> I've been reading Todd Allen Gates' book "Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer" and have been loving it. I really like the method the book describes, and I look forward to finishing it.

Hi Neith -- Thanks!

> That said, I was suddenly taken aback while reading it last night. On page 40, his character Scott states "Jesus's existence can be proved with reasonable confidence through logic."

> At first I thought that it might be another concession for argument's sake,

Bottom line intent: yes, that's really all I was doing. I feel that whether Jesus was a historical figure is relatively unimportant ... the evidence that Joseph Smith was a historical figure is 100% (or as close to it as possible), but the evidence for Smith being a conduit to the divine is still 0% (or as close to it as possible).

But the truth is that when I wrote that endnote (in 2002), I actually thought that the alleged "Ossuary of James" would decent evidence that there really was a guy named Jesus who had at least some local fame. It wasn't until earlier this year that I found out the ossuary turned out to be a fraud! I'm planning on issuing a revision of my book soon---that will be the first thing I remove.

> but as I read further, he says that we have evidence such as documents from his critics that don't dispute he once existed.

> The section is linked to Endnote #3, where Gate's quotes Tacitus and Celsus as having writting about Christianity (sure, but how does that *prove* a literal Jesus?)

Agreed---it definitely doesn't prove a literal Jesus!

> Now, I don't mind him taking the position that Jesus *could* have existed, but to go so far as stating that the above is enough "evidence" for most of us to conclude that Jesus was not just a mythical figure? Hardly!

I actually thought that my wording in my endnote was non-committal---and that if anything, noting that the earliest non-Christian reference to Christianity XE "Christ, Jesus:historical evidence of" XE "Christ, Jesus:earliest recorded documents on" didn't come until close to 100 years after Jesus death only showed that the evidence for Jesus's existence was flimsy at best.

Here's my Endnote #3 (minus the part that I'm going to strike about James's ossuary!):

* * * * * * *

The earliest known non-Christian acknowledgement of Christianity XE "Christ, Jesus:historical evidence of" XE "Christ, Jesus:earliest recorded documents on" comes from the Roman historian Tacitusxe "Tacitus", writing in the year 110. Referring to Christianity’s increase in popularity in Rome, he writes most unflatteringly:

This noxious superstition [Christianity XE "Christ, Jesus:historical evidence of" ], suppressed for the moment, broke out again not only in Judaea, where it began, but even in Rome itself, where the scum of shame flows and becomes the vogue.

Tacitusxe "Tacitus", Annals XV, 44

Another early (a.d. 180) non-Christian reference to Christianity XE "Christ, Jesus:historical evidence of" XE "Christ, Jesus:earliest recorded documents on" comes from the Roman philosopher Celsusxe "Celsus", who uses similarly unkind words as he discusses the widening gulf between Judaism and Christianity:

The race of Jews and Christians XE "Christ, Jesus:historical evidence of" XE "Christ, Jesus:earliest recorded documents on" [are like] a cluster of bats or ants coming out of a nest, or frogs holding council round a marsh, or worms assembling in some filthy corner, disagreeing with one another about which of them are the worst sinners.

Celsusxe "Celsus", The True Word of Celsus

* * * * * * *

I'm half-considering eliminating Endnote #3 altogether . . . except that it's a reason to keep the great Tacitus and Celsus quotes!

> Again, I enjoy the book and its method immensely.

Thanks again!

- Todd