I see no good evidence, there or anywhere else, that Jesus actually existed in the first place. That's not to say he definitely didn't, but there's just no accounts of his existence until well after he was supposed to have died. In one of the most thoroughly documented regions of one of the most thoroughly documented periods of Roman history, none of the local historians took note of this messiah who was performing grand miracles that were converting people by the thousands? I just don't buy that. That's not to say the Jesus story is absolutely positively not based on a real person, but it just looks so much like mythology that it seems rather improbable that anyone named Jesus led a life like the one described in the Gospels (which Biblical scholars agree were written at least 40 years after Jesus' alleged death date). The historical evidence just isn't there. None of the many many historians documenting first-century Judaean history made a single mention of him. How can that be if he was the real deal?

Besides, the Christ story bears so much resemblance to other pagan myths of the time that it just isn't funny. Most Christians don't know about those other pagan mythologies that were thriving in the Roman Empire around that time, and for good reason. If their pastors went into any detail about them, they would notice some eerie similarities. Similarities which, according to a long-standing official Catholic dogma, were planted there by Satan in an attempt to fool us into thinking Christianity isn't true. I don't buy that either.