On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:23:44 +0100, "John Brockbank"
 wrote:

>
>"Alwyn"  wrote in message 
>news:alwyn-7FAA42.00270408052008@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> In article <4822030c$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
>> "John Brockbank"  wrote:
>>
>>> "Alwyn"  wrote in message
>>> news:alwyn-031393.18124306052008@news.virginmedia.com...
>>> > In article <48208641$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
>>> > "John Brockbank"  wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> The great fire of Rome was blamed on Christians at the time.  This was
>>> >> only
>>> >> about 30 years after Jesus is thought by Christians to have been alive
>>> >> and
>>> >> is very interesting, the earliest, and undeniably evidence.  It is 
>>> >> also
>>> >> real.
>>> >
>>> > That is disputed. Some suspect the passage in Tacitus's Annals is a 
>>> > much
>>> > later christian interpolation.
>>> > <http://users.drew.edu/ddoughty/christianorigins/persecutions/tacitus.htm
>>> > l>
>>>
>>> I have not read the link, because merely stating that what I mention is
>>> disputed is absolute agreement that it is evidence.
>>
>> Well, Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote a lot about King Arthur in his 'History
>> of the Kings of Britain'. Are we to take this as 'real evidence'
>> (Christopher A. Lee's actual words with which you took issue) that
>> Arthur was a real person?
>>
>> I think the case for a historical Jesus is much the same as that for a
>> historical Jesus: there are plenty of stories but no facts that can with
>> any reliability be established about any such figure in history.
>
>Nonsense.  The case for a historical Jesus is almost non existent, and the 
>best that can be said is that it is weak.  That is irrelevant to my point 
>that it is nonsense to say that there is no evidence, because there is. 

They always talk about it but never provide it. 

The conclusion is obvious.

As well as falsifiable.

Just saying something is evidence for Jesus doesn't make it so because
it has to lead to that conclusion.

What they don't seem to understand is that each and every time they do
this, reinforces the obvious conclusion.