I had to compose my last prior post in considerable haste as my computer time at the library was just about to run out.  I didn't even have time left to see the "Moderated Forum" screen confirming the post's submission.  On re-reading it now, it seems to me pretty well to express how things stood at the time; and nothing's changed since.

The present post can't be nearly as good.

Mordochai last corrected Proteus / Harry. . .not me.

The Professor was responding not to me, but to Lloyd Graham. The quotation from him 08/03/11 11:16:06 really only shows someone's willingness to scrape the bottom of the barrel.

Harry has written post after post, literally plastering the forum with them recently, stating he can "prove" that Jesus existed.

Would you care to substantiate that via direct quote from any of my posts?  ("Literally plastering the forum"?)

Keep in mind, Harry, that I have no "stake" in this game.

You and I both know very well, first, exactly what stake you have in it, and second, that no direct discussion of it will be permitted on this board.

Which recalls to me this:

Perhaps there is some historical reality here that you do not wish to acknowledge.

I do not wish to engage in any personal attack on Weboh, but his posts normally wind up setting forth a mere mass of confusion, and that seems to me similar enough to what my opponents have done on a larger scale on this thread.  The consensus version of first-century events — subscribed to by classicists and historians without regard to one's own religion, i.e. Christians and non-Christians alike, and the likes of Geza Vermes and Hyam Maccoby — (John Dominic Crossan a Christian "apologist"?  OMG.  Come on.  You clearly know nothing about him at all.) — is very simple, very clear, and unfortunately does entail some alleged historical realities that some do not wish to acknowledge.

P.

“What I admire is honesty and truth, no matter who, or what, the sources are.”
— Uri Yosef