Religion doesn't need evidence

[Arkilogue]

I don't know how people got it so ass backwards...  He was murdered for his faith.

Murder implies that a) there was an actual Jesus, and b) what the story tells us about him is actually true.

Now we know that b) is false because for the offence he was supposedly killed for according to the bible, crucifiction isn't the proscribed punsihment. Crucifiction was a punishment under Roman law reserved for traitors or rebels against Rome. Jesus in the bible was a subject of the Iudaean crown, and convicted under sanhedric (jewish religious) law, which mandated that either he be hanged or stoned. And as Iudaea was a client state of Rome and not part of Rome proper, the Roman authorities wouldn't have stepped in to impose their death penalty on local law which proscribed a different death penalty.

Well that's something I haven't seen. Thanks!