I have had an interesting career (see below) and presently find myself
researching the field of ancient history with a view to present a
revisionist history of the 4th century of our "common era".
My position can be most appropriately summarised by quoting the
opening lines from the three books which Emperor Julian authored
c.361 CE "Against the Christians".
It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.
Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth.
and am happy to attempt the answer of any questions
any skeptical people may ask here, or elsewhere, on this
My message that Jesus did not exist but was a 4th century
literary invention may at first sound impossible and counter-
intuitive, however if people are interested and willing to ask
critical and skeptical questions about the reasons why I
believe that the historical truth is best explained in this manner,
then I will be happy to do my best to answer these questions.
Finally, I wish to state that I feel that I am acting and researching
this material out of a desire to establish the ancient historical truth
of "christian origins" -- what really happened in the 4th century?
Best wishes to one and all.
And if you think I am delusional then you should have no trouble citing some unambiguous archaeological evidence which supports the existence of either Jesus, the new testament or the "Nation of Christians" prior to the rise of Bullneck (Constantine's nickname). If you can provide and cite such unambigous evidence then you might even have some claim to call me delusional.
Good bet he cannot......
It's also a safe bet that I can't provide DNA evidence that supports Brutus' murder on Caesar. Does that mean it never happened?
Or might it just be possible that some standards of evidence are unreasonable, and only a bigot would insist one despite all reasons to the contrary?