>On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:30:38 +1030, in alt.atheism
>Michael Gray newsguy.com> wrote in
><5s3op3trpra8lsuim5sqeci9bfbr93es6g@4ax.com>:

>>On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 20:13:03 -0600, Free Lunch
>>wrote:
>>

>>>On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 20:45:00 -0500, in alt.atheism
>>>Christopher A.Lee optonline.net> wrote in
>>>4ax.com>:

>>>>On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:26:09 -0600, Free Lunch
>>>>wrote:
>>>>

>>>>>On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:06:30 -0500, in alt.atheism
>>>>>Christopher A.Lee optonline.net> wrote in
>>>>>4ax.com>:

>>>>>>On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:01:09 -0600, Free Lunch
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>

>>>>>>>On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:32:55 -0500, in alt.atheism
>>>>>>>Christopher A.Lee optonline.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>4ax.com>:

>>>>>>>>On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:23:12 -0600, Free Lunch
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 13:22:07 -0500, in alt.atheism
>>>>>>>>>Christopher A.Lee optonline.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>4ax.com>:

>>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 11:57:45 -0600, Free Lunch
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>There is no evidence that the Jesus of the gospels was anything more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>than a real person. Certainly the majority of the Jews of the time did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>not accept the claim that He was the Messiah.

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>There is ZERO extant contemporary evidence that he *EVER* existed!
>>>>>>>>>>>>If you are able to forward such, you would win the Nobel prize and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>place in the history books.

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>It depends on who is meant. Were there any itinerant teachers with that
>>>>>>>>>>>name in that time period? Most likely given that the name was common.
>>>>>>>>>>>Are the stories found in the gospels reliable reports of such a
>>>>>>>>>>>preacher? No evidence supports that claim.

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Which particular one of these probable itinerant preachers with that
>>>>>>>>>>name, are we talking about?

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Possibly none of them. The point I am making is that even if I concede
>>>>>>>>>that there was an itinerant teacher named Jesus, that it doesn't matter
>>>>>>>>>a bit to support any of the claims that the religious folks want to make
>>>>>>>>>about Him.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Trouble is, it's a rationalisation not evidence. There's nothing to
>>>>>>>>concede because it's a "could have" not a "did".

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't buy the claim that 'Jesus never existed', just because that
>>>>>>>claim is also without evidence.

>>>>>>
>>>>>>False dichotomy between your rationalisation and a straw man.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>For people who say that, it is a falsifiable conclusion not a claim
>>>>>>and the evidence leading to that conclusion is given.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Most people simply say there is no reason to conclude that there was
>>>>>>an historical Jesus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Neither of which are your mis-characterisation.

>>>>>
>>>>>I think you misread what I was saying. I agree that there is no reason
>>>>>to conclude that there is an historical Jesus.

>>>>
>>>>I was addressing your "don't buy the claim that Jesus bever existed".
>>>>
>>>>A couple of others (agnostics?) have also said that recently. But that
>>>>is a mis-characterisation.

>>>
>>>Is it? Many stories that are similar to the stories we have about Jesus,
>>>for example King Arthur, are exaggerations about someone who had existed
>>>in real life. Sure, there's no evidence that the Jesus described in the
>>>gospels existed, but that doesn't mean that these stories were not
>>>inspired to some degree by someone who happened to have that name and
>>>happened to be an itinerant teacher.

>>
>>There is plenty of evidence to suggest that such was NOT the case.
>>

>>>Even if most the the stuff in the
>>>gospels is total nonsense, that doesn't mean that the person the stories
>>>are told about never existed.

>>
>>It is physically IMPOSSIBLE that the Jesus of the gospels existed.

>
>The demi-god of the Gospels is completely unsupported by any evidence.