> 2. That Chrsit lived but salient books of the NT have been
> maliciously left out by the Pope and his descendants.
> 3. That Christ did live and fathered a brood of children
> with Mary...
> 4. Christ did not live and there there is no evidence of him
> having lived and that the Jesus story is based on
> pre-existing pagan traditions.
No. 4 is the correct one.
> The negative analogy I created because I would question the
> motives of the writers (by that I mean published writers) of
> the anti-Christian propaganda.
My motives are to dispel Christian propaganda.
> Further I was also suggesting
> that people who do hold to such ideas harbour a grudge
> against the Christain faith or in some way have come to hate
> the Christain faith.
... or have a hankering after truth.
> Further, I was asking people on this those who
> would discuss the ideas of such writers to ask themselves how
> much they know of their own Christin traditions . I
> sometimes get the impression that their knowledge is based on
> the anti-Christain texts and not on the teaching of the Bible
> or any Christian Church.
I know plenty about the Christian tradition. More than you think...
> I was specifically refering to the writers who
> spend time creating the anti-Christian propaganda.
Such as me? Personally I don't find the "paedophile on heat" remark as offensive to myself, but I can understand how others might. I take it as evidence of your strong emotion in this argument. However, it tells me that the argument is not going to be very productive.
> My post was deliberately provocative. But in no way should
> it have been read as an attack on any other religion.
Yes, it was provocative, which is OK up to a point. However, you seem to be inferring that you meant to attack us non-Christian posters. Perhaps you should think about attacking our arguments instead of us as people. Remember, "hate the sin, not the sinner."