To Mauz15, thank you for your compliments. However, you make the argument that Mel Gibson had the movie putting stakes through the hands of Jesus and not the wrists of Jesus. Yes, I stand by the statement that Mel Gibson used so much blood because he was trying to stay historically accurate... but the semantics of if the nails were in the hands or the wrists really holds no relevance other than a simple mistake, if it is that, due to the fact that if I put a stake in your hand OR your wrist... you will still bleed copiously from both.

Benjee writes "The bible is the only documentated proof that Jesus existed - this book has been disproven by archeology and other sciences (the only historical accuracy it contains is on the 3rd page: King James edition). There's a larger readership of the IKEA catalogue throughout the world than bible readers - what the IKEA customers read is actually more factual than the Christians' book (and most of that is made-up Swedish words!) Just because its readers believe it's true, doesn't make it any more real."

Well, I have your sources of proof.

Gnostic texts

Gnostic texts date to the mid second century at the earliest, and show a lack of attention to history, generally avoiding the standard historical narrative in favour of sayings framed in the structure of a private, and often secret revelation, and therefore emphasize allegory. The Gnostics' opinion of Jesus varied from viewing him as docetic to completely metaphorical, in all cases treating him as someone to allegorically attribute gnostic teachings to, his resurrection being regarded an allegory for enlightenment, in which all can take part. Nonetheless, some scholars consider these texts valuable as they were generally not subject to the influences of Christian orthodoxy.

Early Church fathers

The early church fathers, such as Papias, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Eusebius and Jerome, wrote of Jesus. Papias preferred to rely on surviving witnesses who had known one of the twelve disciples, rather than what had been written in books. (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3-4)

Flavius Josephus

(c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93. In it Jesus is mentioned twice, notably in the Testimonium Flavianum, found in Antiquities 18:3.3:

About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day. Josephus later, in chapter 20:9.1, refers to the trial and execution of James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." This is considered by the majority of scholars to be authentic.

Pliny the Younger

Pliny the Younger, the provincial governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan c. 112 concerning how to deal with Christians, who refused to worship the emperor, and instead worshiped "Christus".Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ—none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do—these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

Tacitus

Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117) wrote a paragraph in the Annals on the subject of Christianity and possibly Christ in 116. In describing Nero's persecution of Christians following the Great Fire of Rome c. 64, Tacitus stated that this group, originating from Judaea, derived its name from "Christus/Chrestus", who "suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius [14-37] at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate"[19][20] Tacitus, in keeping with the Imperial edicts concerning Christianity, described it as a "most mischievous superstition" and "evil".[21] Some note that this makes it improbable that the text was interpolated by later Christians.

Tacitus simply refers to "Chrestus", a possible misspelling of "Christus", the Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah", rather than the name "Jesus", and he refers to Pontius Pilate as a "procurator", a specific post that differs from the one that the Gospels imply that he held—prefect or governor. In this instance the Gospel account is supported by archaeology, since a surviving inscription states that Pilate was prefect.It is also possible that Pilate held both offices, which was common.

Some scholars suggest that Tacitus is merely describing Christian beliefs that were uncontroversial (i.e., that a cult leader was put to death), and that Tacitus thus had no reason not to assume as fact, even without any evidence beyond that spiritual belief. Theologian Karl Adam, argues that, as an enemy of the Christians and as a historian, Tacitus would have investigated the claim about Jesus' execution before writing it.

Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman summarized the historical importance of this passage:

"Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign. We learn nothing, however, about the reason for this execution, or about Jesus' life and teachings."[22]

Others

Although Celsus, a late second-century critic of Christianity, accused Jesus of being a bastard child and a sorcerer, he never questions Jesus' historicity even though he hated Christianity and Jesus.[23] He is quoted as saying that Jesus was a "mere man".[24] Furthermore, there is a passage of debatable significance by Lucian of Samosata, which credits Jesus as the founder of Christianity.[25]

Consequently, scholars like Sanders, Geza Vermes, John P. Meier, David Flusser, James H. Charlesworth, Raymond E. Brown, Paula Fredriksen and John Dominic Crossan argue that, although many readers are accustomed to thinking of Jesus solely as a theological figure whose existence is a matter only of religious debate, the four canonical Gospel accounts are based on source documents written within decades of Jesus' lifetime, and therefore provide a basis for the study of the "historical" Jesus. These historians also draw on other historical sources and archaeological evidence to reconstruct the life of Jesus in his historical and cultural context.

Many scholars, such as Michael Grant, do not see significant similarity between the non-Abrahamic myths and Christianity. Grant states in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels that "Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of the deaths and rebirths of mythical gods seemed so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a FABRICATION from its midst is very hard to credit."

Benjee also writes "P.S: Taking things out of context? Surely, the bible is taken out of context with its millenia's of 'translations' or 'editions' and without the rest of the removed sections...E.G: Dead Sea Scrolls anyone? in your own words, DirtyWildkat: 'The Bible has to be taken as a whole work, not just one book or verse' And don't even get me started on the anti-semitic inclusion of The Crucifiction by the church a few hundred years ago. Surely, if the bible is the true word of god, then the entirety of it must be true and followed 'religously'...therefore editing it must be the ultimate blasphemous act!? "

The problem with this statement about translations and what not are that we have original documents to TRANSLATE from. Yes, over the years as our knowledge of these ancient languages developed some words or phrases have changed, but scholars have basically come to an agreement now. Learn greek, as I had to in school, and read the greek New Testament for yourself, or learn hebrew and read the Old Testament. The meaning is there. And when I said the Bible has to be taken as a whole book to be in context, I think you misinterpreted my meaning. I am arguing that the Bible is a progressive work telling the story of a God and his people and their development over millenia of time that is written by men. Are there certain to be small spelling errors in Hebrew and Greek that get translated incorrectly? Yes,HUMANS WROTE THE ACCOUNTS, there will be minor errors but the message still stays the same, the basic meaning does not shift.

You also mention the Crucifixtion as something added by anti-semites later... since when? I've already given writings by non Christian ancient historians that record Jesus as being crucified.