Ok, I haven't even gotten past the 2nd paragraph, but...

"I'm not talking about silver crosses like the Catholics wear, bearing a
beaten Jesus still hanging upon the cross. (get over it guys, He rose
from the grave and is in Heaven already!)"

Seriously?  You want to start off by offending the Roman Catholics in your readership (not to mention other denominations who have crucifixes) who love God?  Why did you do this?  "Get over it"?  Get over the death of Jesus?  Seriously? 

But I agree with your view of Christ.  Just not slamming people who have crucifixes with such a shallow thing to say at the beginning.  "Get over it" is such a rude phrase to say to any other human being. 

Two things.

-Good points with Jesus.

-Would that high horse of yours like a carrot?

Amen. Thanks for this post, brother...

Adding here, I think the crucifix does have some value...Sometimes we as Protestants forget the suffering and shame Christ underwent for our salvation and we cheapen grace. We can't ever forget what our salvation cost our Savior. We are to preach Christ and Him crucified after all...yet also to remember on the third day He rose again and is now ascended into heaven and then sent His Holy Spirit to us...

that's history

Man o man was that post ordained of God Himself or what? Timely message indeed

@JulieMillerFan@xanga - // the representation of Christ by the
Catholics: Perpetual sacrifice via the Mass (because "It is Finished"
obviously didn't mean just that), broken bloody & bleeding on the
cross (when he's risen and reigning)//

You could ask St. Paul the same question when he refers to Christ as "Crucified" in 1 Cor. 1:23, or in 1 Cor. 2:2 - don't you think St. Paul, of all people, would know that Christ has already risen? Of course he does! So why does St. Paul refer to Christ as "Crucified"? Because he is highlighting a specific aspect of the nature of Christ's sacrifice - the crucifixion is highlighted to point out how much love Christ had for us that He was willing to put Himself upon the Cross. This is the same reasoning we use to support the use of the crucifix - we Catholics know that Christ has Risen from the dead - but His actions on Earth are physical representations of the results of a spiritual war that happened when Christ conquered the devil. Christ's sacrifice is regarded as a sacrament - an outside, physical symbol (Christ dying on the cross) that represents a spiritual change (Christ conquering death and sin). To imply that Catholics don't know Christ has risen by using the crucifix is intellectually dishonest at best.

//Submission to his Mother Mary in all things
heavenly and earthly (Cause Mary is Co-redemptrix with Christ --- yeah,
right, since when?)  is dead wrong.//

On what basis do you say it's "dead wrong"? As for historicity - have a chat with the ECF Irenaeus (causa salutis, anyone?).

//Charles Spurgeon called Roman Catholicism
the greatest false religion known to man, and Martin Luther didn't just
say the Pope represented the Anti-Christ, but that he WAS the
Anti-Christ.  //

Oh, that's right, since THEY say so, it must be TRUE, right? *dripping with sarcasm*

//By assuming papal infallability, he assumes the place of God.//

Do you know what constitutes as papal infallibility?

//Mary was a created being, a sinner like the
rest of us, and just because the Pope calls her "Immaculate" (RE:
Sinless --- Being born without sin so she could have a sinless child)
does not MAKE it so.//

So then can you explain why it's wrong?

//"IS YOUR JESUS REAL?"  Point made.//

Besides revealing your ignorance of Catholic beliefs, you have yet to make the point regarding Catholics here.

@ShamelesslyRed@xanga - Maybe to you.  But we don't all get riled by the same things, do we?

I do believe in Jesus, but I also believe in the facts as history presents them. The Jesus I represent was no more than a humble man who made his living through honest manual labor. He started his life in the slums, being nothing more than a hand worker, and continued to live his life in this manner taking nothing for himself but giving everything to everyone. His underlying attributes, the very truth of his existence, however, is the very thing that made his deeds that much greater. He was a direct descendant, as one could quote from Matthew, of King David and Priest Aaron. Two of the most powerful figures in Jewish history aside from Abraham, Issac, Noach, Adam, and Eve. He was the rightful heir to the throne of Jerusalem and having the blood of a priest carried immense power. King Herod didn't care for it, which is why he was persecuted in the beginning.
At the age of 12, he disappears from Biblical lore only to reappear later as a fully grown man whose wisdom surpassed that of the temple priest. He continued to practice the old ways but saw how frugal they were. He began to see that setting rules and regulations without an actual purpose was a bit wrong.
Now, in the years of his absence, as gathered from the ideals he taught, one could venture a guess that he traveled east and met with the peaceful buddhist monks. There he picked up new ideas and incorporated them into his own beliefs from his culture.
Upon returning, he gathered unto him followers. 12 disciples who he would teach directly. From there, he would then head out and begin aiding the world, or at least his own people. The Jews had fallen into disparity. King Herod, his son, and the mighty Roman empire ruled with an iron clad fist. Their families had been laid waste to and nailed to crosses all along the path to Jerusalem. The people were even fearful to continue practicing the old ways and only did so in the cover of their homes. And here this man was, Jesus of Nazareth preaching a new way of approaching God. Telling them how best to act and to live. Explaining to them in a simple way so that they could understand. And who better to explain than a man who had lived it and still wore the scars on his hands?
Eventually, the more traditional Jews pleaded with the Roman Governor, Pilate. They were tired of his blasphemies. Word spread to Jesus about this and from here the story can go 2 ways. One, we can accept the Church approved version that Judas sought gold as payment to betray Christ, or we can allow for Judas Iscariot's version that he was asked by Christ to betray him. I would think the latter as I'm sure Jesus understood the concept of martyrism. He knew the only way for his teachings to survive was to give the people what they wanted. And so, he was "betrayed", brought to trial, and then hung on a cross.
Jesus, on that day, accepted the consequences of his actions. He gave the people one last lesson. Stand up for what you believe in or die trying. Accept the consequences of your actions, but do not fear them. Now, whether or not he performed miracles or rose on the 3rd day is left all to speculation. As I'm not an expert in matters of mysticism and magic, I can't even begin to verify this. However, I know that upon Jesus's death the church was supposed to have been founded and continued by Mary, Jesus' wife. Not Peter. This alone would have made a significant difference history-wise. Mary knew everything Jesus knew and was wholly devout in continuing in his footsteps. Peter, on the other hand, took advantage of his position of power, stole the glory from Mary, sought to begin a chain of persecution against women, and founded a church that mixed Judaic law with his own ideas of a new foundation for religion. Catholicism is a blasphemous organization to God and to the memory of Jesus. Their edicts, their laws, their councils held since the first council of Nycea have all been an attempt to subvert and control the massed. The very image of Christ has been skewed to fit their needs and his very ideas have practically been lost to the annals of history. And the madness doesn't end there because the Protestants, blind to the truth, have continued the very basic ideals of Catholics and so this defunct and false Christian religion has spread all about the face of the Earth.
This, is as much as I know to be true. Anyone can choose to dispute the facts as presented, but it was Peter who said he was the one who the church was to be founded on, not Christ. And even in the Gospel of Peter, he admits to being jealous of Mary because she was so close to Christ.
I thus leave you with this tiny conundrum: Were the church established by Mary and not Peter, in what way would the world be different today?

Let's tear down your argument against Catholicism point by point.

"the representation of Christ by the
Catholics: Perpetual sacrifice via the Mass (because "It is Finished"
obviously didn't mean just that), broken bloody & bleeding on the
cross (when he's risen and reigning),"

Does "Do this in memory of me" ring a bell?

Catholic Churches do (or should) have the crucifix dead in the center of the back of the church for everyone to see that Christ came to earth to die for our sins. At the foot of the cross is the tabernacle, which contains the bread and wine that will become Jesus' Body and Blood, not just a mere symbol. This placement shows that "Christ HAS died. Christ IS risen, and Christ WILL come again." Christ comes to earth in the humble form of bread and wine millions of times at every Catholic mass every day. The Eucharist isn't the focal point of the Mass for anything! 

 "Submission to his Mother Mary in
all things heavenly and earthly (Cause Mary is Co-redemptrix with
Christ --- yeah, right, since when?)  is dead wrong.  Sorry, but the
truth is that greater men than I have pointed this out.  (

called

the greatest false religion known to man,"

Jesus never refused Mary anything she asked of HIm. (See Wedding of Canna.) He was obedient to her because, well, she is His Mother, and Jesus was obedient to God's Word. "Honor your father and mother."

Charles Spurgeon was the greatest liar know to man other than Satan himself if he's going to talk like that.

" and

didn't just say the Pope represented

, but that he WAS

. 
By assuming papal infallability, he assumes the place of God.)"

Do you really think that if the pope was the Anti-Christ, God would have let it last over two thousand years?

Matthew 16:18-19

"And so I say to you, you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

-Peter is the only disciple to receive the key to heaven.

-If Jesus didn't intend to build His church on Peter, why did Jesus call him "rock" and change his name? The only time Jesus changed anyone's name was to signify a change in vocation.

-Peter is first in every listing of the Twelve Apostles, even though he wasn't the first called.

-Peter is the only apostle to be ordered by Jesus to feed His lambs and tend his sheep. John 21:15-17.

-Peter is the only apostle that Jesus personally prayed for his own faith to not fail and Jesus tells him to strengthen his brothers. Luke 22:31-32

-Peter acted as spokesman for the apostles countless times in Acts.

-There is an unbroken line of popes since St. Peter

-The pope has never made a decree that contradicted Sacred Scripture or Tradition.

Even if the pope isn't infallible, Jesus instructed us to be obedient to authority, and the pope is in a position of authority.

"Mary
was a created being, a sinner like the rest of us, and just because the
Pope calls her "

"
(RE: Sinless --- Being born without sin so she could have a sinless
child) does not MAKE it so.  "IS YOUR JESUS REAL?"  Point made."

How else could Mary give birth to a sinful child if she was not sinless herself? Would you place Jesus in a filthy bed? I think not!

I never read past your second paragraph. Cutting down your readers is no way to get the message across.

It may be understood from the digs at Catholicism that the OP is Protestant.  If Protestants know who the "Real Jesus" is why are there tens of thousands of Protestant sects?  Which of all these sects knows which one is the "Real Jesus".

If Protestants really knew who the "Real Jesus" was there would only be one Protestant sect.  But alas, this is not the case. 

Jesus demanded unity in his Church.  Yet, by its very nature Protestantism is divisive.  How can any honest person call themself a follower of Christ and yet believe in doctrines that by their nature breed endless division, (which goes against the Gospel teachings of Christ)?

All other doctrinal differences aside, the fact that Protestantism is by nature divisive, invalidates it as a way to know the "Real Jesus".  For the real Jesus preached unity.

Simple reason informs us that in order to claim discipleship one must follow the teachings of the master.  Consequently, if the master demands unity but the disciple goes out and preaches doctrines that bring disunity, then the disciple preaches his own doctrine, not the doctrine of the master.

this post lost all credibility after the attack on Catholicism.  i'd like to turn your own question back around on you: is YOUR Jesus---the Jesus who apparently is fine with Christians speaking that way to each other---real?  if so, it's no surprise that people would want to try to make him appear more loving.