Okay, back to the original discussion.

My considered opinion:

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Jesus was really Julius Caesar. Jesus was really Zeus. Jesus was really Horus. Jesus was really Josephus. Jesus was really Paul. Jesus was really William Shatner. Jesus was really (fill in blank                      ). Jesus was really anybody but Jesus.

Cogent arguments, those.

I recall in an English Lit. class I took way back when:   subject, Shakespeare's plays. The question came up about those who insist that Shakespeare didn't really write the plays that where attributed to him. Various people claimed that they were really written by Ben Jonson, Christopher Marlowe, the Earl of Derby, the Earl of Rutland, the Earl of Southampton, the Earl of Essex, Sir Walter Raleigh, Francis Bacon, and a whole raft of other "usual suspects" including Queen Elizabeth I. After spending a fair amount of class time chewing over the possibilities and in the end, by applying Occam's Razor, we concluded that it was probably Willliam Shakespeare who wrote the plays of William Shakespeare. One of the students asked, "Why do people feel it's necessary to question what's patently obvious? What's to be gained?"

"Well," said the Prof, "it gives them something to do and keeps them off the streets."

In the meantime, Sori, you seem to be accusing only the Christians (and I do not number myself among them, surprise, surprise!) of being the "shit-stirrers" around here. That's not my perception of it.

Don Firth