On Jan 14, 2008, at 10:41 PM, John Thornton wrote:
> \
> ...So not only is god real but good ole' JC is his main man.
> Does the good doctor know what constitutes "strong historical
> evidence"?
> I think not since JC's existence doesn't fit into that category...
While the evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is slim compared to that for the existence of, say, Marcus Tullius Cicero, it is nevertheless compelling, including his family tomb and the ossuary that once contained his bones. The story of John the Baptizer is totally linked to that of Jesus, and it comes to us through Josephus who was anything but a Christian. So does the account of the execution of Jesus's brother and heir James the Just by Herod Agrippa just at the moment when Herod was preparing his own Messianic revolt, a general near-Eastern uprising, against the Romans (who succeeded in poisoning Herod at the very last moment and thus frustrating the revolt). Once the fantasy spun by that despicable police agent Saul of Tarsus (aka Paul) is relegated to its place in the realm of lies, the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a significant *Jewish* historical figure can be seen to be securely established.
Shane Mage
"Thunderbolt steers all things...it consents and does not consent to be called Zeus."
Herakleitos of Ephesos