The True Identity of Jesus

Why would they?

I don't know, Because he ***ing healed the blind? What more reason do you need?

You have a hard time with conseptual ideas larger than Taco Bell vs. McDonalds dont you.

But because I seem to be the only one posting with any regularity and I'm bored I'll enumerate them more concisely.

Oh and thanks for ignoring the rest of the content of the post. I can see you have an great inability to reply a multitude of topics.

1. The ministry of Jesus lasted a very short time and was in geographically small area. (sorry he wasn' Rome where there might have been a few more people watching)
2. Any written documents would have been put down on the worst possible material for long term preservation. (papyrus, doesn't hold up to time very well)
3. Most people saw him as a criminal or a magician, a wise man at most. (my bad there aren't any records of any criminal, magician or wise man from that time period)
4. A vast majority of those that would have seen his works couldn't write in the first place (maybe they could have drawn a picture)
5. Textual criticism of the Gospels leads most to believe that they were based on older, less detailed documents that have since been lost (which would then logically follow that someone had written something about Jesus closer to this life that what we can date the gospels to.
6. Look at the oldest copies of the Gospels that we do have, finalized and preserved and still they date hundreds of years after we know they existed. (again paper doesn't hold up well to time)

is there something you don't understand about these principals? Do they not make sense to you? Do you have any concept that documents in general from that time from don't exist, government docs, personal doc, Jewish religious docs...none of that exist in any regularity why should documents about someone who wasn't even important until 300 years after his existence have been treated with any extra special care?

Do you actually answer questions or ignore them and pose more babble of your own?

If your grammar and spelling wasn't so horrific, I'd be insulted.

Sticks and stones, my friend.

Considering the significance of performing miracles around a group of very superstitious people, I really don't see any of these as real problems.

Perhaps Jesus wasn't important until after his death because it took that long to make him into a legend. Jesus may have been a real person, he may have even been a real rabbi with a small following and after his death these myths and hyperbolic stories of his life begin to crop up and they begin to grow. His life is the result of exaggerations that snowballed over time which is why no historian thought to take note of him. This I find to be much more likely.

But this all of course, doesn't change the fact that there is no historical record written of him when he was alive. The fact that all these stories only show up hundreds of years after his death should be very telling.

They often say that attacks on grammar are the first signs of a failed argument. Don?t worry I?ve let your spelling errors slide thus far.

While I?m glad it did not overly offend you, I?m a little disappointed it didn?t motivate you into actually making valid claims and intelligent arguments.

Then you?ve just proven yourself to be just an intellectually dishonest troll. I?m sorry I thought you could actually provide a reasoned debate. Self induced ignorance is just pathetic.

So do I, and if you actually read anything I posted, you would have see that. I never once argued for his divinity. Pay attention next time.

Telling of what? He was probably a largely unimportant rabbi who was seen as nothing but a disruptive magician and a criminal by Jewish and Roman authorities?

But again there is no historical written paper record of ANYONE in Judea c. 30ad.

I haven't made any spelling errors since you've joined unless intentional.

Don't be a fool. The only reason you don't think my arguments are valid is because they disagree with yours. And to think by insulting me I would suddenly change my mind is utterly absurd.

Why is that? Excuse me If I believe that if somebody healed the blind there would be some record of it.

Except the absence of a record is less plausible if miracles were performed in front of eyewitnesses. If you don't believe Jesus performed any miracles then we have nothing more to debate.

Telling of the absence of 'said miracles.

Including Jesus. I'm not here to argue if there are good reasons for the absence I am simply stating a fact.

Angry one you aren't ya Grouch? By name by nature I guess

Seems that we both believe in the same thing but have a difference of opinion when it comes to the validity of Mr Christ. I neither believe he ever existed, certainly in the guise of a miracle man and most deffinatley not as the son of a magic man in the sky.

You believe he was an unimportant insignificant Preacher/Rabbi/Rabble Rouser of the day, you may well be correct.

For me the one thing that stands out is that IF Jesus was the son of the creator of the Universe, Galaxy, Solar System and Planet, why is there no bloody eyewitness accounts? This person is supposed to have performed miracles in front of 1000's of people, fed 5000 from a loaf of bread and two fish. Why are there no accounts?

This person is supposed be the single biggest arrival this planet has ever seen, the son of a diety, yet nothing.

This is why I dont believe that a man called Jesus ever existed.

Ahaha ok there, I guess MS word underlined them in red on accident. Whatever it takes though.

The ONLY argument you have made is that, he is the central figure to one of the worlds biggest religions and thus there must be large amounts of written documents about him. That?s an argument naively limited in scope and understanding.

Unfortunately you seem to understand very little about the social importance of Christ prior to the modern era, where exactly he would have ministered, who he ministered too, what the local population considered him to be, the enormous odds against preservation of paper documents, and the lack of documents about people were far more important during the same time frame.

What is that the 3rd time I?ve listed those and not a single attempt to refute or argue against any of them? Just more of you attempting to yell louder so that the other 3 people on the forum might hear you.

Q document? I mentioned it once, you didn?t argue against it. I doubt you even know what it is.

Though one would think that at least one written document from Pilate would have survived, considering the numbers a governor would have been part of.

Eyewitnesses who for the most part would have been illiterate to begin with. Sorry, those pre gospel personal journals of Mary Magdalene hooker friends didn?t survive 2k years. (Yes I know she wasn?t really a hooker that is a catholic literary mistake)

Right, and nothing to the effect that culturally almost no one would have been capable of writing them down anyways.

Is that really your attempt to make an argumentative point? Seriously, you don?t counter anything, you post nothing of merit, nothing that actually contains evidence or even reason to take you seriously.

There are a lot of words that are underlined in red that are not misspelled, especially names and scientific words.

According to whom?

In all reality none of us properly understand any of these things considering the bible is the only first hand account that he even existed.

Perhaps I should repeat my self as you don't seem to grasp this:

"It doesn't matter WHY there is no record, it only matters that there IS no record"

I haven't refuted it because it's irrelevant.

The Q document is entirely theoretical. They happen to find it then maybe I'll change my tune, until then you have no argument.

"It doesn't matter WHY there is no record, it only matters that there IS no record"
"It doesn't matter WHY there is no record, it only matters that there IS no record"
"It doesn't matter WHY there is no record, it only matters that there IS no record"

Evidence for what? What evidence do you propose I provide? I'm making no claims and thus my argument requires no evidence, I'm simply stating a fact. There is no reliable record of Jesus. You can postulate all day long why that is, but it does fail to be true.

ok boss.

YOU! That?s all you have been able to muster in this thread. You refuse to provide anything else or even reasoned debate. You failed miserably here.

Please do me and the forum a favor, one by one, line by line. Provide your argument and evidence/reasoning. You have done none of that and refuse to provide a counter point to anything poster.

No?history has a pretty good grasp that.

And just as I said, that is the extent of your pathetic argument. Yes, ignore all causes and potential explanations. Speaking with all honestly?if you paid for an education and that is the best 4+ years of college had trained you to do. Ask for a refund.

So, explanations as to why there might be no record of Jesus, or anyone from that time period. It?s irrelevant as to why there would be no recorded of Jesus or anyone from that time period. Wow! You?re intellect is truly dizzying.

And yet using standard textual criticism is well supported to have existed. And which you?ve clearly shown yourself to know nothing about.

More intellectual cowardice. Seriously its getting funny at this point. Watching you fail so badly.

Yes, arguing a negative. You win at losing, you?ll never have to provide evidence of anything and you?re so pathetically dogmatic that you?ll stick your head in the sand at any explanation.

You?re stance is that Jesus never existed. You have nothing that supports that statement. You have failed in every way possible. On the other hand we have plenty of evidence that historians, and the populous thought he did and followed his teachings. There is not one recorded dismissal of the cult of Christ, all of history supported and recognized his existence.

Not angry so much as little tolerance for un-intellectual arguments and people who refuse to support their or counter other peoples claims. But yup, the name fits. Lulz



ok


Yes, I believe that a majority of those who would have been exposed to Jesus would have thought of him in the above manner.



Why? For the 5 or 6 reasons I listed. You site once example of a situation where large majority of people might have seen Jesus work. But if you actually read the piece of scripture it comes from there is nothing in the narrative that even imples the Jesus made this act one of public notice. It would be nice to assume he did, but there is nothing in the literary context of it to suggest so. In fact it would suggest the opposite...the people were already separated in groups, away from Jesus and the disciples. They then worked his magic and gave the new found fish and bread to the disciples to give to the people who had come to watch him.

Events like this are huge talking points in the ?why isn?t there more/any proof of Jesus? question. However if you replaced the name Jesus with Bob and read it as a piece of fiction (in coming joke im sure) you would have no textual basis to believe 5000 people saw Bob turn a few pieces of fish and bread into enough that would feed thousands.




I?ve already discussed the textual problems with your belief. Now lets make a comparison.
The Jesus to Alexander the Great comparison in evidence is often made, yes it does have its flaws and some use it over zealously. However there exist great points. Alexander the Great was the single greatest military leader and ruler the world had seen to that point in time. Yet not a single written document by him or any of his followers, soldiers, generals, wives exist. The offspring of a King and God and absolutely nothing insofar as paper documents regarding his existence that are contemporaneous with him.

We know he built cities, we have some stone carving regarding him that are probably pretty close in time to his efforts, but every piece of his story comes from hundreds of years after his death. Why would this be? For almost every reason that documents of Jesus from his life time don?t exist.

It?s a believe you may have, but its honestly not one that stands up to much detailed criticism.

Well my spellchecker underlined your spelling of Naive in the other thread and is right now underlining your spelling of "ok".

You made an unfalsifiable statement, why should I take it as truth?

the burden of proof does not lie with me. You say that there is a record of jesus then You provide such a record.

No there is no history because there is no story, it's entirely absent and you simply ASSUME.

:rollinglaugh:

You have no idea

As I've stated numerous times it doesn't matter WHY there is no record only that there IS no record. I get tired of repeating myself. Maybe I should make a stamp so I can reply to your incessant errs.

It doesn't matter, It's postulated, it's speculation, and it's nothing more. Show me it exists and you'll have an argument. Saying something could exist is different than saying it does.

I can see the desperation.

No my position is that if jesus did exist that there is no historical record of him written while he was alive, if you have one I'd like to see it.

You have the burden of proof, I'm simply arguing against a position so I don't need to provide any evidence. What is asserted without evidence will be dismissed without any. You're on the verge of committing the negative proof fallacy.

Seriously though.

Why would the Pharisees or some other Jewish area of leadership not make one single document in the negative regarding the development of a new Jewish cult based upon a completely imaginary leader.

Can anyone answer that?

My point and I think a valid one. The bible has numerous 'eyewitness' accounts of Mr Christ. Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. Fishermen, Farmers Carpenters and Herders. Amazing that with so many illiterate people of the time, unable read or write, Jesus is able to find 12 souls of working class man that can write.

For some reason nobody else is able to read or write, how lucky was Jesus eh?

I will if you like, take you to a story you may well have heard of. Robin of Locksely, later to be Robin of the Hood. A Man steeped in Legend, but nothing written about him, no manuscripts. Rumour and hear say for the most part is what made the name of Robin hood. A simple story of a Man helping the poor by taking from the rich. Seized upon and used by the people of the day as a beacon of hope for the oppression of the age, stories appear of great deeds and even greater generosity, the people love him, are inspired by him, hope is once more there's to have. No-one knows him but many know someone who does. A case of Chinese whispers and urban myths.

Just like our man Jesus.

The Alexander the Great story is taken appart with the small evidence of coinage of that time.

Google it I am sure you see that during potracted time of his conquest there are indeed coins found from that time with his deeds on them. Happy to be corrected of course.

How much do you really know about the bible? Have you ever read it? Studied it at all? I ask because there are some major inaccuracy?s you are making here.

So do you accept the Gospels historical documents? If not what?s the point of this statement? You only named 4 people here, and not all 12 disciples wrote

And it?s not really that amazing to think that a religious teacher would go out to fine people that could write to be his closest followers. How is that odd in anyway?



No, I didn?t say nobody, or if did then I?m sorry. It should have been a very very large portion of the population Jesus ministered to was illiterate as they were common folks. An incorrect implication. It is pretty well accepted that Judea had only a 5-10% literacy rate.



Robin Hood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You make a good point. Until you do more research on the Robin Hood origin. And there actually is a lot written about him as his stories were designed to be tails of entertainment.

The earliest surviving text of Robin and Marion is a musical play entitled "Le jeu de Robin et de Marion" (ca.1284) [57] written by Adam de la Halle (ca1240??1288) and found in the book Norton Anthology of Western Music Volume:1 (pages 46?47).

Robin Hood's role in the traditional May Day games could suggest pagan connections but that role has not been traced earlier than the early 15th century. However it is uncontroversial that a Robin and Marion figured in 13th century French "pastourelles" (of which Jeu de Robin et Marion c1280 is a literary version) and presided over the French May festivities, "this Robin and Marion tended to preside, in the intervals of the attempted seduction of the latter by a series of knights, over a variety of rustic pastimes"[39] And in the Jeu de Robin and Marion Robin and his companions have to rescue Marion from the clutches of a "lustful knight".[40] Dobson and Taylor in their survey of the legend, in which they reject the mythological theory, nevertheless regard it as "highly probable" that this French Robin's name and functions travelled to the English May Games where they fused with the Robin Hood legend.[39]

On the other hand what appears to be the first known example of "Robin Hood" as stock name for an outlaw dates to 1262 in Berkshire where the surname "Robehod" was applied to a man after he had been outlawed, and apparently because he had been outlawed.[48] This could suggest two main possibilities: either that an early form of the Robin Hood legend was already well established in the mid-13th century; or alternatively that the name "Robin Hood" preceded the outlaw hero that we know; so that the "Robin Hood" of legend was so-called because that was seen as an appropriate name for an outlaw. It has long been suggested, notably by John Maddicott, that "Robin Hood" was a stock alias used by thieves.[49] Another theory of the origin of the name needs to be mentioned here. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica remarks that 'hood' was a common dialectical form of 'wood'; and that the outlaw's name has been given as "Robin Wood".[19] There are indeed a number of references to Robin Hood as Robin Wood, or Whood, or Whod, from the 16th and 17th centuries. The earliest recorded example, in connection with May games in Somerset, dates from 1518.[50]

As you can see, the tail of Robin Hood, is first a tail of entertainment, secondly these tails probably are based on people or an amalgamation of people that did exist at one point.



How so? I said he built cities. I didn?t say he didn?t exist, please you must pay more attention to what you are responding too. I?ll say it again.

Alexander the Great was the single greatest military leader and ruler the world had seen to that point in time. Yet not a single written document by him or any of his followers, soldiers, generals, wives exist. The offspring of a King and God and absolutely nothing insofar as paper documents regarding his existence that are contemporaneous with him.

We know he built cities, we have some stone carving regarding him that are probably pretty close in time to his efforts, but every piece of his story comes from hundreds of years after his death.



Coins are not written documents, they are not paper, they do not tell of anything of the man or his deeds. One would think that the ruler of most of the know world have some sort of coinage though. While what you showed does add weight to his existence (something I?m not denying, but other people miss use the comparison to do so) it again does little to authenticate the histories of him written down hundreds of years after his death.

Happy Easter!!!!! He is Risen!!!!