While on this same subject, Peil, don't you find it rather fascinating that Jesus, assuming there was a Jesus, must have almost certainly been gay. In his day, folks married quite young because they did not live long, except for Moses of course. Jesus was unmarried, unless we are to believe a popular movie where he was married to Mary Magdalene. Well I guess you could say that the movie is at least as believable as the bible, as both Jesus and Mary Magdalene are probably fictional so far as any historians can tell, other than Christian historians naturally. In any case, it's an interesting observation that the birth of Jesus is the last virgin birth that we modern westerners are aware of. Anyone that gets pregnant without being impregnated, according to modern thinking, is likely to give birth to a fictional baby. Does that make sense? Just trying to figure this out. In the Jesus stories of the Bible, none of the disciples married either, so far as I know. ( I ask you to confirm this, because I am really not up on the bible as I should be.) Consequently, doesn't it seem rather odd to you that a bunch of horny, unmarried, young men were all hanging out together with no girl friends so far as we know? Gay, gay gay. That's all there is to it. Now I ask you, would Jesus, who apparently made a big deal over hypocrisy, say anything derogatory about gay people? Well I wouldn't think so, would you?
Do expert historians think Jesus didn't exist at all?? I always thought it was entirely plausible that some guy named Jesus did (else why all the kerfuffle?) and that he was a radical, etc.. Without supernatural powers of course.
Huh? You made a fool out of yourself moron. Obviously you're just too fucking stupid to recognize it.
You need to do more reading, too, and less stupid conjecture. I guess your mama was low on the folic acid herself, dumbass.
Haven't you heard? A lot of super intelligent financially successful high rollers live in trailer homes.
Edit: I guess a 5th wheel is more like a camper than a mobile home. So maybe big zero isn't doing so well after all.
Actually Ricter I was perhaps stretching my tale just a little, but there really isn't any hard evidence, just the bible, and that is certainly not reliable. The problem is that the most of the New Testament was written centuries after Jesus was reputedly crucified. And Paul, strangely, doesn't mention Jesus specifically in a way that we can be certain of whom he is writing. One thing that has piqued the curiosity of historians is the absence of any Roman record of a crucifixion that could reasonably be attributed to the biblical Jesus of Nazareth. And the Romans are believed to have kept meticulous records of all their crucifixions. It seems in the case of Jesus the crucifixion is more a "crucifiction". I guess we should expect that, what with folks coming back to life after being dead three days, and what not. I suppose it's most likely that the biblical Jesus is an imaginary character created perhaps from a composite of characters that actually did exist.