>>I find all this rather confusing, AR282.<<

If you didn't, you wouldn't be thinking very hard about it. It IS confusing. And I think it was meant to be.

>>Can you clarify for me whether you do not believe that anyone called Jesus or Joshua or Isiah or some such existed at all at the time in question?<<

There is not a shred of evidence to prove that any such person existed. The only literature from that time period to state it is so is the bible and other Church literature and let's just say that literature is likely to be somewhat biased. We need independent and impartial evidence and there is not a shred. None. Zilch.

>>Or do you believe that someone with that name did exist but did not do anything that gained any noteriety? Or is it that you just do not beleive the myths and legends that have sprung up since?<<

Tell me where the reality supposedly stops and the myths and legends begin. There was no Jesus Christ. We were sold of bill of false goods. The Roman Church repackaged Julius Caesar and put him back out on the shelf and we bought it again believing it to be something different.

We simply bought a new Caesar bearing the face of Alexander. It is nothing but royal intrigue and its purpose was, as always, control of the state and its citizens.

The Secret of the Christ is lost, gone. It is certainly not known or believed by any Christians today--none I've met at any rate. Some claim to know but certainly don't impress me. They always come back to the historical school of thought only because that's what they were raised on. When presented with the facts, they refuse to see. When asked to explain themselves, they say we can't know anything about anybody back then--not realizing that destroys any reason for them to believe.