already knew:
    "A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's role in establishing the Biblical Canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the Biblical Canon at the council at all."

    What's the point of providing a link if you ignore what the link says and instead spout urban legends? :pac:

    Oh, by the way, while you're getting it wrong about the New Testament, I'm still waiting for you to either substantiate or retract the untrue claims you made earlier in the thread about the Old Testament.


  • Options
    #1374
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    I said "conferences like this one" Nicaea is only the most famous and lavish one, having been organised by the Emperor. You are quite right, they were mainly trying to decide whether or not Jesus was the son of God at that one.


  • Options
    #1375
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    I'm still waiting to hear why the year 70 AD was bad for Christians?


  • Options
    #1376
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    What could have and maybe and might have lived to this age or that age is meaningless in a historical discussion.

    O dear o dear o dear. Please learn about what history actually is and what it is not!
    Hint: History is NOT the past. The map is NOT the territory.
    Why do you think no one doubts the existance and/or achievements of Alexander as they do with Jesus ?
    Ah now that is a clever question. I'd almost forgive you for misunderstanding what history actually is.
    It is a different question however as to accepting the fact that the same posters who argue for "no historic Jesus" do not apply the same arguments to "no Historic Socrates/Alexander"
    I would think the absence of doubt is quite obvious.


  • Options
    #1377
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    recedite wrote: »
    I refer you to wikipedia, the source of all knowledge;
    The life and times of St Paul
    (sorry if I burst your bubble)

    Which begins
    Paul the Apostle (c. AD 5 – c. AD 67)

    Let me reverse the question using your own reference
    Are you saying Paul was NOT around at the same time as Jesus?


    How do you set a Julian calendar date to the lifetime of Paul and that of Jesus?
    How can you show these lifetimes to be "not around at the same time"?

    Ill leave the gnostic gospels bit for other posters


  • Options
    #1378
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    recedite wrote: »
    I said "conferences like this one" Nicaea is only the most famous and lavish one, having been organised by the Emperor. You are quite right, they were mainly trying to decide whether or not Jesus was the son of God at that one.

    So to what conferences do you refer?


  • Options
    #1379
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    recedite wrote: »
    I said "conferences like this one" Nicaea is only the most famous and lavish one,
    Why would you say such a thing when we can see exactly what you said?

    You said, "conferences like this one, where the recently established church authorities agreed on which bits they were going to agree to promote, going forward."

    Which would be a bit like me saying, "the European Union is made up of European countries like Switzerland" - and then when people start laughing at me, trying to cover my tracks by saying, "No, I didn't say Switzerland was in the European Union. I said it was made up of other countries which, like Switzerland, are European". :rolleyes:
    You are quite right, they were mainly trying to decide whether or not Jesus was the son of God at that one.

    No, they weren't - but I'm going to be charitable and assume that you're just being woefully ignorant rather than deliberately attempting to annoy everyone to deflect from your schoolboy howler.

    They were all agreed that Jesus was the Son of God - but they were discussing what that actually meant when you get down to the fine details.
    I'm still waiting to hear why the year 70 AD was bad for Christians?
    It wasn't bad for Christians, but it was bad for Jews in that Jerusalem was basically ripped up by the Romans.

    This meant that there was no longer any centralised leadership in Jerusalem to which difficult questions could be referred. So discussion on doctrine, and the development of the Canon, occurred as a grassroots process in many different places rather than as a top down edict.

    And that IMHO was not a bad thing for Christians at all. In fact it was a very good thing. But that doesn't stop conspiracy theorists inventing stories that require an all-powerful hierarchy that was somehow able to exercise control over churches right across, and even beyond, the Roman Empire.


  • Options
    #1380
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    PDN wrote: »
    And that IMHO was not a bad thing for Christians at all. In fact it was a very good thing. But that doesn't stop conspiracy theorists inventing stories that require an all-powerful hierarchy that was somehow able to exercise control over churches right across, and even beyond, the Roman Empire.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Thomas_Christians
    Outside Rome
    far side of the world
    Origins in the first century
    No divisions till the sixteenth
    Division not about Trinity Bible or Dogma


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1381
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW wrote: »
    O dear o dear o dear. Please learn about what history actually is and what it is not!
    Hint: History is NOT the past. The map is NOT the territory.


    Ah now that is a clever question. I'd almost forgive you for misunderstanding what history actually is.
    It is a different question however as to accepting the fact that the same posters who argue for "no historic Jesus" do not apply the same arguments to "no Historic Socrates/Alexander"
    I would think the absence of doubt is quite obvious.

    Oh dear oh dear yourself - a shorthand discription for you -History is the discipline that records and interpret past events. Can we agree on that ?

    You are again dodging the question , why is there no one denying the existence and/OR ARCHIEVEMENTS of Alexander as they do with Jesus ?

    Answer the capitalised portion if you can please .


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement