katdanmo (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

who would adn could come prove that you had a blue shirt!We rely too much on our human eyes to prove or deaprove eveyr thing, by the way I have few univeristy educaitons, what about you, how many real university education you have got?? Mosat Atheists do not even have a high school educaiton...lol

katdanmo (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

If you could not see and you were blind but you were told you had a blue shirt would you believe it?? Only because you can not see with yoru human eyes it does nto mean that they do not exist, what if we were all born blind,

Chrysothemis (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

...but the comments about the eclipse have come to us by a way too remote and by witnesses with too much of a special interest in the matter to be trusted. And from the late first century onwards Christianity had taken a substantial foothold, and comments about it tend to be derived from adherents to it, thus disqualifying them from the status of secular corroberation.

Chrysothemis (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

As I think you'll see from my comments, I don't actually think that Jesus didn't exist, I just acknowledge that the evidence is very weak. The early inscriptions you allude to are indeed interesting, and are part of the reason I do think he was indeed a historical person. And Josephus' mention of "the one called Christ", almost in passing, is very persuasive...

MidnightHustler75 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Chrysothemis "I guess that it comes down to the fact that we don't know if Jesus existed" Roman and historical records prove the existence of Jesus. Read them for yourself in your mailbox.

Chrysothemis (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Paul's anti-female comments are most likely not part of the original text. There is ample evidence that women played a decisive role in the early church - that was even one of the main objections of its opponents.

marsCubed (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Chrysothemis, I agree, The bible is a document which is perhaps best understood as a living entity, it was revised and added to as the Judean state developed. It offers us a window into the mindset of an ancient people and their concept of themselves and how they came together. It is not historically accurate but a prism of aspiration, myth and religious dogma, it helps us to form a more coherent picture of what actually in Canaan, knowing the untruths helps us understand Canaan's psyche too.

Chrysothemis (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Oh, and I would argue that Christianity led to European monasteries where philosophy and the seeds of rationalism were allowed to grow to the point where the enlightenment, science and yes, atheism were able to emerge. In a mere three centuries or so, these phenomena have changed the world beyond recognition. You can of course argue that Jesus' role in this process was indirect.

Chrysothemis (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I'll concede that a real Mohammad is in a sense more influential than an imaginary Jesus. This reminds me of the ontological argument that God is more perfect if he exists than if he doesn't. I guess that it comes down to the fact that we don't know if Jesus existed, and if he didn't, who made him up. If we were to find a lost letter by Paul to the effect that he came up with the whole thing himself, then clearly Paul would be the most imortant character in history, not Jesus.

Muchodelcrazy (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

What about Mohammed? How are you measuring "influential?" One of the most influential, yes. I don't think it's fair to say that Jesus is the influential person if he is fictitious, but believed to be real. The real credit goes to the people who invented his character and all his shenanigans. Just like the credit really goes to Shakespeare, not Hamlet, for being the influential person.