Hmm you serious if so pm me th elink to your data on this so i can read on it and comment on it.

But for me JEsus was cruified, did marry Mary MAgdelin and this for me is the secret the church has hidden from us, why? because they want Jesus as a pure man why you think he always is picture in WHITE not colors?
Because white is a pure color and if he had of married Mary magdelin he wouldn't of been this role model.

Hopefully I haven't jumped into an old thread. I apreciated Irish's responce as it seemed to have the most consise evidence for the topic being discussed. The upside down cross is a mockery of the crusifiction.

I think mocking something like the crusifiction says a lot about the person's heart. Wether or not you are a believer, Jesus was still a representation of man who would stand up for the whore and the murder, he gave hope to the hopeless and happyness to the sad. He also stands against the rule of man, and the persuit of wealth. This was in a direct oposition of the ruling romans, who then took his teachings and warped it into catholisim.

i still don't understand why some of you still beliving this foolish cover-ups. THE JESUS CRUCIFIXION IS A FRAUD!

Hardcore statement.

Facts?

Here we go again

Outside of the Christian Bible there is very little evidence that Jesus existed.

That aside I agree that it was a "Hardcore statement".

You don't have to look directly at sources pointing to the exact stories derived from the bible, there are specific historical facts that could explain why the bible is really the biggest piece of evidence there is.

Notice that around the time of 70 A.D. the Roman and Palestines had slaughtered, torched, and destroyed both the cities of Jerusalem and Israel, also notice that most of what was written on Christ and the disciples was kept in these cities for safe keeping, yet if Jesus was a revolutionary, wouldn't the Romans find it a bit unsettling if word got out? It's very possible they went through the cities and destroyed the records that could have spread fame across the globe, to prevent any trace of this man they knew from getting out and exposing it's secrets to the world, but in order to do that, you would have to get rid of everyone no? Notice that the area Jesus preached in along with his disciples is in a small backwater corner near the area of Jerusalem, therefore the greatest hardcore facts would be found around that area, but if the Romans knew this, they would want this whole thing about this great "revolutionary" to stay down without word getting out to others, if you think about it, it makes perfect sense.

Ah yes the old "if it is in the Bible than it must have happened" logic......using the Bible to prove the Bible.

If you payed attention I didn't quote the scripture, and I didn't use the bible to back that statement up at all, it's a fact that the Romans killed many in Jerusalem around the time of 70 A.D.! How do you explain that there are only a few written accounts of Jesus out of many other disciples? Simple, most likely they where slaughtered and their records destroyed, to "shut them up."

Again however, you probably looked at the first paragraph of what I said, and then turned it into me quoting scripture to prove scripture, your so insightful

But you see, you are operating under the assumption that Jesus was a popular, powerful revolutionary and that the mighty Roman empire needed to sweep the land to wipe out evidence of him. Funny that they allowed christian temples in their own empire...and allowed the circulation of the bible but wiped out everything else. Hmm...

If Jesus did exist (which I believe he did) than he was a rural, rabbinical zealot and not important enough for Rome to worry about.

Credit Paul of Tarsus with the myths of the crucifixion, the roman persecution of Christianity and the divinity of Jesus.

I would love to see a legitimate historically proven report.

Who's to say jesus never sinned? The main history you have on him is..

...
...

THE BIBLE.

So that's only true if you believe in the bible. Which was written by people. We can't confirm that all the writings were written when they supposedly were, we can't just look to our textbooks of what happened in that time. You're arguing a person's written opinion with a person's written opinion right now. Honestly, the bible is not that amazing of a book. It repeats many things many times, it reads like fiction, because these people just magically know exactly what's going on in the world, exactly what people say to each other... That's rubbish.

You act angered over his post but the average christian today could not even tell you the difference between paul and saul. They argue for their so called religion yet have no idea what their religion even is.

It doesn't matter.. you're still playing with what-ifs here. How do you know that they had "slaughtered, torched, and destroyed both the cities of jerusalem and israel"? I'd bet money that you got that from the bible. Guess what.. Aragorn led his armies to victory over gondor in the third age of middle earth! It's true it's true!

Think of the telephone game. By the time you go through 20 people, "The cat was brown and fast" can become "the boy's brown hat didn't last" etc. etc. So you expect to have a perfectly accurate bible thousands of years later, when we can't confirm that it was even written in these times?

You're trusting a book that claims the first man was jsut put on earth by a thing whos always been in nothingness, the first woman was created from his rib, She got the whole human race banned from paradise because she ate an apple after a snake told her to, they had 3 sons, one of them killed another, and somehow they went on to reproduce to create our race!? It never does explain how 2 males end up reproducing in the bible...

The bible is just as crazy as any fantasy book. Christians just justify that by saying it's the word of some god, even though it was written by man.