I was watching CNN last night and heard of this person who now wants to take the Existence of Christ to Court in France (liken to Madonna, and Tom Hanks who have recently put their careers up front for a few bucks to slam Christ), and this man I do not wish to get into naming him, and give him free publicity, is bend on his quest.

I guess it comes to mind, as I think about this, if he gets the courts to denounce the existence of Christ, what then? I mean what is the criteria to prove the existence of anyone. Let me explain my position here, which is rather simple: There is more written proof, on the existence of Christ, than Alexander the Great, or the battle of Troy, and Homer, if we are looking at written proof. It is documented in the annuals of Rome, and in the historical books of Israel and Islam. If Christ did not exist we might just as well swallow up the other two religions at the same time (and let us throw Buddha in that category also, for there is no real proof of his existence either), who can prove Mohammed existed, or Moses, or Abraham.

Let's drop them all in the sewer of: they never was. How about George Washington, we got paintings of him, but no photos, and only written proof. So the only thing that existed is what we got photos from. This guy is a freeloader trying to get his name out so he can make a million or two, I would not give him the time of day in the court room, unless the court is antiChrist and it stops there. In closing this little article, I doubt this man would believe his eyes even if Christ came down and tapped him on the shoulders.

See Dennis' web site: http://dennissiluk.tripod.com