"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:iu3cp3hmhcmcqn21oa9ci6eoujars657bd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:20:47 -0600, Midwinter
> <midwinter_m@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>"Jeckyl" <noone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said :
>>
>>> So the evidence you claim for Jesus existing is stories that were
>>> written (at best) many decades (if not centuries) afterward his
>>> supposed death by those with an obvious agenda to promote such stories
>>> as true.
>>
>>Personally, I have no problem with the idea of Jesus existing
>>historically as a man. That doesn't stretch credulity or bend any known
>>physical laws. And as we know from the likes of Elvis, or Diana,
>>Princess of Wales, people can become popular legends very quickly
indeed.
>>What we're told about Jesus even a few decades after the fact might bear
>>no resemblance at all to the man himself or what he might actually have
>>said and done.
>
> Feel free to provide as much evidence as there is for Elvis, Diana
> etc.
>
> Until you do it is just a rationalisation because there isn't any.
There is a *lot* of contem****ary evidence for those people. You
pretending
otherwise just makes you look like a fool. But, if that's how you want to
appear, that's fine with me .. we have the evidence now that you are.
|
