I see a lot of attention was payed to ideals and theory, and yet a simple paragraph toward the statistics of your own compiled data. It would seem responsible of you to crunch your own numbers and not provide such a dismissive generalization i.e. "numbers pot". Is it because you are ignorant to how odds are calculated? You can't both herald Prof. Baukham's data showing how common the names are as if this proves they are equally common when calculating their occurrence in one place at one time, then throw dirt on the accuracy of said numbers by implying that variants disallow factual conclusions within said compiled data.

Why even commit to Prof. Baukham's compiled data to try to prove a point, when you have no interest in trusting the data? Makes a lot of sense.

Furthermore, your analogy is flawed. It's more like finding a john who's married to a susan, then of those combinations, finding a Tom who is john's father, then of those combinations, finding a Tina who is Tom's wife, and so on. All of a sudden, common names are put in an uncommon situation and easily identifiable.

You don't need a "numbers pot" to understand this rudimentary logic. A Yellow Pages in New York City, the 6 most common names in New York and any specific relation would prove this simple logic beyond a shadow of a doubt, feel free to have a go at it.

I also find it interesting that you use the scriptures verbatim to prove contradiction in the theories, when the existence of Jesus' bones calls into question the validity of these scriptures. You must first assume that this is not Jesus in order to use this defense, thus making your whole essay subjective, tainted, and completely impotent. It holds zero objectivity and relies on itself as proof to its own validity. Poor form indeed.