I would like to point out that I am not an atheist. But I'm not Christian either. Nonetheless, I still believe that Jesus/Isa existed & I think it's interesting to hypothesize on his linguistic prowess.
Many of we Hindus believe that Jesus spent significant time in India, during the so-called "lost years" and perhaps also after his crucifixion. So during his hypothetical time in India, could he have learned more languages? Maybe Sanskrit? Pali? Some other Prakrits? Who knows...

Sobekhotep, If you don't mind me asking, are you really a Hindu? I always though you were white. That probably sounds incredibly racist but I've never met a white Hindu before and didn't think that they proselytized. I mean obviously you could've come upon it on your own but yeah.

You've never in your life heard of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness?

Er, okay.

Why would you think it'd be anything but secular around here. This is a language forum; linguistics is secular by default. Religion doesn't factor into what we discuss, that's all.
Please continue to hold back, or you'll be guilty of the phenomenon known as TL;DR (too long, didn't read).
I believe that would be a separate, unrelated fallacy (fallacy of composition) but regardless you did attack what you claimed to be his beliefs, not what he said; and this is not a logical inference to make. If you knew what it was, why did you do it?
Atheism isn't a religion but a onotological belief, and besides, you haven't shown why his religious beliefs or lack thereof have any impact on what he writes about Jesus.

Just because a language wasn't written down doesn't mean we can't know that it existed. PIE was written down but must have existed. Also historians could write about the langauges in Latin, Greek or some other written language.

Also, when I said that he lived in a tribal society, I ment a chiefdom. And when I say chiefdom, I mean by the categories that Elman Service created to divide societies based on social/economic/political systems (sorry I can't seem to find the wiki article, I just keep getting stuff about the service industry, etc...). Although, after reading what my old text book has to say I think that he either lived in a society transitioning from chiefdom to state or any early state society. But now I'm off topic so I won't write anymore.

Ok, I wrote my last post in response to Talib and then a large thunder storm killed my internet so I hope you all won't mind the double post.

Since this is already off-topic I figured I'd post some clarifications on what some members have posted that are just plain wrong.

I'd like to first of all like to say that atheism is in no way or can be a religion. It is simply the view that no gods (or goddesses ) exist or ever existed. An atheist religion would be like not collecting stamps as a hobby, in fact, I myself am an a-stamp-collector.

Another thing, the evolution of biological species by the process of what is called natural selection is a true theory. I, of course, use the world theory in its scientific meaning, and no that means that you can't say that "evolution is just a theory and not a fact," this makes little sense since theories are ideas of how the world works and are supported by facts. Now, I am not a biologist, so I'm not going to attempt to explain evolution here but I would like to recommend thunderf00t and AronRa who both have excellent youtube channels that deal specifically with debunking the pseudo-science spewed out of many creationist websites.

Along those lines I would also like to note that there is no such thing as micro- or macro- evolution. There's just one, its called evolution.

Also, if you want to disprove evolution then you'll need a lot of evidence and I mean a lot. Evolution has 250 years of evidence stacked in its favour, in order to disprove it you'll need to account for all this evidence in some other way.

If you're really interested in the Bible refuting evolution, you can read the 600 pg book
"Evidence that Demands a Verdict", by Josh MacDowell or goto http://www.answersingenesis.org

I am absolutely not interested in that. When respected individuals in their fields bring a good case against evolution, rather than polemicists with an agenda, I'll listen to them. Until then they're relegated to the same category as the flat-earthers, Holocaust deniers, UFO enthusiasts and people who claim Jesus was fluent in Burmese - cranks absolutely not worthy of any intelligent person's time.

You're judging the book before you know anything about it! I thought the younger generation was more open-minded!

So how open are the authors of that book to the possibility that there was no Adam and Eve, no Great Flood, and no Christ?