The regular bouts of pouting and finger stabbing haven't shed much, if any, light on the online debates between Jesus "historicists" and "mythicists." You get the feeling that nobody is much listening to the case made from the opposite benches.
So the current discussion involving James McGrath and Tom Verenna is a welcome change. It involves the oft heard assertion that the existence of Julius Caesar is as problematic as Jesus' (and who doubts Big Julie once strode across the paving stones of Rome?)
Verenna and McGrath have the capacity to engage on this issue without ill will, polemic and ad hominem spats. That means we all might be able to actually consider the qualities of the arguments tendered. It's good to see that Tom has already flushed the excesses of Archarya S., while James has taken on board Tom's doubts about the appropriateness of the Caesar comparison.
To follow the posts in order, thus far: