
Whether he was the Son of God is a different matter ;)
( ,
Sat 18 Apr 2009, 23:55,
archived)

A lot of scholars believe that they were lots of different completely seperate acts attributed to one person. The fact that the Jesus story shares and takes from it lots from early Mithratic resurrection stories is not coincidence.
( ,
Sat 18 Apr 2009, 23:57,
archived)

but the person that is known as Jesus has been proven to exist.
( ,
Sat 18 Apr 2009, 23:59,
archived)

A person called Jesus existed, as do many, it's a fairly popular name.
Seperation of name and concept. A rose known by any other name...and all that jazz.
( ,
Sun 19 Apr 2009, 0:02,
archived)
Seperation of name and concept. A rose known by any other name...and all that jazz.

and did find a man called Jesus who was Bar Joseph who was crucified. He is pretty much undoubtably the man that is known as Jesus. However, no proof exists of his miracles. Well, apart from the Gospels. And to be fair, wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=gospel+truth
( ,
Sun 19 Apr 2009, 0:02,
archived)

she's not jesus' mum or queen of the scots. names are not the property of any one person.
( ,
Sun 19 Apr 2009, 0:05,
archived)