text: how did a "myth" change the world as we know it? several writers have suggested that "jesus did not exist"...that the christian faith is mere invention. this silly notion has absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever. even secular sources (such as the roman historian tacitus) acknowledge the early christian faith. nero persecuted/killed hundreds of christians around 64 ad. domitian did the same at the close of the 1st century. did these people die for a "myth".  if the historical account of christ could be so easily disproved...why wasn't that done?  the fact is, no one challenged the historical record of christ...they only disagreed with who he said he was. 1fooln6billion:what proof do you have that there was a jesus who was called king of the jews?  kepha: it’s been recorded by several eyewitnesses that pontius pilate ordered a sign be put on the cross, “king of the jews”, and i mean by more than just what’s in the bible.   1fooln6billion: what writings have been found before 150 years after the supposed fact?  kepha: the gospels were generally accepted as scripture by 130 ad.  people don’t die over a myth or story, they die because they were transformed and refused to break their fidelity with god by giving homage to roman gods. an atheist is blind to such things.   1fooln6billion: and to answer your initial question, the myth caused the dark ages, where people were kept, by their religious authorities, from being literate,   kepha: this is a flat out falsehood. universities were built all over europe in the middle ages, and before the protestant revolt, even the poor could attend without charge. and just where do you think the “religious authorities” got their education? or were they illiterate too? duh,  hello???   1fooln6billion: especially from reading the bible,   kepha: this is another big fat lie.  did the catholic church try to keep the bible from the laity? http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/adventism/bible.htm  it’s a lot of reading, so scroll to the last 1/3 of the page to get what you want.  bible  reading  prohibited  ? http://members.aol.com/johnprh/latinbible.html this one is not too long.  you will find out about king henry 8 who decreed that all catholic bibles were to be destroyed.  so a protestant king orders bibles destroyed, and we are accused of not reading it! duh! hello?  http://members.tripod.com/~frjoe/bigot6.htm i really like this one.  i’m keeping it in my files.  the  catholic  church:  on  reading  the   bible http://members.aol.com/johnprh/reading.html proof of the church teaching to read the bible.  lots of it.   1fooln6billion: which they were constantly editing for their own goals.  who, exactly? name the goals. painstaking efforts were made to preserve the bible translated from the original greek and hebrew. st. jerome was fluent in both.   1fooln6billion: the dark ages started with emperor constantine,   kepha: according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/dark_ages, the “dark ages” didn’t start until constantine was rotting in the ground for 100 years.     1fooln6billion: who liked the idea of being able to absolve all of his sins, and especially liked the idea of claiming that he was ordained under the one and only all-powerful god, making everything that he did anyway "god's will."  kepha: constantine did no such thing, and you have not a shred of proof. constantine was never a priest or bishop, and did not have any church authority at the council of nicae, (or anywhere else) which took place 12 years after his famous “edict of milan”, which was nothing more than a removal of persecuting laws still on the books. you are in serious revision mode.   1fooln6billion: then it caused the inquisitions, killing more people in a short period than just about anything else thus far, where jews were required to at least say that jesus was an historical person if not the messiah.  kepha: i dare you to document this hogwash. reliable non-catholic historians don’t buy into that post-reformist rhetoric. here is my proof, but i know you will never read it:  the modern historiography of the inquisition, most of it by non-catholic historians, has resulted in a careful, relatively precise, and on the whole rather moderate image of the institution, some of the most important works being: edward peters, inquisition; paul f. grendler, the roman inquisition and the venetian press; john tedeschi, the prosecution of heresy; and henry kamen, the spanish inquisition.  some of their conclusions are: http://www.catholic.net/rcc/periodicals/dossier/1112-96/column1.html  i dare ya. 