History is a fabrication. The winners write the books. However, bear in mind that thousands of early believers in someone named Jesus Christ (use the name you prefer) martyred themselves rather than renounce their faith. The martyrs endured some heavy shit: scourgings, racks, slow broiling, being burned alive, being eaten alive by animals, beheadings, other forms of torture. This occurred in the city of Rome under various Roman leaders. It also occurred about 150-300 years after the death of someone known as Jesus Christ, the individual who started the Christian movement. The historical evidence for this is clear. The divinity of Jesus was determined at the 325 CE Council of Nicea (attended by 300 Bishops from various churches AND Constantine). Constantine did not convert to Christianity until he was near his death--he also, if we can trust the coinage of the time, kept the Sun god on his coins as well as the Cross. No doubt walking both sides of the street. That said, many Bishops wrote him letters AFTER the vote that established the divinity of Christ saying that they felt pressured. DOH! The First Council of 325 established that Jesus was the same as God. Thus we have the beginning of the 'mystery of faith' as espoused by the Catholic Church. There has, as you know, been a split between the Eastern and Western Church. Also, the split that took place when the land of the Angles broke with the Church (Old 'enry VIII) further divided the Catholic Church and the authority of Rome (Vatican). What the various churches have done seems to have little to do with Jesus. That continues to be a problem.

To suggest that Jesus did not exist is foolish, because too much speaks for his existence. Maybe what is at task is the 'nature' of the 'man' who came to mean so much to so many. I do not belong to any religion, and I too have articles of faith that I question. The Crucifixion seems to have been well planned and enacted just as it was foretold in the Old Testament. No surprise there.

As someone noted above, the 'sign', "King of the Jews" is interpreted as either a slur or a truth. He may have been the 'rightful' temporal king. The messiahship is another issue. Claiming to be a Messiah is not a crime in Judaism--never was. But challenging the temporal authority of the Sanhedrin certainly was. The 'historical' Jesus did that.

And for now, a great day to everyone.