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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Robin Hood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaYet not a single written document by him or any of his followers, soldiers, generals, wives exist.

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