When you reach the stage of seeing the bible, the work as a whole as having spiritual truth, and forget Chumley's debate on whether a man on a throne with long white flowing hair wrote it or is running things........when you see the truths in your fellow man who believe in it, and realize that the "debunking" of christianity is both an impossibility and a path toward self-righteous smarminess, then you will be ready to leave the temple, Quai Chang Dude.......after you snatch this pebble out of my hand before it closes!


M

Here is what Achayra had to say about your refuting of the parallels I presented:

> Not to worry. This ignoramus who pretends to know my work is
> completely oblivious to the fact that a. many of those parallels
> listed below are direct quotes from Albert Churchward and others, not
> me; and b. I have addressed just about every one of his objections in
> "Suns of God" -
>
> http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm
>
> Obviously, he hasn't really studied my work, which means that he is
> singularly unqualified to be making critical remarks about it. He
> also throws up a bunch of moronic straw men, such as that Jesus is not
> called the "morning star." Oh really? So, who is that speaking at
> Revelation 22:16:
>
> "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the
> churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright
> and morning star."
>
> This idiot doesn't even know his own precious Bible. So who is he to
> be making definitive commentary about my work? It is quite obvious
> who exactly is engaging in "sloppy research."
>
> As concerns Robert Price, again, "Don" ("GakuseiDon" again?) doesn't
> really know much about my work, or he would know that Price has
> removed his review of Christ Con and retracted many of his statements.
> Price has also written a favorable review of "Suns of God" and "Who
> Wass Jesus?" We have appeared on a very cordial radio program
> together, as well. (Infidel Guy in September 2006)
>
> Moreover, Edwin Bryant never read a word of my work. His uninformed
> opinions of me and my work are based on some slop fed to him by the
> Christian apologist Mike Licona, whose claim to fame is his effort to
> "prove" that Jesus really rose from the dead! Wow! Now, that's a
> credible source!
>
> This doofus is just flailing about desperately looking for a life raft
> to keep his puerile beliefs afloat. He had better watch what comes
> out his mouth, however, by calling OTHER people "liars."
>
> "[It is] not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes
> out of the mouth, this defiles a man." Mt. 15:11
>
> For a treasure trove of refutation of inane commentary, please see:
>
> http://www.truthbeknown.com/christconspiracy.html
>
> "New Age kook?" Riiight. Calling me that will certainly make some
> hidden and long lost evidence that Jesus Christ existed suddenly
> appear out of nowhere!
>
> More confirmation that Christ-inanity creates idiocy.

Who is Acharya S?
Acharya S was classically educated at some of the finest schools, receiving an undergraduate degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, from Franklin & Marshall College. She is a member of one of the world's most exclusive institutes for the study of Ancient Greek Civilization, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece:

"Founded in 1881, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens is the most significant resource in Greece for American scholars in the fields of ancient and post-classical studies in Greek language, literature, history, archaeology, and art. It offers two major resource libraries: the Blegen, with 70,000 volumes dedicated to ancient Greece; and the Gennadius, with 100,000 volumes dedicated to post-classical Greece. The School also sponsors excavations and provides centers for advanced research in archaeological and related topics at its excavations in the Athenian Agora and Corinth, and houses an archaeological laboratory at the main building complex in Athens. By agreement with the Greek government, the School is authorized to serve as liaison with the Greek Ministry of Culture on behalf of American students and scholars for the acquisition of permits to excavate and to study museum collections."

Acharya S has served as a trench master on archaeological excavations in Corinth, Greece, and Connecticut, USA, as well as a teacher's assistant on the island of Crete. Acharya S has traveled extensively around Europe,and she speaks, reads and/or writes English, Greek, French, Spanish, Italian, German, Portuguese and a smattering of other languages to varying degrees.  She has read Euripides, Plato and Homer in ancient Greek, and Cicero in Latin, as well as Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales in Middle English.  She has also been compelled to cross-reference the Bible in the original Hebrew and ancient Greek.

Acharya S has gained expertise in several religions, as well as knowledge about other esoterica and mystical subjects. She is also the author of several books, including The Christ Conspiracy, Paradise Found and The Aquarian Manifesto: A Handbook for Survival into and a Blueprint for the New Age. Her book Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled, is an expansion of the themes and thesis of The Christ Conspiracy. Articles by Acharya S have been published in Exposure, Steamshovel Press, Paranoia, as well as other periodicals and ezines.

Who is Acharya S?
Acharya S was classically educated at some of the finest schools, receiving an undergraduate degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, from Franklin & Marshall College. She is a member of one of the world's most exclusive institutes for the study of Ancient Greek Civilization, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece:

"Founded in 1881, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens is the most significant resource in Greece for American scholars in the fields of ancient and post-classical studies in Greek language, literature, history, archaeology, and art. It offers two major resource libraries: the Blegen, with 70,000 volumes dedicated to ancient Greece; and the Gennadius, with 100,000 volumes dedicated to post-classical Greece. The School also sponsors excavations and provides centers for advanced research in archaeological and related topics at its excavations in the Athenian Agora and Corinth, and houses an archaeological laboratory at the main building complex in Athens. By agreement with the Greek government, the School is authorized to serve as liaison with the Greek Ministry of Culture on behalf of American students and scholars for the acquisition of permits to excavate and to study museum collections."

Acharya S has served as a trench master on archaeological excavations in Corinth, Greece, and Connecticut, USA, as well as a teacher's assistant on the island of Crete. Acharya S has traveled extensively around Europe,and she speaks, reads and/or writes English, Greek, French, Spanish, Italian, German, Portuguese and a smattering of other languages to varying degrees.  She has read Euripides, Plato and Homer in ancient Greek, and Cicero in Latin, as well as Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales in Middle English.  She has also been compelled to cross-reference the Bible in the original Hebrew and ancient Greek.

Acharya S has gained expertise in several religions, as well as knowledge about other esoterica and mystical subjects. She is also the author of several books, including The Christ Conspiracy, Paradise Found and The Aquarian Manifesto: A Handbook for Survival into and a Blueprint for the New Age. Her book Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled, is an expansion of the themes and thesis of The Christ Conspiracy. Articles by Acharya S have been published in Exposure, Steamshovel Press, Paranoia, as well as other periodicals and ezines.
*****************
I clicked on the link you provided in your last post. THAT
answered my question.
I was worried that "Achayra" was your "spirit guide" or something!
THAT would have been like handing Don a bow and a handful of arrows, and painting a bullseye on your chest before tying yourself to a post...
(But I shouldn't have bothered. I KNOW you're smarter than that..!)

Never Mind,

B-man

Quote:


Don is the one who lies.  Read this to be enlightened.

When addressing the mythical nature of Jesus Christ, one issue repeatedly raised is the purported "evidence" of his existence to be found in the writings of Flavius Josephus, the famed Jewish general and historian who lived from about 37 to 100 CE. In Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews appears the notorious passage regarding Christ called the "Testimonium Flavianum" ("TF"):

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (Whitson, 379)

This surprisingly brief and simplistic passage constitutes the "best proof" of Jesus's existence in the entire ancient non-Christian library comprising the works of dozens of historians, writers, philosophers, politicians and others who never mentioned the great sage and wonderworker Jesus Christ, even though they lived contemporaneously with or shortly after the Christian savior's purported advent.


A False Witness
Despite the best wishes of sincere believers and the erroneous claims of truculent apologists, the Testimonium Flavianum has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery, likely interpolated by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth century. So thorough and universal has been this debunking that very few scholars of repute continued to cite the passage after the turn of the 19th century. Indeed, the TF was rarely mentioned, except to note that it was a forgery, and numerous books by a variety of authorities over a period of 200 or so years basically took it for granted that the Testimonium Flavianum in its entirety was spurious, an interpolation and a forgery. As Dr. Gordon Stein relates:

"...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars."

So well understood was this fact of forgery that these numerous authorities did not spend their precious time and space rehashing the arguments against the TF's authenticity. Nevertheless, in the past few decades apologists of questionable integrity and credibility have glommed onto the TF, because this short and dubious passage represents the most "concrete" secular, non-biblical reference to a man who purportedly shook up the world. In spite of the past debunking, the debate is currently confined to those who think the TF was original to Josephus but was Christianized, and those who credulously and self-servingly accept it as "genuine" in its entirety.

To repeat, this passage was so completely dissected by scholars of high repute and standing--the majority of them pious Christians--that it was for decades understood by subsequent scholars as having been proved in toto a forgery, such that these succeeding scholars did not even mention it, unless to acknowledge it as false. (In addition to being repetitious, numerous quotes will be presented here, because a strong show of rational consensus is desperately needed when it comes to matters of blind, unscientific and irrational faith.) The scholars who so conclusively proved the TF a forgery made their mark at the end of the 18th century and into the 20th, when a sudden reversal was implemented, with popular opinion hemming and hawing its way back first to the "partial interpolation theory" and in recent times, among the third-rate apologists, to the notion that the whole TF is "genuine." As Earl Doherty says, in "Josephus Unbound":

"Now, it is a curious fact that older generations of scholars had no trouble dismissing this entire passage as a Christian construction. Charles Guignebert, for example, in his Jesus (1956, p.17), calls it 'a pure Christian forgery.' Before him, Lardner, Harnack and Schurer, along with others, declared it entirely spurious. Today, most serious scholars have decided the passage is a mix: original parts rubbing shoulders with later Christian additions."

The earlier scholarship that proved the entire TF to be fraudulent was determined by intense scrutiny by some of the most erudite, and mainly Christian, writers of the time, in a number of countries, their works written in a variety of languages, but particularly German, French and English. Their general conclusions, as elucidated by Christian authority Dr. Lardner, and related here by the author of Christian Mythology Unveiled (c. 1842), include the following reasons for doubting the authenticity of the TF as a whole:

"Mattathias, the father of Josephus, must have been a witness to the miracles which are said to have been performed by Jesus, and Josephus was born within two years after the crucifixion, yet in all the works he says nothing whatever about the life or death of Jesus Christ; as for the interpolated passage it is now universally acknowledged to be a forgery. The arguments of the 'Christian Ajax,' even Lardner himself, against it are these: 'It was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius. It disturbs the narrative. The language is quite Christian. It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it had it been then in the text. It is not quoted by Photius [9th century], though he has three articles concerning Josephus; and this author expressly states that this historian has not taken the least notice of Christ. Neither Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew; nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors; nor Origen against Celsus, have ever mentioned this testimony. But, on the contrary, in chap. 25th of the first book of that work, Origen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ. That this passage is a false fabrication is admitted by Ittigius, Blondel, Le Clerc, Vandale, Bishop Warburton, and Tanaquil Faber.'" (CMU, 47)

Hence, by the 1840's, when the anonymous author of Christian Mythology Unveiled wrote, the Testimonium Flavanium was already "universally acknowledged to be a forgery."

The pertinent remarks by the highly significant Church father Origen (c. 185-c.254) appear in his Contra Celsus, Book I, Chapter XLVII:

"For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although against his will, not far from the truth--that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ)--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice" (Emphasis added)

Here, in Origen's words, is the assertion that Josephus, who discusses more than a dozen Jesuses, did not consider any of them to be "the Christ." This fact proves that the same phrase in the TF is spurious. Furthermore, Origen does not even intimate the presence of the rest of the TF. Concerning Origen and the TF, Arthur Drews relates in Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus:

"In the edition of Origen published by the Benedictines it is said that there was no mention of Jesus at all in Josephus before the time of Eusebius [c. 300 ce]. Moreover, in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus. It seems, therefore, that the passage must have been an interpolation, whether it was subsequently modified or not." (Drews, 9; emph. added)

According to the author of Christian Mythology Unveiled ("CMU"), this Vossius mentioned by a number of writers as having possessed a copy of Josephus's Antiquities lacking the TF is "I. Vossius," whose works appeared in Latin. Unfortunately, none of these writers includes a citation as to where exactly the assertion may be found in Vossius's works. Moreover, the Vossius in question seems to be Gerardus, rather than his son, Isaac, who was born in the seventeenth century.


Church Fathers Ignorant of Josephus Passage
In any event, as G.A. Wells points out in The Jesus Myth, not only do several Church fathers from the second, third and early fourth centuries have no apparent knowledge of the TF, but even after Eusebius suddenly "found" it in the first half of the fourth century, several other fathers into the fifth "often cite Josephus, but not this passage." (Wells, JM, 202) In the 5th century, Church father Jerome (c. 347-c.419) cited the TF once, with obvious disinterest, as if he knew it was fraudulent. In addition to his reference to the TF, in his Letter XXII. to Eustochium, Jerome made the following audacious claim:

"Josephus, himself a Jewish writer, asserts that at the Lord's crucifixion there broke from the temple voices of heavenly powers, saying: 'Let us depart hence.'"

Either Jerome fabricated this alleged Josephus quote, or he possessed a unique copy of the Jewish historian's works, in which this assertion had earlier been interpolated. In any case, Jerome's claim constitutes "pious fraud," one of many committed by Christian proponents over the centuries, a rampant practice, in fact, that must be kept in mind when considering the authenticity of the TF.

Following is a list of important Christian authorities who studied and/or mentioned Josephus but not the Jesus passage:

Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165), who obviously pored over Josephus's works, makes no mention of the TF.
Theophilus (d. 180), Bishop of Antioch--no mention of the TF.
Irenaeus (c. 120/140-c. 200/203), saint and compiler of the New Testament, has not a word about the TF.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-211/215), influential Greek theologian and prolific Christian writer, head of the Alexandrian school, says nothing about the TF.
Origen (c. 185-c. 254), no mention of the TF and specifically states that Josephus did not believe Jesus was "the Christ."
Hippolytus (c. 170-c. 235), saint and martyr, nothing about the TF.
The author of the ancient Syriac text, "History of Armenia," refers to Josephus but not the TF.
Minucius Felix (d. c. 250), lawyer and Christian convert--no mention of the TF.
Anatolius (230-c. 270/280)--no mention of TF.
Chrysostom (c. 347-407), saint and Syrian prelate, not a word about the TF.
Methodius, saint of the 9th century--even at this late date there were apparently copies of Josephus without the TF, as Methodius makes no mention of it.
Photius (c. 820-891), Patriarch of Constantinople, not a word about the TF, again indicating copies of Josephus devoid of the passage, or, perhaps, a rejection of it because it was understood to be fraudulent.
Arguments Against Authenticity Further Elucidated
When the evidence is scientifically examined, it becomes clear that the entire Josephus passage regarding Jesus was forged, likely by Church historian Eusebius, during the fourth century. In "Who on Earth was Jesus Christ?" David Taylor details the reasons why the TF in toto must be deemed a forgery, most of which arguments, again, were put forth by Dr. Lardner:

"It was not quoted or referred to by any Christian apologists prior to Eusebius, c. 316 ad.
"Nowhere else in his voluminous works does Josephus use the word 'Christ,' except in the passage which refers to James 'the brother of Jesus who was called Christ' (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 9, Paragraph 1), which is also considered to be a forgery.
"Since Josephus was not a Christian but an orthodox Jew, it is impossible that he should have believed or written that Jesus was the Christ or used the words 'if it be lawful to call him a man,' which imply the Christian belief in Jesus' divinity.
"The extraordinary character of the things related in the passage--of a man who is apparently more than a man, and who rose from the grave after being dead for three days--demanded a more extensive treatment by Josephus, which would undoubtedly have been forthcoming if he had been its author.
"The passage interrupts the narrative, which would flow more naturally if the passage were left out entirely.
"It is not quoted by Chrysostom (c. 354-407 ad) even though he often refers to Josephus in his voluminous writings.
"It is not quoted by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 858-886 ad) even though he wrote three articles concerning Josephus, which strongly implies that his copy of Josephus' Antiquities did not contain the passage.
"Neither Justin Martyr (110-165 AD), nor Clement of Alexandria (153-217 ad), nor Origen (c.185-254 AD), who all made extensive reference to ancient authors in their defence of Christianity, has mentioned this supposed testimony of Josephus.
"Origen, in his treatise Against Celsus, Book 1, Chapter 47, states categorically that Josephus did NOT believe that Jesus was the Christ.
"This is the only reference to the Christians in the works of Josephus. If it were genuine, we would have expected him to have given us a fuller account of them somewhere."
When the earliest Greek texts are analyzed, it is obvious that the Testimonium Flavianum interrupts the flow of the primary material and that the style of the language is different from that of Josephus. There is other evidence that the TF never appeared in the original Josephus. As Wells says:

"As I noted in The Jesus Legend, there is an ancient table of contents in the Antiquities which omits all mention of the Testimonium. Feldman (in Feldman and Hata, 1987, p. 57) says that this table is already mentioned in the fifth- or sixth-century Latin version of the Antiquities, and he finds it 'hard to believe that such a remarkable passage would be omitted by anyone, let alone by a Christian summarizing the work.'" (Wells, JM, 201)

Also, Josephus goes into long detail about the lives of numerous personages of relatively little import, including several Jesuses. It is inconceivable that he would devote only a few sentences to someone even remotely resembling the character found in the New Testament. If the gospel tale constituted "history," Josephus's elders would certainly be aware of Jesus's purported assault on the temple, for example, and the historian, who was obviously interested in instances of messianic agitation, would surely have reported it, in detail. Moreover, the TF refers to Jesus as a "wise man"--this phrase is used by Josephus in regard to only two other people, out of hundreds, i.e., the patriarchs Joseph and Solomon. If Josephus had thought so highly of an historical Jesus, he surely would have written more extensively about him. Yet, he does not. Lest it be suggested that Josephus somehow could have been ignorant of the events in question, the Catholic Encyclopedia ("Flavius Josephus") says:

"... Josephus...was chosen by the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem to be commander-in-chief in Galilee. As such he established in every city throughout the country a council of judges, the members of which were recruited from those who shared his political views."

Indeed, Josephus was a well-educated Jew who lived in the precise area where the gospel tale was said to have taken place, as did his parents, the latter at the very time of Christ's alleged advent. It was Josephus's passion to study the Jewish people and their history; yet, other than the obviously bogus TF, and the brief "James passage" mentioned by Taylor above, it turns out that in his voluminous works Josephus discussed neither Christ nor Christianity. Nor does it make any sense that the prolific Jewish writer would not detail the Christian movement itself, were Christians extant at the time in any significant numbers.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (CE), which tries to hedge its bet about the Josephus passage, is nevertheless forced to admit: "The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations." In the same entry, CE also confirms that Josephus's writings were used extensively by the early Christian fathers, such as Jerome, Ambrose and Chrystostom; nevertheless, as noted, except for Jerome, they never mention the TF.

Regarding the TF, as well as the James passage, which possesses the phrase James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, Jewish writer ben Yehoshua makes some interesting assertions:

"Neither of these passages is found in the original version of the Jewish Antiquities which was preserved by the Jews. The first passage (XVII, 3, 3) was quoted by Eusebius writing in c. 320 C.E., so we can conclude that it was added in some time between the time Christians got hold of the Jewish Antiquities and c. 320 C.E. It is not known when the other passage (XX, 9, 1) was added... Neither passage is based on any reliable sources. It is fraudulent to claim that these passages were written by Josephus and that they provide evidence for Jesus. They were written by Christian redactors and were based purely on Christian belief."

Yehoshua claims that the 12th century historian Gerald of Wales related that a "Master Robert of the Priory of St. Frideswide at Oxford examined many Hebrew copies of Josephus and did not find the 'testimony about Christ,' except for two manuscripts where it appeared [to Robert, evidently] that the testimony had been present but scratched out." Yehoshua states that, since "scratching out" requires the removal of the top layers, the deleted areas in these mere two of the many copies likely did not provide any solid evidence that it was the TF that had been removed. Apologists will no doubt insist that these Hebrew texts are late copies and that Jewish authorities had the TF removed. This accusation of mutilating an author's work, of course, can easily be turned around on the Christians. Also, considering that Vossius purportedly possessed a copy of the Antiquities without the TF, it is quite possible that there were "many Hebrew copies" likewise devoid of the passage.

continues...

Quote:


The deceit continues.  Read this to be enlightened.

Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius:
No Proof of Jesus
Pliny the Younger, Roman Official and Historian (62-113 CE)
In addition to the palpably bogus passage in the Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus called the "Testimonium Flavianum" is another of the pitiful "references" dutifully trotted out by apologists to prove the existence of Jesus Christ: To wit, a short passage in the works of the Roman historian Pliny the Younger. While proconsul of Bithynia, a province in the northwest of Asia Minor, Pliny purportedly wrote a letter in 110 CE to the Emperor Trajan requesting his assistance in determining the proper punishment for "Christiani" who were causing trouble and would not renounce "Christo" as their god or bow down to the image of the Emperor. These recalcitrant Christiani, according to the Pliny letter, met "together before daylight" and sang "hymns with responses to Christ as a god," binding themselves "by a solemn institution, not to any wrong act." Regarding this letter, Rev. Robert Taylor remarks:

If this letter be genuine, these nocturnal meetings were what no prudent government could allow; they fully justify the charges of Caecilius in Minutius Felix, of Celsus in Origen, and of Lucian, that the primitive Christians were a skulking, light-shunning, secret, mystical, freemasonry sort of confederation, against the general welfare and peace of society.

Taylor also comments that, at the time this letter was purportedly written, "Christians" were considered to be followers of the Greco-Egyptian Serapis per Emperor Hadrian's statement--"and that the name of Christ [was] common to the whole rabblement of gods, kings, and priests." Writing around 134 CE, Hadrian purportedly stated:

The worshippers of Serapis are Christians, and those are devoted to the God Serapis, whocall themselves the bishops of Christ. There is no ruler of a Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Presbyter of the Christians, who is not either an astrologer, a soothsayer, or a minister to obscene pleasures. The very Patriarch himself, should he come into Egypt, would be required by some to worship Serapis, and by others to worship Christ. They have, however, but one God, and it is one and the self-same whom Christians, Jews and Gentiles alike adore, i.e., money.

It is likely that the "Christos" or "Anointed" god Pliny's "Christiani" were following was Serapis himself, the syncretic deity created by the priesthood in the third century BCE. In any case, this god "Christos" was not a man who had been crucified in Judea.

Moreover, like his earlier incarnation Osiris, Serapis--both popular gods in the Roman Empire--was called not only Christos but also "Chrestos," centuries before the common era. Indeed, Osiris was called "Chrestus," long before his Jewish copycat Jesus was ever conceived. Significantly, in relating that under Claudius certain "mathematicians" or astrologers were expelled from Italy, individuals who were apparently Egyptian and Egypto-Jewish kabbalists, Drews cites the same Hadrian passage as above, with a different translation. According to him, the original contained the word "Chrestus," not "Christos," and "Chrestiani" instead of "Christiani," important distinctions. Drews relates Hadrian's remarks thus:

"Those who worship Serapis are the Chrestians, and those who call themselves priests of Chrestus are devoted to Serapis. There is not a high-priest of the Jews, a Samaritan, or a priest of Chrestus who is not a mathematician, soothsayer, or quack. Even the patriarch, when he goes to Egypt, is compelled by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Chrestus They are a turbulent, inflated, lawless body of men. They have only one God, who is worshipped by the Chrestians, the Jews, and all the peoples of Egypt."

Drews further states, "Chrestus was not only the name of the god, but, as frequently happened in ancient religions, also of his chief priest."
In his Divine Institutes, Book IV, Church father Lactantius (fl. 4th cent.) discusses the importance of distinguishing between the terms Christos and Chrestus:
for Christ is not a proper name, but a title of power and dominion; for by this the Jews were accustomed to call their kings. But the meaning of this name must be set forth, on account of the error of the ignorant, who by the change of a letter are accustomed to call Him Chrestus.

The word "Chrestus," meaning "good" or "useful," was a title frequently held by commoners, slaves, freedmen, bigwigs, priests and gods alike, prior to the Christian era. "Chrestos," according to Mead, was "a universal term of the Mysteries for the perfected 'saint.'" Followers of any deity called "Chrestus" would be not "Christians" but "Chrestians." Because the Church fathers such as Justin Martyr pun on this word crestoV (chrestos), apologists have haphazardly substituted cristoV (christos) for it. As do other early Church fathers, Justin uses the term "Chrestiani," not "Christiani," to describe his fellow believers.

Johnson considered "Chrestus" a distinction made to separate the "good god" of the Gnostics from the evil god Yahweh. This term, Chrestus, is thus traceable to Samaria, where Gnosticism as a movement took shape and where it may have referred to Simon Magus, whom we have seen to have been a god, rather than a "real person." Hence, these Chrestiani were apparently Syrian Gnostics, not followers of the "historical" Jesus of Nazareth. Confirming this assertion, that the first "Christians" were actually followers of the "good god" Chrestus, the earliest dated Christian inscription, corresponding to October 1, 318 CE, calls Jesus "Chrestos," not Christos: "The Lord and Savior, Jesus the Good." This inscription was found above the entrance of a Syrian church of the Marcionites, who were anti-Jewish followers of the second-century Gnostic Marcion. The evidence points to "Jesus the Chrestos" as a Pagan god, not a Jewish messiah who lived during the first century CE.

In any event, the value of the Pliny letter as "evidence" of Christ's existence is worthless, as it makes no mention of "Jesus of Nazareth," nor does it refer to any event in his purported life. There is not even a clue in it that such a man existed. As Taylor remarks, "We have the name of Christ, and nothing else but the name, where the name of Apollo or Bacchus would have filled up the sense quite as well." Taylor then casts doubt on the authenticity of the letter as a whole, recounting the work of German critics, who "have maintained that this celebrated letter is another instance to be added to the long list of Christian forgeries" One of these German luminaries, Dr. Semler of Leipsic provided "nine arguments against its authenticity" He also notes that the Pliny epistle is quite similar to that allegedly written by "Tiberianus, Governor of Syria" to Trajan, which has been universally denounced as a forgery.

Also, like the TF, Pliny's letter is not quoted by any early Church father, including Justin Martyr. Tertullian briefly mentions its existence, noting that it refers to terrible persecutions of Christians. However, the actual text used today comes from a version by a Christian monk in the 15th century, Iucundus of Verona, whose composition apparently was based on Tertullian's assertions. Concurring that the Pliny letter is suspicious, Drews terms "doubtful" Tertullian's "supposed reference to it." Drews then names several authorities who likewise doubted its authenticity, "either as a whole or in material points," including Semler, Aub, Havet, Hochart, Bruno Bauer and Edwin Johnson. Citing the work of Hochart specifically, Drews pronounces Pliny's letter "in all probability" a "later Christian forgery." Even if it is genuine, Pliny's letter is useless in determining any "historical" Jesus.

Tacitus, Roman Politician and Historian, (c. 56-120 CE)
Turning next to another stalwart in the anemic apologist arsenal, Tacitus, sufficient reason is uncovered to doubt this Roman author's value in proving an "historical" Jesus. In his Annals, supposedly written around 107 CE, Tacitus purportedly related that the Emperor Nero (37-68) blamed the burning of Rome during his reign on "those people who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians." Since the fire evidently broke out in the poor quarter where fanatic, agitating Messianic Jews allegedly jumped for joy, thinking the conflagration represented the eschatological development that would bring about the Messianic reign, it would not be unreasonable for authorities to blame the fire on them. However, it is clear that these Messianic Jews were not (yet) called "Christiani." In support of this contention, Nero's famed minister, Seneca (5?-65), whose writings evidently provided much fuel for the incipient Christian ideology, has not a word about these "most-hated" sectarians.

In any event, the Tacitean passage next states that these fire-setting agitators were followers of "Christus" (Christos), who, in the reign of Tiberius, "was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate." The passage also recounts that the Christians, who constituted a "vast multitude at Rome," were then sought after and executed in ghastly manners, including by crucifixion. However, the date that a "vast multitude" of Christians was discovered and executed would be around 64 CE, and it is evident that there was no "vast multitude" of Christians at Rome by this time, as there were not even a multitude of them in Judea. Oddly, this brief mention of Christians is all there is in the voluminous works of Tacitus regarding this extraordinary movement, which allegedly possessed such power as to be able to burn Rome. Also, the Neronian persecution of Christians is unrecorded by any other historian of the day and supposedly took place at the very time when Paul was purportedly freely preaching at Rome (Acts 28:30-31), facts that cast strong doubt on whether or not it actually happened. Drews concludes that the Neronian persecution is likely "nothing but the product of a Christian's imagination in the fifth century." Eusebius, in discussing this persecution, does not avail himself of the Tacitean passage, which he surely would have done had it existed at the time. Eusebius's discussion is very short, indicating he was lacking source material; the passage in Tacitus would have provided him a very valuable resource.

Even conservative writers such as James Still have problems with the authenticity of the Tacitus passage: For one, Tacitus was an imperial writer, and no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as "Christ." Also, Pilate was not a "procurator" but a prefect, which Tacitus would have known. Nevertheless, not willing to throw out the entire passage, some researchers have concluded that Tacitus "was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians."

Based on these and other facts, several scholars have argued that, even if the Annals themselves were genuine, the passage regarding Jesus was spurious. One of these authorities was Rev. Taylor, who suspected the passage to be a forgery because it too is not quoted by any of the Christian fathers, including Tertullian, who read and quoted Tacitus extensively. Nor did Clement of Alexandria notice this passage in any of Tacitus's works, even though one of this Church father's main missions was to scour the works of Pagan writers in order to find validity for Christianity. As noted, the Church historian Eusebius, who likely forged the Testimonium Flavianum, does not relate this Tacitus passage in his abundant writings. Indeed, no mention is made of this passage in any known text prior to the 15th century.

The tone and style of the passage are unlike the writing of Tacitus, and the text "bears a character of exaggeration, and trenches on the laws of rational probability, which the writings of Tacitus are rarely found to do." Taylor further remarks upon the absence in any of Tacitus's other writings of "the least allusion to Christ or Christians." In his well-known Histories, for example, Tacitus never refers to Christ, Christianity or Christians. Furthermore, even the Annals themselves have come under suspicion, as they themselves had never been mentioned by any ancient author.

It is a peculiar and disturbing fact that the entire Annals attributed to Tacitus never existed until their discovery by Johannes de Spire, at Venice in 1468, and that this sole copy, purportedly made in the 8th century, was in his possession alone. The history of the Annals begins with the Italian calligrapher, Latin scholar and Papal secretary Gian Francesco Poggio Bracciolini (1380-1459), who, writing in 1425, intimated the existence of unknown works by Tacitus supposedly at a Benedictine monastery in Hersfeld, Germany. "The Annals" was subsequently "discovered" in a copy of Tacitus's Histories at the monastery, in the sixteenth century. This text was not named "Annals," however, until 1544, by Beatus Rhenanus.

In 1878, the "excellent Latin scholar" WJ Ross wrote the book Tacitus and Bracciolini, which evinced that the entire Annals were a forgery in very flawed Latin by Bracciolini in the 15th century. Ross's work was assailed by various clergymen, who claimed the main defect in his argument was that "one of the MSS. [manuscripts] of the Annals is at least as early as the XI century." In reality, the critics had not actually read Ross's book, in which Ross does indeed address this purported 11th century manuscript, which he shows was merely pronounced by dictum to be early. Interested readers are referred to Cutner and Ross's books for further discussion of this debate, which includes, in Ross's dissertation, a minute examination of the Latin of the Annals. Suffice it to say that the evidence is on the side of those who maintain the 15th century date, in that the Annals appear nowhere until that time.

In any event, even if the Annals were genuine, the pertinent passage itself could easily be an interpolation, based on the abundant precedents and on the fact that the only manuscript was in the possession of one person, de Spire. In reality, "none of the works of Tacitus have come down to us without interpolations." Drews considers the Tacitus passage in its entirety to be one of these forgeries that just suddenly showed up centuries later, and he expresses astonishment that "no one took any notice during the whole of the Middle Ages" of such an important passage. Says he:

No one, in fact, seems to have had the least suspicion of its existence until it was found in the sole copy at that time of Tacitus, the Codex Mediceus II, printed by Johann and his brother Wendelin von Speyer about 1470 at Venice, of which all the other manuscripts are copies.

The reason for this hoax may be the same as the countless others perpetrated over the millennia: The period when the Annals were discovered was one of manuscript-hunting, with huge amounts of money being offered for unearthing such texts, specifically those that bolstered the claims of Christianity. There is no question that poor, desperate and enterprising monks set about to fabricate manuscripts of this type. Bracciolini, a Papal secretary, was in the position to collect the "500 gold sequins" for his composition, which, it has been claimed was reworked by a monk at Hersfeld/Hirschfelde, "in imitation of a very old copy of the History of Tacitus."

Regarding Christian desperation for evidence of the existence of Christ, Dupuis comments that true believers are "reduced to look, nearly a hundred years after, for a passage in Tacitus" that does not even provide information other than "the etymology of the word Christian," or they are compelled "to interpolate, by pious fraud, a passage in Josephus." Neither passage, Dupuis concludes, is sufficient to establish the existence of such a remarkable legislator and philosopher, much less a "notorious impostor."

It is evident that Tacitus's remark is nothing more than what is said in the Apostle's Creed--to have the authenticity of the mighty Christian religion rest upon this Pagan author's scanty and likely forged comment is preposterous. Even if the passage in Tacitus were genuine, it would be too late and is not from an eyewitness, such that it is valueless in establishing an "historical" Jesus, representing merely a recital of decades-old Christian tradition.

Suetonius, Roman Historian (c. 69-c. 122 CE)
Moving through the standard list of defenses, we come to the Roman historian Suetonius. The passage in Suetonius's Life of Claudius, dating to around 110 CE, states that the emperor Claudius "drove the Jews out of Rome, who at the suggestion of Chrestus were constantly rioting." The passage in Latin is as follows:
Claudius Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit.

Once more, we see that the reference is to "Chresto," not "Christo." In any case, Claudius reigned from 41-54, while Christ was purported to have been crucified around 30, so the great Jewish sage could not have been in Rome personally at that time. Even such an eager believer and mesmerized apologist as Shirley Jackson Case must admit that Christ himself couldn't have been at Rome then, that the "natural meaning" of the remark is that "a disturbance was caused by a Jew named Chrestus" living in Rome at the time, and that Suetonius's "references to Christianity itself are very obscure."

It is possible that these diasporic Jews--a mixture of Hebrew, Jewish, Samaritan and Pagan descent--revered their god under the epithet of "Chresto." Or, as Eisenman suggests, the incident may record Jews agitating over the appointment of Herod Agrippa I as king of Judea by his friend Claudius in 41 CE. In this regard, Agrippa I is called "chrestos" by Josephus.

In his Life of Nero, Suetonius refers to "Christiani," whom he calls "a race of men of a new and villainous, wicked or magical superstition," who "were visited with punishment." This passage, although establishing that there were people called "Christiani" who were a fairly recent cult in Suetonius's time, obviously does not serve as evidence that Jesus Christ ever existed.
Regarding these various non-Christian "references," Count Volney remarks:

There are absolutely no other monuments of the existence of Jesus Christ as a human being, than a passage in Josephus (Antiq. Jud. lib. 18, c.3,) a single phrase in Tacitus (Annal. lib. 15, c. 44), and the Gospels. But the passage in Josephus is unanimously acknowledged to be apocryphal [false], and to have been interpolated towards the close of the third centuryand that of Tacitus is so vague and so evidently taken from the deposition of the Christians before the tribunals, that it may be ranked in the class of evangelical records. It remains to enquire of what authority are these records. "All the world knows," says Faustus, who, though a Manichean, was one of the most learned men of the third century, "All the world knows that the gospels were neither written by Jesus Christ, nor his apostles, but by certain unknown persons, who rightly judging that they should not obtain belief respecting things which they had not seen, placed at the head of their recitals the names of contemporary apostles." See Beausob.a sagacious writer, who has demonstrated the absolute uncertainty of those foundations of the Christian religion; so that the existence of Jesus is no better proved than that of Osiris and Hercules, or that of Fot or Beddou, with whom, says M. de Guignes, the Chinese continually confound him, for they never call Jesus by any other name than Fot

It is evident that by Volney's time (late 18th century) the European intelligentsia had already so demolished the Testimonium Flavianum passage in Josephus that it was "unanimously acknowledged" as a forgery. It should also be noted, once again, that Jesus was deemed "Beddou" or Buddha, called "Fot" in China.

The "German Jew" author of The Existence of Christ Disproved declared that the Tacitus and Suetonius references "cannot be admitted as of a feather's weight in the balance of arguments for or against the existence of Jesus."

Regarding these "references," if they were genuine they would no more prove the existence of Jesus Christ than do writings about other gods prove their existence. In other words, by this same argument we could provide many "references" from ancient writers that the numerous Pagan gods also existed as "real people." In this case, Jesus would be merely a johnny-come-lately in a long line of "historical" godmen.

In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called "Jesus Christ" ever existed. As Nicholas Carter concludes in The Christ Myth: "No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own hand; and no letters, no commentaries, indeed no authentic documents written by his Jewish and Gentile contemporaries, Justice of Tiberius, Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Pliny the Elder, et al., to lend credence to his historicity."

EVIDENCE FOR JESUS' EXISTENCE FROM EVIDENCE OUTSIDE THE BIBLE:

My critique of Dude and his source, Acharya, will focus on 6 pieces of evidence.

[Acharya:] ““Basically, there are no non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any known historian of the time during and after Jesus's purported advent.”
____________________________________

Easily refuted!  Let’s examine thef first century Roman historians. Until the 4th century conversion of Emperor Constantine, Christianity was a minor sect in the Roman empire.  The early Roman historians had no interest in minor cults like Christianity.  They were parochially interested in emperors, kings, and the history of Rome.  Consider why the Jewish philosopher, Philo, and the 7 Roman the first century historians cannot be expected to mention Jesus.  Philo lives in Alexandria, Egypt and dies around 40 AD, just ten years after Jesus’ crucifixion.  Paul had not yet begun his mission to Gentiles.  So it would be surprising if Philo even knew about Jesus!  The Roman historian,Livy, died in 17 AD, over a decade before Jesus’ ministery began.  Pompeius Torgus’s history focused on pre-Christian Macedonia and Quintus Curtius wrote only a history of Alexander the Great.  Neither were interested in Jewish affairs.  Valerius Peterclus, Valerius Flaccus, and Julius Florus limited their historical focus to the period before Jesus’ ministry.    . 

(1) [Acharya:] “In the entire works of the Jewish historian Josephus, which constitute many volumes, there are only two paragraphs that purport to refer to Jesus. Although much has been made of these "references," they have been dismissed by all scholars [sic!] and even by Christian apologists as forgeries, as have been those referring to John the Baptist and James, "brother" of Jesus.”
__________________________________________________________________

Lies!  First, no modern scholar challenges the authenticity of Josephus’ description of John the Baptist.  Second, modern scholarship universally accepts the authenticity of Josephus’ allusion to James as “the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ (Antiquities 20:200).” Columbia U. professor Morton Smith is an atheist who wrote a sarcastic anti-Jesus book called “Jesus the Magician.”  Yet even he concedes, “No Christian would forge a reference to Jesus in this style (p. 45).”  Josephus was born in 37 AD within 7 years of Jesus’ crucifxion in 30 AD and grew up in Jerusalem.  So he is a good witness to the leadership role of Jesus’ brother over the Jerusalem church.   Josephus’ report of James’s marytrdon by Annas the high priest derives independent support from another ancient historian, Hegesippus. 

True, Josephus’ other allusion to Jesus has been slightly retouched by a Christian hand (Antiquities 18:63f.).  Here Josephus mentions Jesus’ role as teacher, miracle worker,  and a  Messiah who was crucified on Pilate’s orders and allegedly rose again on the 3rd day.  The problem here is that, a few interpolated words suggest that Josephus acknowledged Jesus’ messianic status.  As a Pharisee, Josephus is unlikely to have been that sympathetic to Jesus.   Even Morton Smith acknowledges and accepts the modern scholarly consensus that this text is essentially genuine: “A genuine passage has been christianized by alterantions to the text.”  What Smith overlooks is this: the same Greek text has survived in an Arabic form which has not been tampered with by a Christian hand and which does not imply Josephus’s acceptaince of Jesus’ messianic status.

(2) [Archarya:] “Regarding the letter to Trajan supposedly written by Pliny the Younger, which is one of the pitifully few "references" to Jesus or Christianity held up by Christians as evidence of the existence of Jesus, there is but one word that is applicable--"Christian"--and that has been demonstrated to be spurious, as is also suspected of the entire letter. Concerning the passage in the works of the historian Tacitus, who did not live during the purported time of Jesus but was born two decades after his purported death, this is also considered by competent scholars as an interpolation and forgery.”
_____________________

Wrong on both counts!   I was a teaching fellow in the Harvard classics department.  The Tacitus text in question (Annals 15:44) is our primary source for the universally accepted fact that Nero persecuted the (“Chrestians” (= Christians) as scapegoats for the great fire of Rome.  The Latin spelling is changed because “Christus” is not a Roman name, but “Chrestus” is a common Roman name.  Tacitus refers to Jesus' execution on the orders of Pontius Pilate.    No serious classics scholar doubts the authenticity of Tacitus’ witness here to Nero’s persecution of Christians.

(3) [Acharya: ] “Christian defenders also like to hold up the passage in Suetonius that refers to someone named "Chrestus" or "Chresto" as reference to their Savior; however, while some have speculated that there was a Roman man of that name at that time, the name "Chrestus" or "Chrestos, meaning "useful," was frequently held by freed slaves. Others opine that this passage is also an interpolation.”
____________
An ignorant comment!  The Tacitus parallel leaves no doubt that Christ is again the intended referent of “Chrestus.”  Suetonius is describing the initial attempls of Jewish Christians to enter Roman synagogues and convert the Jews.   The Jews rebel against this proselytizing, but Emperor Claudius in unclear about what is happening, and so, he expels all jews from Rome.  This event is independently corroborated by Luke, who mentions, two Jewish Christian missionaries to Rome (Priscillla and Aquilla) who were included in Claudius’ expulsion of Jews (Acts 18:2).  Suetonius refers to another persecution of the “Chrestians” in Life of Nero 16:2 and dismisses their “superstition.”  .

Acharya seems oblivous to 3 other types of non-biblical evidence for Jesus’ existence.  (4) Celsus, a  pagan Platonist (170 AD), had access the anti-Christian Jewish sources whose polemic is substantially traceable to the first century.  Celsus’ book attacking Jesus is critiqued by Origen who outlines Celsus’ case.   For example, we learn the earliest Jewish response to Jesus’ birth.  Jesus’ Jewish opponents agree that Jesus was born “too soon,” by insist that Jesus is the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier named Panthera (Origen, Against Celsus 1:28, 38).  This claim about Panthera is traceable to Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, a first-century Palestinian rabbi (so several texts in the Tosefta and Babylonian Talmud).  Eliezer’s slander can be further traced back to Jesus’ ministry.

During a debate, Jesus’ opponents snap, “[At least] WE are not born of fornication (John 8:41)!”   In the Greek the “we” is emphatic and implies Jesus’ illegitimacy. Similarly, Jesus receives a scornful welcome in his first visit to Nazareth since the start of His ministry.   The Nazareth residents scornfully ask, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary? (Mark 6:3).”  In Israel’s
patriarchal culture to insult a man by labelling him the son of his mother is tantamount to labelling his birth illegitmate.   Defenders of Jesus’ virgin birth point out that first-century skeptics and believers alike agree on one point: Jesus is not the natural son of Joseph. 

Jesus never married, despite the fact that in His culture a Jewish male was sinning if he did not get married by age 30.  But a male Jew was forbidden to take a Jewish wife, if his birth was deemed illegitmate.  The illegitmacy charge is the best explanation for Jesus' single status.

Prof. Richard Buackham’s book,  “Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church,”  demonstrates the Jesus’ family members travel around Palestine defending Jesus’ birth and genealogy.  These relatives likely learn of the virgin birth from Mary.  This hardly constitutes proof for so exotic a claim, but it links the virgin birth to the question of  Mary’s integrity. 

(5) Justin Martyr describes the standard Jewish view of Jesus in the mid-second century: Jesus was “a magician who led the people astray” and his miracles were “magically produced hallucinations (1Apology 14:5).”  It is striking that early believers and skeptics alike agree that if you had watched Jesus in action, it would at least look like He was performing miracles. 

How far back can we trace this perspective of skeptical Jews?   Quadratus allows us to trace it back to a time when some who had been healed by Jesus were still alive to bear witness to their healing:

“The mighty works of our Savior WERE PERMANENT because they were true--those healed, those risen from the dead, who did not only seem to be healed or risen, but were always present, not only when the Savior was present, ...SOME OF THEM SURVIVED DOWN TO OUR TIMES (Quadratus quoted in Eusebius HE 4:3).”

(6)  An inscription dated to the time of Emperor Claudius (40s AD) has been found near Nazareth.  In it Claudius applies  the death penality to locals who engage in tomb robbing.   Ths timing and location of this prohibition seems to respond to the claiims of Jesus’ disciples that Jesus rose bodily from the tomb and was seen by many on several occasions.   The skeptical Romans construe such claims as a cover-up for stealing Jesus’ body.   The value of Claudius’ warning is this: it implies that the Romans do not know what happened to Jesus’ body.   The Jews similarly charged that Jesus’ disciples stole His body (Matthew 28:11-15 etc.).  So the Nazareth inscription reduces the most like options to two: either the disciples’ stole Jesus’ body, so create the illusion that He rose from the dead or Jesus rose bodily from the dead.  But ask yourself this question: Why would the disciples lie and then seal their testimony with their blood for the message that God raised Jesus from the dead?  Admittedly, this is far from proof; but it strengthens the case for the resurrection, which of course depends most heavily on the disciples’ reports of resurrection appearances. 

Don

Dude,

Read your last post.  It is horrible.  I have read your Acharya retorts and am unimpressed.  There are some interesting ideas, but a lot of generalizations such as "all credible sources say....."  She dismisses what she wishes to by saying one thing or another is "hardly likely," none of her refutations are proofs in and of themselves.A forum and thread are best served by responding to each other directly and without any adjectives (this means you and Don with references).  Your last post and that of your star reference are in poor taste.  Despite your promise with your OOB TMI thread, I am beginning to feel more and more that you have too many negative issues, and are substituting what you perceive as brinksmanship (one upping) to an honest spiritual search.

The feeling of myself, and I'm sure many others here on the forum is that this is the place for honest seekers with honest questions. Should you continue to post in this manner, I for one will encourage you to go elsewhere (or I likely will).  

Debate is one thing.  Mean spirited commentary is quite another.  The feelings come loud and clear through Acharya and your words.  Respond to the facts, but analyze what has gone on.  If Don or Acharya make an air tight case - so be it.  If not, one recognizes what is true to the issue, and then moves on.  All without personal derogatory remarks.  (pest, ignoramous, etc.)

M