rty

 Evolution is different, you can see the evidence in the fossil record, the genetics, and even some species and how they adapt

You have not shown me any bones, any records, or even first hand accounts of christ, nothing that supports his existence outside of second hand writings

Oral history is obviously more susceptible to creeping changes and influences; but on the other hand your attitude seems to be that it suddenly turns into the telephone game if it's not written down, which is not a very realistic proposition IMO. 

Maybe it wasn't his idea at all -- maybe it was only when his health started to deteriorate and his followers realized "oh shit this guy might die soon" that they decided to put it all down in a book. 

What evidence?  Read this thread.  Holy shit man, you can question the authenticity of the evidence, but don't pretend that it doesn't exist.  Aside from the stuff that made it into the Bible, there are various apocrypha and Roman historical references. 

When I say fringe, I mean among actual scholars of this region and period who know the material we're discussing better than both of us.  And 99% of them* are not on your side.  As for not having shown anything that proves it is certain, I haven't seen any alternative presented that is nearly as plausible.  You have presented one alternate theory but it is not compelling because the crystallization happened too soon after the supposed events.  Aside from the sheer unlikelihood, all of the new religion's enemies who were in that region would be popping out of the woodwork saying no one had ever seen this guy. 

*Made up statistic but believe me the reality is not much better.

Oh?  You have first hand bones of humans evolving from apes?  I thought it was called "The missing link" for a reason.

 You also have genetic evidence of our relationship to apes, in addition you can see other species, like finches and insects adapting to environmental changes

No more unrealistic than a guy who is in his 90's writing the Gospel, and i'm not saying that it necessarily turned into a game of telephone, but oral tradiction is not one that can be easily checked to confirm whether it is accurate or not, and it is susceptible to change from speaker to speaker, much moreso than written documents, so arguing that they never breathed a word or that it somehow didnt get altered over that time is arguing without evidece, you don't know what change were and were not made.

And none of it is first hand, I have read this thread and you haven't given any evidence, all you've given is second hand writings, whcih anyone can do, I could do a second hand writing, are you going to say my creation is fact, without hard evidence to support my writing?

Why didn't they put it into the book earlier, again you're arguing without evidence on this point, why would they wait until he was near death and likely unable to remember as well?

I seriously doubt its anywhere near 99%, and most of those who do think he was real would probably admit that they aren't 100% certain, which is what I have been arguing, you've been arguing 100% certainty without evidence.

I'm not saying the alternate theory is any more likely, you asked for an alternate I gave one to you, I neither care which is right, both may be totally wrong, my point is merely accuracy in that the hisotricity of christ is uncertain

A.  Evidence plz.  If there are Jewish terrorists as bad as Muslim ones, how come we don't see Jewish kids on Internet videos with weapons and doing crazy propaganda like we do Palestinians? 

B.  I find the scene you depict very hard to believe.  Considering how closely this region is watched, and considering how much we hear about it whenever the Israelis do their retaliatory strikes etc., I really think we would hear about rampaging murderous mobs. 

I'm not convinced about Comrade Toyva's story, but I find it more believable than yours. 

P.S.  There are a lot of objections to be made about the settlement programs.  But equating the settlers to terrorists says more about you than about them IMO.

How does DNA prove anything?

We share 50% of our DNA with Bannannas.

All that proves is we are more like Monkeys then we are Bannannas.

DNA is a "Second hand" source of pure conjecture and you've yet to show any first hand proof people have evolved from anything.

In fact we only have first hand proof of evolution in bacteria.  There is no first hand proof at all of anything past microscopic size evolving.

I mean... have you ever seen something written by someone who saw something evolve?

I haven't. 

Pretty suspisious.

 Ah but the question was whether evolution exists, as you yourself argue we've seen it first hand in bacteria, so then we can add in what you call the "second hand" stuff since there is something to support it.  We've seen things evolve at the cellular level and we've seen evidence that infers evolution at the multicellular level.

With Christ we only have the stuff that is second hand, nothing first hand to support it, plus the second hand stuff isn't as scientifiaclly rigorous as the fossil evidence and genetics in evolution

Your unreasoning hatred of second-hand sources is probably the biggest stumbling block here. One must be careful whom to trust when getting information, since some (like yourself in your example) would be obviously pushing an agenda. But others (the early Roman sources) would be pretty neutral and it's merely a question of how much THEY could be trusted to have investigated what they are reporting.

There isn't just, like, one source of a madman's scribblings. There are several sources, including authors who are known to be pretty credible historians.

As for whether or not the Jesus-never-existed theory is a fringe belief characterizable as x