So these historians, whose books are mostly lost, and who often merely copied the claims of those they read, are more relevant to the actuality of Jesus' existence than the Bible itself? Why is it that Christians even defend the existence of Jesus by referencing Roman historians? Now, these 'Christian interpolations'... these were from other writers after these two who amended their works?

OK. How do you get him back?

My point here is, many feel, or trust that he existed, whatever manual is referenced to prove his existence. But what I am asking is, do you require the same body? How shall Christians achieve such?

Also, let me delve into the aspects of the Kabbalah's two side pillars. On one most easily seen level, one is called Severity, and one Mercy. Does the pillar of severity transfer its severity to the pillar of mercy? Is that polarity the same as evil and good? Does that mean that Christians should do more evil so that there is a stronger good? I think this is ridiculous. It's still dualistic, it is not the truth of the Tree of Life nor the Kabbalah, and it puts one person as thee ultimate good while everyone else can be expected to perform as evil as they feel inclined to so that this good becomes more good. It's utter nonsense.