>>Many scholars think the author of Luke lived as a gentile, or at the very least, a hellenized Jew and even possibly a woman.<<

That statement came from one of Don Firth's links. I had not heard about Luke possibly being a woman before although he is often assumed to be a doctor. This gives us another strange parallel to Josephus:

"Now there was one Joseph, the son of a female physician..." and this Joseph was another rabble rouser and his men "slew Cares, and with him Jesus, one of his kinsmen, and a brother of Justus of Tiberias..." Vita, v. 37

>>AR282, I'm following your research and reasoning - but it does seem that you're trying to have it both ways. Some of what you cite is parlously close to demonstrating the likelihood of other- and numerous - Jesus figures. Who is to say that one of those figures did not get much farther and have far more lasting impact?<<

Because Josephus was writing about contemporaries to himself and he lived AFTER Jesus Christ supposedly walked the earth.

>>In matters of faith—one way or the other—one can argue 'til Hell freezes over and when you finally run out of breath, it all boils down to the mountain laboring and bringing forth a mouse. And it's one puny mouse. Nobody's mind is going to be changed.<<

Not only presumptuous but wrong because I once believed in a historical Jesus like most people do. I was never a Christian or anything but I just figured that he MUST have existed because everybody said he did and who was I to doubt? But after reading some atheist tracts in college, I found it hard to believe that his existence was hearsay as they claimed so I began to look into things myself and realized the atheists were right.

So while I agree that most people's minds will not be changed, it would be a grave error to assume "nobody's" mind will be changed. Someone's will and that makes it worth it for me. If I at least sow seeds of doubt and skepticism in some people's minds, it's worth it to me.