[onedoug]

I don't know about proof, but as far as taking issue with "history", you might find this somewhat interesting.

[alisasny]

GO MEL GO : ))))

[chicagolady]

It is very interesting! Talk about ANTI-Semetic!!
Trying to prove a great Jewish man ...never existed!! Now that is ANTI-Semetic if I Ever saw it!

[dangus]

It's called making an outrageous lie to people who don't know better. He's trying to innoculate ignorant people against Christianity.
>"I don't know about proof, but as far as taking issue with >"history", you might find this somewhat interesting."

He says that the Pauline epistles (by which he includes Romans and I Corinthians) make no mention of miracles, and no association of Christ with Jesus...

Look how far I had to go... the first page.
Rom 1.4-5:Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

Or, I Cr 15:12:
Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen.

And while there was a school of thought which suggested John's or Matthew's were very late in origin, I never heard anyone ever place Mark as more than a couple decades after the death of Christ. Most scholars conclude that the gospels were written in the late first century, as the apostles (who were the first-hand witnesses) approached death and knew there had to be authoritative recollections left behind. The youngest, John, who was a mere student when called, published last.

Perhaps I shouldn't dignify the silly link, but on the other hand, I figure it's good to demonstrate how outrageous some people who cloak themselves in sounding scholarly can be. But I did figure I made my point by exploding merely the FIRST claim the author makes.