I bumped into this, can anybody confirm or deny this as being authentic?

[RATTER15]

http://atheistmemes.t...com/image/25285202425

[naomi24]

//if He were still alive today I imagine He'd be one PO'd hombre! //

..... and he wouldn't recognise Christianity or Islam, that's for sure!

[Zabadak]

Luke was a Greek doctor and at least amateur historian. But of course he doesn't count because he's in the book!
The "James ossuary" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ossuary) might or might not be authentic, but shouldn't be rejected or accepted on purely partisan grounds.

[birdie1971]

Ratter - “... or even a bucket of salt!...”

I'll 'see' your bucket of salt and raise you a salt mine ;-)

[naomi24]

Zabadak, //Luke was a Greek doctor and at least amateur historian. But of course he doesn't count because he's in the book! //

They're all in the book - but it doesn't follow that what the book says is right.

[Zabadak]

My point is made carefully to answer Ratter's question and counter the original claim that "....Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar (sic)....his name never appears in a single inscription, and is never found in a single piece of private correspondence". I make no claim for the veracity or otherwise of the material, and the flip "he doesn't count" is there for the benefit of those who discount material just because it's "in the book".

[bibblebub]

he was the L Ron Hubbard of his day, if he existed at all

[Zabadak]

Maybe Bibblebub, but irrelevant to this discussion.

[naomi24]

Zabadak, although not an eyewitness, and therefore necessarily working purely on hearsay, if Luke did indeed write the Gospel that bears that name, as a companion of Paul he had an agenda and like any other character in the saga cannot be considered a trustworthy historian.

[Zabadak]

Of course, I'm not saying he was "a trustworthy historian", just "a (Greek, amateur) historian. Is there such a thing as a historian without an agenda? Was Julius, in De Bello Gallico? Most definitely a character in the saga and writing with a victor's agenda, but a major contributor to our understanding of the period.
The case being put forward is "Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek historian". A single example, no matter how biased, creative or partisan, refutes the claim. Let's have some objectivity here. Dr Bart Ehrman is just being provocative, though I don't know from the material available, what his agenda may be.

[Zabadak]

H'm. Actually he's quite interesting, managing to annoy just about everyone in the field. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman for some idea