> Ehawk wrote:

> instead of stating that i never trust wikipedia, i should have said that i dont trust any religious information

Fair enough.  Now check the links, both provided by myself and avogadro.  In this particular case, saying "Jesus existed" isn't saying "Jesus is God."  All I'm arguing here is that there was a person who lived on Earth named Jesus, and that the person who we acclaim to be Jesus is based on that person.  Look, this debate has been hashed out by REAL historians over and over, and the conclusions based on historical literature from both Christian and non-Christian writers says there was a religious leader named Jesus who rose up in Israel around that time, and was crucified.  Avogadro posted a good link, and my Wikipedia article has some links to a couple books (note: books, meaning I can't post them online) on the subject.

> and yes my arguement is due to lack of evidence.  As a human being, i retain the right to trust the information or not, this is my right.  our species history has alot to be ashamed of, and frankly i find it funny that many people dont trust the news and yet, trust information that has been handed from generation to generation and even perhaps modified to serve purpose to power.  all of your citings and website will not make a difference, because i can do the same thing with evolution and avogado will just say the evidence was fabricated to serve the purpose of making evolution true. 

So your argument is based on absolutely nothing but mindless speculation and inherent mistrust of Christianity.  If that's the case, I think we're done here.

> and most of all humans didn't "all of a sudden get decietful" this has been going on for millenia...  the same people that give your so called evidence are only human just like the people that created your bible.

Check out Tallus in Avogadro's post.  Secular.  Now give me an explanation as to why Tallus would write an article saying the sky darkened when Jesus was crucified, but that was only because there was an eclipse, it had nothing to do with Jesus if, in fact, he knew Jesus had never existed or been executed in the first place?

> besides, dont you think IF jesus ever exsisted, the telephone theory may have made the story more incredable every time it was told? dont you think there is a possability that if we when into a time machine, the man the story was reference to, was just a man? place on a pedistel for the purpose of organized religion?

Not my argument.  Look, I'm not here arguing that Jesus walked on water, healed the sick, etc.  Your claim was an outright statement that the person of Jesus never existed in the first place, which both myself and avo have shown evidence to the contrary, from both Christians and non-Christians.

> i'm not knocking your beliefs dude, i'm simply stating mine.  now i know why you piss of fokker so much, you cant just let people express their beliefs, yours is right and everyones is wrong, jeez i can be thankfull that i dont live during the roman empire days, i would have been placed in a bronze bull!

Strike 1.

Oh, and I wanted to get back to one other thing:

You claimed that Mohammad also didn't exist and was probably a fabrication.  If that's the case, how would you explain the Shiite-Sunni split?

Arguing whether Jesus existed or not is one thing.  Claiming Mohammad didn't exist, however, is a hugely different story, as there is massive amounts of geopolitical change created at the time by the actual person of Mohammad at the time of his living.  It would be like saying George Washington didn't exist because you never saw him.