And yes, to make it clear. You call us itnelectually lazy for not doing research. And then, the "evidence" you put forward, is writings from the book that we are arguing is lying about it. Or, to put it more generically, you are using a book as the sole reference to say that what the book says is true. That means you transcend the bounds of normal discourse. That means you are an idiot.
And worse, from the tone of your postings, you are a pompous idiot. The hilarious part is when you compared those of us who seek proof of what a book says to KKK people, unable to be convinced despite any "proof"; when all the "proof" you have is the selfsame work of fiction. There's absolutely no historical reference to this "Jesus" person. A letter written by a Christian later _is not proof_.
If there was a heretic that presented such a threat to the Roman Empire, someone would have mentioned this sort of thing. As it was they crucified a whole PACK of Messiahs during the few hundred years around then. Problem is none of them were named "Jesus", and most of them didn't die before the end of the first day. The ACTUAL POINT of a crucifixion is that you get to suffer for days and days, thinking of what you did wrong. Even IF this Jesus person WERE crucified, odds are he wasn't whipped as much as Mel Gibson wants you to think he is. That's not the kind of torture Romans actually historically DID. Oh yeah and people were hung up on single beams. The crossforms stopped about two hundred years earlier and started again about a hundred years later.. Plus, again, they kept records about this. The Romans were downright anal about this sort of thing. They were pompous (like you) and thought that all of the world should behold their glory (like your religion), so there shoulda been SOME mention SOMEWHERE.
There's near to zero evidence that this book is telling the truth. There's overwhelming evidence that there's so many holes in the book's story that it was likely written later by people who had no idea what life was actually like back then. Oh and there IS historical proof that this was true, and furthermore, they VOTED on which books to include in the "New Testament". See, Emperor Constantine? A Christian Roman Emperor? Yeah he kept explicit records. It's how we know about the Councils of Nicea and Trent.
See, your dissenters have the overwhelming forces of actual verifiable history to prove actual verifiable history. What do you have as proof of the Bible's "actual verifiable history"? Stuff written in the Bible.
Who is "unable to accept proof"?
