TEN COMMANDMENTS - REQUIRED OR NOT?

[SputnikBoy]

That is so true, Cosmo ...I couldn't agree with you more. Heidi and Imagican who also don't seem to believe in conscious adherence to God's commands appear to be in agreement with you ...even if they would vehemently disagree with that line of thought. I'm sure that MANY nonChristians live their lives totally unawares that they are pretty well keeping commandments 5 through 10. They don't kill, they don't steal, they don't commit adultery, etc.

Well, the problem I have with the 10 commandments is that it is very easy for us to think of situations in which the morally right thing to do would be to violate them.

For example, if you could travel back in time to the year 1910 and kill Hitler as a child, would you? The temptation to prevent over 15 million deaths is strong indeed, and I bet you that most people would jump at this chance.

Or, if you had a mentally unstable friend who was planning to kill someone, would you sneak into his house and steal his gun? Again, I think that most people would.

There are so, so many more exceptions. While the 10 commandments are probably a good general guideline for most people, because of these situations - and others like them - I would never claim them to be an absolute standard to live by.

When some Christians bring up the 'love God and neighbor' commands of Jesus they don't understand - or they disagree - that 'loving' is ENCOMPASSED in the Ten Commandments. They claim to 'love God and love neighbor' as they conveniently toss out the Ten Commandments which are their standard for 'loving'.

As long as you consider yourself an atheist then I wouldn't expect you to attach too much credibility to ANYTHING God (or Jesus) might have had to say. And that's okay ...for you. I don't condemn you for that. But when people profess to be Christians and yet believe pretty much as you do - but condemn you for being an atheist - I find that to be problematic. If 'works' that pertain to God are 'pooh poohed' by some professed Christians, then I can't see the difference between them and a professed atheist. I would ask Heidi and others, "What makes you a Christian as long as you've thrown out commands 1-4?" As you have already correctly stated, Cosmo, any number of atheists keep (even if unknowingly) commands 5-10.

What then is the difference between 'the atheist' and the 'Christian'? Judging by a number of posters on this forum ...nothing at all! Just give 'lip service' to God and no further effort is necessary it would seem. The difference IS that 'the atheist' doesn't show allegiance to God. They may well 'keep' commandments 5-10 but the one thing that they DON'T do is to 'keep' commandments 1-4! Nor do some of the posters on this forum it would seem. They seem to have a special dislike for command #4!

Fair enough. ;)

It IS true, however. If it were not for command #4, we would not even be having this debate!

 

[Heidi]

I agree with the bible. Paul said the law and the commandments can be summed up in one word; love. But there are too many people here who do not believe that Christ fulfilled and law and the commandents for us. To them, Christ died for nothing. To them I say, sorry, once you have love in you, you will not harm your neighbor and thus you automatically obey the Ten Commandments. But without love, you have nothing.

No one who loves his neighbor will steal from him, commit adultery against him, lie about him, not honor his parents, murder him, and above all, will love God above all others because God gives us the ability to love. And that's why the greatest commandment is love. It is not something you can manufacture or muster up. It has to be genuine. And that is why again, being a Christian takes about as much work as thanking someone from rescuing us from a burning fire. I'm sorry that there are so few people here who understand that.

 

[Guest]

I agree with the bible. Paul said the law and the commandments can be summed up in one word; love. But there are too many people here who do not believe that Christ fulfilled and law and the commandents for us. To them, Christ died for nothing.

Well, no. To billions of them, your Christ didn't even exist.

To them I say, sorry, once you have love in you, you will not harm your neighbor and thus you automatically obey the Ten Commandments.

BZZT! Wrong. Again, how might you explain the Crusades, in which all sorts of Christians murdered whomever they liked?

No one who loves his neighbor will steal from him, commit adultery against him, lie about him, not honor his parents, murder him, and above all, will love God above all others because God gives us the ability to love.

Go read the news. There are thousands upon thousands of Christians every year who commit these crimes.

And that's why the greatest commandment is love. It is not something you can manufacture or muster up. It has to be genuine.

So the Christian crusaders or news-makers above weren't "true" Christians? How convenient for you to redefine the word like that.

And that is why again, being a Christian takes about as much work as thanking someone from rescuing us from a burning fire. I'm sorry that there are so few people here who understand that.

Keep your ad hominem to yourself.

 

[Heidi]

I agree with the bible. Paul said the law and the commandments can be summed up in one word; love. But there are too many people here who do not believe that Christ fulfilled and law and the commandents for us. To them, Christ died for nothing.

Well, no. To billions of them, your Christ didn't even exist.

To them I say, sorry, once you have love in you, you will not harm your neighbor and thus you automatically obey the Ten Commandments.

BZZT! Wrong. Again, how might you explain the Crusades, in which all sorts of Christians murdered whomever they liked?

[quote:bc7ef]No one who loves his neighbor will steal from him, commit adultery against him, lie about him, not honor his parents, murder him, and above all, will love God above all others because God gives us the ability to love.

Go read the news. There are thousands upon thousands of Christians every year who commit these crimes.

And that's why the greatest commandment is love. It is not something you can manufacture or muster up. It has to be genuine.

So the Christian crusaders or news-makers above weren't "true" Christians? How convenient for you to redefine the word like that.

And that is why again, being a Christian takes about as much work as thanking someone from rescuing us from a burning fire. I'm sorry that there are so few people here who understand that.

Keep your ad hominem to yourself.[/quote:bc7ef]

Well since you don't believe Paul when he said that the law and the commandments can be summed up by love, then I don't consider anything you say as credible. You have a lot to learn about what Jesus did for you, my friend.

The crusaders disobeyed Christ when they murdered. You obviously don't believe Jesus when he said; "Love your enemies" or that many will call him Lord but will not enter the kingdom of heaven, or that there will be many false prophets and teachers. You also don't seem to understand why love does no harm to its neighbor. So until you learn the basic principles of Christ's teaching, then nothing you say can be considered credible. ;-)

 

[Guest]

Well since you don't believe Paul when he said that the law and the commandments can be summed up by love, then I don't consider anything you say as credible. You have a lot to learn about what Jesus did for you, my friend.

The crusaders disobeyed Christ when they murdered. You obviously don't believe Jesus when he said; "Love your enemies" or that many will call him Lord but will not enter the kingdom of heaven, or that there will be many false prophets and teachers. You also don't seem to understand why love does no harm to its neighbor. So until you learn the basic principles of Christ's teaching, then nothing you say can be considered credible. ;-)

Ahh, the tired old "you don't believe, therefore you're not worth listening to" routine. How's that for loving your neighbor, ladies and gentlemen? Heidi, I hope your cognitive dissonance gets you through the day. :roll:

 

[Heidi]

Well since you don't believe Paul when he said that the law and the commandments can be summed up by love, then I don't consider anything you say as credible. You have a lot to learn about what Jesus did for you, my friend.

The crusaders disobeyed Christ when they murdered. You obviously don't believe Jesus when he said; "Love your enemies" or that many will call him Lord but will not enter the kingdom of heaven, or that there will be many false prophets and teachers. You also don't seem to understand why love does no harm to its neighbor. So until you learn the basic principles of Christ's teaching, then nothing you say can be considered credible. ;-)

Ahh, the tired old "you don't believe, therefore you're not worth listening to" routine. How's that for loving your neighbor, ladies and gentlemen? Heidi, I hope your cognitive dissonance gets you through the day. :roll:

Sorry, but loving Hitler doesn't at all make Hitler credible. ;-) Love the sinner, not the sin. I will not listen to Hitler because he is coming from the father of lies. Once again, "He who is not with me is against me." You can't agree with both Jesus and the devil. Jesus doesn't believe those who are from the devil, but that doesn't at all mean that He doesn't love them.

 

[Guest]

Sorry, but loving Hitler doesn't at all make Hitler credible. ;-) Love the sinner, not the sin. I will not listen to Hitler because he is coming from the father of lies. Once again, "He who is not with me is against me."

Excuse me? Where the heck did you get Hitler from? Are you calling me Hitler?

You can't agree with both Jesus and the devil. Jesus doesn't believe those who are from the devil, but that doesn't at all mean that He doesn't love them.

I don't "agree" with either - they're fictional characters, like the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. It wouldn't be possible for me to either agree or disagree with something that I don't believe exists.

 

[SputnikBoy]

And Heidi has a point that would do one well to heed.

If we are bound by the Ten Commandments as given to the Hebrews; we are condemned just as they were. For we have already been told by Christ Himself that it is impossible with man to follow them without fail...

So, why did God bother with the Ten Commandments in the first place if human beings are incapable of keeping them? Was Jesus acknowledging that God made an error of judgment by having introduced them? This raises another question. How many of the commandments are THAT difficult to follow anyway? Jesus fulfilled them ('lived them' through His perfection) so why would He have been saying that they were impossible to keep for those who emulate HIS life? As stated previously, MANY nonChristians don't seem to have too much difficulty in (albeit inadvertantly) following commands 5-10. So why do Christians have such a battle on their hands when it comes to obedience to the One they claim to follow?

There are two options here as far as I can see. We either 'make the effort' (oops, sorry Heidi) to keep the Big Ten and in so doing fulfill (there's that word again, Heidi) the 'love God and neighbor' commands, or we throw up our hands and say "it's impossible' and consequently throw them out. The silly thing about these debates about the commandments is that those who participate and cry "impossible!" claim to keep the commandments 'in spirit' (whatever that means) anyway! Um ...except for the 4th-command, of course! :wink:

 

[SputnikBoy]

You can't agree with both Jesus and the devil. Jesus doesn't believe those who are from the devil, but that doesn't at all mean that He doesn't love them.

I don't "agree" with either - they're fictional characters, like the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. It wouldn't be possible for me to either agree or disagree with something that I don't believe exists.

I kind of know where you're coming from, Cosmo. While I've never been an atheist as such there was a time when I pretty much agreed with your above comment about the devil and even God. I did, however, acknowledge from a mere logical perspective that there HAD to have been a creator of all. Even then I found the 'everything from nothing' theory a bunch of baloney that was hard to swallow.

It's similar to coming across a paper clip in the sand in a remote area of the Sahara Desert and believing that no human had anything to do with its manufacture. It would never cross my mind that the simple but perfectly formed piece of wire had simply 'appeared' from nothingness. I know you've heard all of these type arguments before ...not that they are NOT valid arguments, I quickly add. For me, it had never been a case of Christianity or no Christianity. Pure evolutionist theory for our existence simply didn't and doesn't 'compute' for me.

Jesus? Well, I found - and still find - comfort when I heard or read about this guy. We seem to have God the ogre and God the God of love (split personality) but Jesus seemed to personify 'love' in everything He did. And, history (aside from the Bible) DOES tell us that Jesus existed. Did you know that there is more historical evidence available for the existence of Jesus than for Alexander the Great? You believe that A the G existed, don't you?

I think it's rather unfair of you to refer to the scriptures as being basically 'a fairy tale'. There is much that can be verified from the Bible both historically and prophetically. There really DOES appear to have been some divine hand involved in the compiling of the scriptures. I'm assuming that you maybe haven't REALLY studied the Bible as diligently as you might ...? Perhaps you might be basing your 'fairy tale' remark on a little knowledge here, a little knowledge there, your observation that one Christian believes this, another Christian believes that, Christians always seem to be at loggerheads with each other . . .and so on. Certainly reason enough to be somewhat skeptical but not enough reason to throw out the Bible.

I guess my point here is that I never accepted Christianity 'blindly'. That is not to imply that others on this forum HAVE accepted Christianity blindly. But, there does appear to be an element of 'spiritual vision' from some posters that appears to get in the way of intelligent reasoning, tolerance, and understanding at times. I'm kinda like Mr. Spock from Star Trek since I prefer to apply logic to situations. And, if there is any actual logic to Creation that can be actually quantified as such, then Jesus Christ seems to make sense. Enough said. You've probably heard it all before. Then again, atheists seem to regurgitate the same arguments too!

 

[Guest]

I kind of know where you're coming from, Cosmo. While I've never been an atheist as such there was a time when I pretty much agreed with your above comment about the devil and even God. I did, however, acknowledge from a mere logical perspective that there HAD to have been a creator of all.

I would be interested in reading your logical proof that "requires" a creator to exist.

It's similar to coming across a paper clip in the sand in a remote area of the Sahara Desert and believing that no human had anything to do with its manufacture. It would never cross my mind that the simple but perfectly formed piece of wire had simply 'appeared' from nothingness. I know you've heard all of these type arguments before ...not that they are NOT valid arguments, I quickly add. For me, it had never been a case of Christianity or no Christianity. Pure evolutionist theory for our existence simply didn't and doesn't 'compute' for me.

But it does "compute" for billions of others, most notably millions and millions of scientists. Evolutionary theory, combined with natural selection, appears to very accurately describe how life changes and evolves, for lack of a better word, over time. While the theory of evolution does not, by definition, address the actual origins of life, there are other theories in place that offer us very powerful insight into those processes as well.

I respect your opinion that evolutionary theory does not "compute". But I would be quick to point out that it does "compute" for millions of scientists and billions of people at large.

Jesus? Well, I found - and still find - comfort when I heard or read about this guy. We seem to have God the ogre and God the God of love (split personality) but Jesus seemed to personify 'love' in everything He did. And, history (aside from the Bible) DOES tell us that Jesus existed. Did you know that there is more historical evidence available for the existence of Jesus than for Alexander the Great? You believe that A the G existed, don't you?

I have read a great deal of material on the debate of Jesus' existence, and as far as I'm aware, the overwhelming consensus among historians is that there is very little, if any, material that corroborates the existence of an historical Jesus. For this reason, I find your claim that "there is more historical evidence available for the existence of Jesus than for Alexander the Great" very, very unlikely.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If you feel that you have personally discovered such powerful evidence, I would invite you to share it with this forum and - heck - the world at large. I guarantee you that, if what you say is true, the world would be revolutionized. The Nobel Prize would be yours in a minute, but that would be a paltry nothing next to the change you would bring. I await your evidence.

I think it's rather unfair of you to refer to the scriptures as being basically 'a fairy tale'. There is much that can be verified from the Bible both historically and prophetically.

Evidence?

There really DOES appear to have been some divine hand involved in the compiling of the scriptures.

Evidence?

I'm assuming that you maybe haven't REALLY studied the Bible as diligently as you might ...? Perhaps you might be basing your 'fairy tale' remark on a little knowledge here, a little knowledge there, your observation that one Christian believes this, another Christian believes that, Christians always seem to be at loggerheads with each other . . .and so on. Certainly reason enough to be somewhat skeptical but not enough reason to throw out the Bible.

On the contrary - if the bible is purported to be divinely inspired, yet it also contains contradictory elements and the advocation of genocide, torture, and rape, then I would have difficulty thinking of any greater reason to throw it out. This is not completely a determination on my part; simply a rational response to the subject matter contained within the bible. I find it extraordinarily unlikely that any god worthy of worship would have included such material in his "instruction manual".

I guess my point here is that I never accepted Christianity 'blindly'. That is not to imply that others on this forum HAVE accepted Christianity blindly. But, there does appear to be an element of 'spiritual vision' from some posters that appears to get in the way of intelligent reasoning, tolerance, and understanding at times.

Nothing wrong with that, as long as they understand that their "spiritual vision" is, by definition, subjective. When they attempt to force their view on others, I will take issue.

I'm kinda like Mr. Spock from Star Trek since I prefer to apply logic to situations. And, if there is any actual logic to Creation that can be actually quantified as such, then Jesus Christ seems to make sense.

That appears to me a non-sequitur. Why, if Creation is quantifiable, does it automatically mean that this Christ character also existed and is who he is said to be? I don't see a direct connection.

Enough said. You've probably heard it all before. Then again, atheists seem to regurgitate the same arguments too! [/color]

Probably because Christians do the same. ;)

 

[SputnikBoy]

And, history (aside from the Bible) DOES tell us that Jesus existed. Did you know that there is more historical evidence available for the existence of Jesus than for Alexander the Great? You believe that A the G existed, don't you?

I have read a great deal of material on the debate of Jesus' existence, and as far as I'm aware, the overwhelming consensus among historians is that there is very little, if any, material that corroborates the existence of an historical Jesus. For this reason, I find your claim that "there is more historical evidence available for the existence of Jesus than for Alexander the Great" very, very unlikely.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If you feel that you have personally discovered such powerful evidence, I would invite you to share it with this forum and - heck - the world at large. I guarantee you that, if what you say is true, the world would be revolutionized. The Nobel Prize would be yours in a minute, but that would be a paltry nothing next to the change you would bring. I await your evidence.

Maybe we should start a new thread. The following is taken from "A Marginal Jew" by John P. Meier, published by Doubleday 1991.

Page 23: "... their impact was immense. An expert in Greco-Roman history once remarked to me that what we know with certitude about Alexander the Great can be fitted onto a few pages of print.' This ... us that what really occurs in history is much broader than the history recoverable by a historian.' (5) Granted, some of ... than modern history). Ancient history is much less quantifiable, much more dependent on inference based on such rough rules of thumb ... explanation available, the more or most probable explanation, particular criteria for judging historicity, and analogy.' At any rate, Finley's basic caution ... "real" persons of ancient history-be they Hillel and Shammai or Jesus and Simon Peter-are simply not accessible to us today by historical research and never will be.9 ..."

Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant, who certainly has no theological ax to grind, indicates that there is more evidence of Jesus than there is for a large number of famous personages - yet no one would dare to argue their non-existence.

In the book, "The Historical Figure of Jesus" (E. P. Sanders), Sanders considers the quest for the 'historical Jesus' to be much closer to a search for historical details on Alexander the Great than to details on Thomas Jefferson or Winston Churchill. The available sources tell us much about the deeds of Alexander, but nothing about his thoughts. For this reason, Sanders concludes, "the sources for Jesus are better than those that deal with Alexander" and "the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought." (1993:3)

There are MANY sources available on the Internet, of course, that deal with historical evidence for the existence of Jesus as well as many that deal with the refuting of the existence of Jesus. It stands to reason, as alluded to above, that historical details that pertain to the era of Jesus would be sparce as compared to the historical details of more contemporary historical figures. In other words, the absence of historical details pertaining to Jesus, Alexander the Great, and many other 'famous personages' in no way negates their existence.

A couple of notes. When anyone but the sincere, nonbiased researcher is intent on substantiating or refuting anything, they will invariably slant the findings of their research based on self-intent. Another point . . .once the existence of Jesus has been established, one cannot then UN-establish that fact. Jesus' claims and miracles and resurrection CAN be questioned or/and refuted but the facts that show that he EXISTED cannot.

Please refer to new thread: HISTORICALLY - DID JESUS EXIST?

 

[Heidi]

And, history (aside from the Bible) DOES tell us that Jesus existed. Did you know that there is more historical evidence available for the existence of Jesus than for Alexander the Great? You believe that A the G existed, don't you?

I have read a great deal of material on the debate of Jesus' existence, and as far as I'm aware, the overwhelming consensus among historians is that there is very little, if any, material that corroborates the existence of an historical Jesus. For this reason, I find your claim that "there is more historical evidence available for the existence of Jesus than for Alexander the Great" very, very unlikely.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If you feel that you have personally discovered such powerful evidence, I would invite you to share it with this forum and - heck - the world at large. I guarantee you that, if what you say is true, the world would be revolutionized. The Nobel Prize would be yours in a minute, but that would be a paltry nothing next to the change you would bring. I await your evidence.

Maybe we should start a new thread. The following is taken from "A Marginal Jew" by John P. Meier, published by Doubleday 1991.

Page 23: "... their impact was immense. An expert in Greco-Roman history once remarked to me that what we know with certitude about Alexander the Great can be fitted onto a few pages of print.' This ... us that what really occurs in history is much broader than the history recoverable by a historian.' (5) Granted, some of ... than modern history). Ancient history is much less quantifiable, much more dependent on inference based on such rough rules of thumb ... explanation available, the more or most probable explanation, particular criteria for judging historicity, and analogy.' At any rate, Finley's basic caution ... "real" persons of ancient history-be they Hillel and Shammai or Jesus and Simon Peter-are simply not accessible to us today by historical research and never will be.9 ..."

Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant, who certainly has no theological ax to grind, indicates that there is more evidence of Jesus than there is for a large number of famous personages - yet no one would dare to argue their non-existence.

In the book, "The Historical Figure of Jesus" (E. P. Sanders), Sanders considers the quest for the 'historical Jesus' to be much closer to a search for historical details on Alexander the Great than to details on Thomas Jefferson or Winston Churchill. The available sources tell us much about the deeds of Alexander, but nothing about his thoughts. For this reason, Sanders concludes, "the sources for Jesus are better than those that deal with Alexander" and "the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought." (1993:3)

There are MANY sources available on the Internet, of course, that deal with historical evidence for the existence of Jesus as well as many that deal with the refuting of the existence of Jesus. It stands to reason, as alluded to above, that historical details that pertain to the era of Jesus would be sparce as compared to the historical details of more contemporary historical figures. In other words, the absence of historical details pertaining to Jesus, Alexander the Great, and many other 'famous personages' in no way negates their existence.

A couple of notes. When anyone but the sincere, nonbiased researcher is intent on substantiating or refuting anything, they will invariably slant the findings of their research based on self-intent. Another point . . .once the existence of Jesus has been established, one cannot then UN-establish that fact. Jesus' claims and miracles and resurrection CAN be questioned or/and refuted but the facts that show that he EXISTED cannot.

Please refer to new thread: HISTORICALLY - DID JESUS EXIST?

Sorry, but the evidence that Caesar, Alxander the great, or any historical figure lived, relies on the written word and eye-witness testimony which is the same evidence we have that Jesus existed. They can't have it both ways.

 

[SputnikBoy]

And, history (aside from the Bible) DOES tell us that Jesus existed. Did you know that there is more historical evidence available for the existence of Jesus than for Alexander the Great? You believe that A the G existed, don't you?

I have read a great deal of material on the debate of Jesus' existence, and as far as I'm aware, the overwhelming consensus among historians is that there is very little, if any, material that corroborates the existence of an historical Jesus. For this reason, I find your claim that "there is more historical evidence available for the existence of Jesus than for Alexander the Great" very, very unlikely.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If you feel that you have personally discovered such powerful evidence, I would invite you to share it with this forum and - heck - the world at large. I guarantee you that, if what you say is true, the world would be revolutionized. The Nobel Prize would be yours in a minute, but that would be a paltry nothing next to the change you would bring. I await your evidence.

Maybe we should start a new thread. The following is taken from "A Marginal Jew" by John P. Meier, published by Doubleday 1991.

Page 23: "... their impact was immense. An expert in Greco-Roman history once remarked to me that what we know with certitude about Alexander the Great can be fitted onto a few pages of print.' This ... us that what really occurs in history is much broader than the history recoverable by a historian.' (5) Granted, some of ... than modern history). Ancient history is much less quantifiable, much more dependent on inference based on such rough rules of thumb ... explanation available, the more or most probable explanation, particular criteria for judging historicity, and analogy.' At any rate, Finley's basic caution ... "real" persons of ancient history-be they Hillel and Shammai or Jesus and Simon Peter-are simply not accessible to us today by historical research and never will be.9 ..."

Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant, who certainly has no theological ax to grind, indicates that there is more evidence of Jesus than there is for a large number of famous personages - yet no one would dare to argue their non-existence.

In the book, "The Historical Figure of Jesus" (E. P. Sanders), Sanders considers the quest for the 'historical Jesus' to be much closer to a search for historical details on Alexander the Great than to details on Thomas Jefferson or Winston Churchill. The available sources tell us much about the deeds of Alexander, but nothing about his thoughts. For this reason, Sanders concludes, "the sources for Jesus are better than those that deal with Alexander" and "the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought." (1993:3)

There are MANY sources available on the Internet, of course, that deal with historical evidence for the existence of Jesus as well as many that deal with the refuting of the existence of Jesus. It stands to reason, as alluded to above, that historical details that pertain to the era of Jesus would be sparce as compared to the historical details of more contemporary historical figures. In other words, the absence of historical details pertaining to Jesus, Alexander the Great, and many other 'famous personages' in no way negates their existence.

A couple of notes. When anyone but the sincere, nonbiased researcher is intent on substantiating or refuting anything, they will invariably slant the findings of their research based on self-intent. Another point . . .once the existence of Jesus has been established, one cannot then UN-establish that fact. Jesus' claims and miracles and resurrection CAN be questioned or/and refuted but the facts that show that he EXISTED cannot.

Please refer to new thread: HISTORICALLY - DID JESUS EXIST?

Sorry, but the evidence that Caesar, Alxander the great, or any historical figure lived, relies on the written word and eye-witness testimony which is the same evidence we have that Jesus existed. They can't have it both ways.

Hey, wonder on wonders ...I agree with you! Shhh . . .don't tell anyone or I'll deny it.