Artful Dodger:

> That Jesus the man existed is a well established historical fact. You make the same mistake many make in regarding the Bible as something other than a historical text, which it clearly is. It passes the same historical tests other ancient document must pass.

This is an issue of faith, and it is complex. Outside of the New Testament there is no mention of Jesus during his own lifetime. The New Testament itself has a colorful history and the Gospels describe some historical events described by other sources outside the Bible, albeit with contradictions, ommissions and no sense of dates other than vague references to some of the events. Most of the New Testament was written in Greek and not Aramaic. This has caused scholars some concern because Jesus and the Apostles spoke aramaic rathern than Greek. Scholars believe that the gospels proceed from one and possibly two earlier sources which could have been documents but most likely were an oral tradition. The oldest extand copies of the New Testament proceed from nearly 200 years after the death of Jesus. Then there were many versions of the Gospels and the church did not fix their form until the 4th century AD, nearly 400 years after the death of Jesus.

Outside of the New testament there are basicly 3 extremely small descriptions of somebody who could be interpreted as being Jesus. Pliny the Younger wrote in 112 AD that Christians were worshipping Jesus rather than the Roman emperor. Tacitus wrote in 116 AD that Nero prosecuted Christians in 64 AD and blamed them for starting the great fire that burned Rome. Suetonius wrote at around 120 AD that Claudius had expelled the Jews from Rome at around 50 AD because they were causing disturbances by a man who called himself Chrestus. These three Roman sources speak of events that had happened 50-70 years earlier, and the events were recorded over 110 years after the death of Jesus.

Josephus wrote his Antiquities of the Jews in 93 AD, and he mentions Jesus there. However, most scholars believe that the passage was rewritten by a later scribe and dismiss the passage as either partially corrupt or entirely false.

Other mentions of Jesus such as the Talmud, Thallus, Lucian and Celsus are vague and even later, dating to near 200 AD.

Most of the documents outside the Bible were translated from Greek into Latin during the Middle Ages, so they in essence represent translations of vague references and second-hand evidence. Most scholars struggle with this, in particular those who are not skeptics but who are looking for corroboration outside the Bible.

Whether the Bible is a historical text is a matter of faith because the life of Jesus cannot be corroborated unambiguosly from other sources. The evidence outside the New Testament is very weak. Those who have faith see the Bible as a fully historical document. Those without faith see it as best a weakly historical document. Archaelogical evidence can show the life of Jews at the time of Jesus, but it cannot prove whether Jesus lived or not.

Evidence for the Old Testament is even weaker. To date scholars cannot prove at all that the main figures of the Old Testament existed. There is no proof at all of the existence of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, and Saul. As for David there is a stone tablet that could be interpreted as having his name. Nothing else beyond that. Scholars have been looking for archaelogical evidence from solomn's reign but have found nothing conclusive yet. Some day perhaps.

> To what code do you appeal in your protest against hypocrisy?

To the simple code that people claim to follow a higher moral principle, and then contradict themselves with their actions. Then when confronted with the contradiction, they go on to make excuses. I see it as simple: "I am a good Cristian, but it is OK to send our soldiers to kill somebody in another country". "I believe in democracy, but it is OK to prop up a fascist dictator if it is politically and economically convenient." "I believe in human equality, but it is OK for a rich to use others to make himself richer." When confronted with a simple, straight forward contradiction our most cherished principles fall apart, so we proceed to make excuses. "We are sending soldiers because they are evil and we are not. So what if we kill 4000,000 of them? I am still a good Christian." "So what if some dictator in Latin America killed 200,000 people? They were probably communists and our companies are still making a big profit." "So what if a lot of people end up poor? Businesses are still making a profit and we are still all equal, right?"

> It always surprises me when an atheist talks about personal failings. What they really mean by this is what we all mean when we talk this way: We have failed to live up to some sort of accepted standard. For the Christian, that standard comes from God. But what's the source for an atheist?

Is it possible for a sense of right and wrong to come from something other than religion? Is God the only source of good? No offense, but Christians are not the great arbiters of good and evil. There is extensive literature about good and evil OUTSIDE of the Bible. Philosophers have grappled with the questions for thousands of years. In the end everybody has a sense of right and wrong, even Atheists. We all have set rules for our behaviour (except maybe for psycopaths). Otherwise society would not function. Approximately 15% of the population of the world is atheist. Does that mean they are all evil? Without a sense of right and wrong, or remorse? If religion is the source of good, then why do religious people do wrong? Religion gives people some set of ethical standards. It does not mean people will follow them. Likewise atheists have ethical standards too. It might not come from religious faith, but it does not meant it is less valid.