Latest post of the previous page:
I don't want to worsen your mood, Alan, but consider this: The fact that a group of people believed there to have been a man called Jesus, alive a couple of generations before, is evidence that there may have been such a man. It is not conclusive evidence, (and certainly no evidence whatsoever for any of the claims made about him) but it strikes me as more probable that Jesus existed than that the whole story is without any foundation, and is a work of pure fiction.We must enlighten christians about the extreme flimsiness of the evidence, and demonstrating that his life was of apparently supreme indifference to the Romans, but trying to maintain the complete non-existence of Jesus seems to me to be neither necessary, nor achievable. I have no qualms with there having been a man called Jesus, just with his supposed life and teachings. The stupidity of believing in virgin births, miracles, rising from the dead and bodily ascension into heaven (all of which are obviously myths) would seem to me to be much more fertile ground for undermining faith, rather than worrying about the non-existence of Jesus. If we could prove the non-existence of Jesus, we'd really be on to something. But we can't.