The Existence of Jesus Christ

In academic circles - respect is measured by how cited the work is (well as a blunt measure at least).When you get back, I would be interested to see this list of names.

Here is a tip from an old lag - comments such as:

quote:

---

you guys run from it and make up total BS

---

and

quote:

---

Sort of feel like a 3rd grader here talking with very childish and ignorant people, but just for you...

---

are the quickest way to end up out on your arse.

Wikipedia is fine as it stands BUT for those sorts of issues is very limited in scoop in regards to it's usefulness. You will notice that at the present it contains a disclaimer that states: The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.Which means that:

quote:

---

Note, however, that there is a strong inductive argument that, if a page is in an NPOV dispute, it very probably is not neutral. The salient point is that one sidewho cares enough to be making the pointthinks that the article says something that other people would want to disagree with.

---

However, I will say that the current edit for that page which may replace the quote you used is as follows:

quote:

---

The primary sources for information about Jesus are the four canonical Gospels and several apocryphal gospels. A small minority of historians, (including, S. Acharya, Earl Doherty, and Robert M. Price) citing the lack of external evidence, argue that no such person as Jesus ever existed. Other historians, however, maintain that the source documents (see Two-source hypothesis, Q document, and Gospel of John), on which the four canonical Gospels are based were written within living memory of Jesus' lifetime. They therefore consider that the accounts of the life of Jesus in those Gospels provide a reasonable basis of evidence for the historical existence of Jesus and the basic facts of his life and death (E.P. Sanders, for example, has argued that the documentary evidence for Jesus' existence is as strong or stronger than the documentary evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great).

---

Jesus/Rewrite - WikipediaThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 28-May-2005 10:36 PM

You have already mentioned E.P. Saunders in your previous post. To the passing reader it maybe appear that you are trying to pass him off as a seperate figure (more so since you don't mention him by name in that post).It also be wise to mention that Tom wright is better known in the UK as the Bishop of Durham.Edit to correct name confusion.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 28-May-2005 10:47 PMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 28-May-2005 11:04 PM

---

Literalistic young earth creationism is an insult to God, suggesting that he would arbitrarily and capriciously break his own exquisite laws whenever it suited him. Worse, the evidence for the fact of evolution is so knockdown overwhelming that we can reconcile it with young earth creationism only by assuming that God deliberately planted false evidence, in the rocks and in the genetic molecules, to trick us. Could a cruder blasphemy be imagined? Bishop of Oxford

I fail to see what creationism or evolution have to do with this debate. I find it odd that you even bring them up.I am making no comment one way or the other. I am simply point out that use of internet sources is problematical.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 28-May-2005 10:51 PM

double.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 28-May-2005 10:52 PM

no you misunderstand - the board is broadly divided into two sections - half "faith" and the other "science".This one is in the science section - so you need to provide evidence.