In an earlier question, people asked me to do the research for them... about Jesus being Historic?

Sorry, but this is the best I can do:

I don't believe in Him... but I don't deny he MIGHT have existed.

But even if he did (and actually, my opinion is that he did), most of the stories that have been told by him, both in the Bible and outside sources, can hardly be taken as, forgive me, "gospel truth."

Sorry, but that's the way it goes. Expecting complete historical accuracy from the Bible is like expecting a fisherman's tale of "the one that got away" to not grow in the telling as the years go by.

Are you really so ignorant as to quote people who were not even born until well after all would have been long dead?!

The bible is what is called "Faction" A fictional story set in a factual time and place. Thus the time, place and real historical characters are all correct but the fictional characters and stories are not!

There is not one single mention of Jesus in the entire Roman record - that is right - not one! At the same time as he was supposed to have been around there were a number of Jews claiming to be the messiah - all of whom are well recorded!

There is not a single contemporary record from any source and even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!

He was supposed to have been a huge problem to the Romans and produced wonderful miracles but still not one contemporary record?

Even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!

Pilate is recorded in the Roman record as a somewhat lack luster man but no mention of a Jesus, a trial or crucifixion that would surely have been used to make him look brighter!

At best he was an amalgam of those others but almost certainly never existed!

The Roman Emperor Constantine produced the bible and he was a pagan not god! He took the Jewish religion and basing it on the Mithras religion, organized it into Christianity and then into the Holly Roman Catholic Church!! Not in Israel or any of the countries of supposed origin but entirely ITALIAN!

Not one word of it is contemporary with the period and was not written until several hundred years after the period the story is set in!! How did the apostles write their books more than a hundred years after they would have been dead?

Simple fact - there are ABSOLUTELY NO contemporary records and nothing that was ever written until all would have been long, long dead!

Chrsitianity is a faith - people like you who try to invent proof lack faith and bring ridicule on all christians!

A few points.

1. The main problem is that ALL of your historical accounts outside of the bible are decades to centuries after his death. This alone, without supporting first person documentation, makes all these accounts heresay.

2. The Romans were meticulous record keepers. There are documents of many other crucifixions in the same era as Jesus, Documents pertaining to other crimes and other religious leaders of that time. Yet not 1 of the one person who Raised the dead, Walked on water, water to wine, and rose from the dead?? Amazing that all those people didn't seem to think that was important enough to write down.

3. Let's be really honest here. If Jesus actually existed or not is really a mute point. If he was not the son of God, him existing or not is really beside the point.

actually the sources you provide were altered many years after their own writings. The JOSEPHUS text that mentions Jesus is not of the same style and composition as the rest of the books.

I have no doubt that christian groups existed during roman times- there is both writings as well as artifacts of that time. However, the person described as jesus is likely an exaggeration perhaps based on a real rabbi of that time

there is no serious historian that supports your references.

Is most known in the ancient historiography that historians base they writings on others historians and not as directly testimony and sometimes after decens or hundred of years.

flavious josefus references on jesus are still in doubt by most of scholars.

Even if you can prove that Jesus person really existed (and i tend to believe on that) it doesn't mean that all the religious paraphernalia invented around him and god at the head of it are true.

Actually Jesus the man and prophet did exist. He was recorded in many places at various times. Other characters in the Bible are not so lucky. Sorting fact from fiction is often too tedious for the believers, so they tend to allow the inconsistencies so as not to have to work at their faith. Meanwhile the non believers will not find any truth unless it is presented from other sources.

i'm tempted to state that there is not any longer adequate scholarship to instruct you exist or I exist or President Obama exists. i assume I actual have a lots larger threshold of what constitutes "evidence" than do maximum human beings. on an identical time as i do no longer think of there is evidence, there is this variety of physique of information that I settle for it as being genuine. And so a techniques, each attempt to instruct that Jesus replaced into no longer an certainly man or woman who I actual have examined ended up being so farcical that i'm questioning how everybody could make those claims and keep a at modern face. i assume it is going returned to that Malcolmism, "while you're in seek of for an excuse, any excuse will do." and that i might upload to that, while you're in seek of for a reason, any reason will do. whether you ought to make one up.

Considering that most people of Jesus' day had nothing at all written about them, it is remarkable how much was written about Jesus, and how many early copies were made of those writings -- thousands of copies, in fact. Which is more than was written and circulated than there was for any other person of Jesus' time.

To ignore the manuscript evidence, even without your other sources, is just ignorance indeed.

_______________

And no, the Romans were not good record keepers.

Why is it everything you listed has so many flaws? I'm certain there were plenty of crucifixions in Palestine. And according to your reference he was called 'The man'. And Christ-but mis-spelled? And 'a bastard son of Miriam.....' How much farther off the mark can you be and still claim this is "proof" of Jesus.

It's exactly this type proof that makes me not believe in your Jesus.

All the records you cite are based on hearsay accounts. There are no writings from the period in which Jesus is supposed to have lived that mention Jesus. There are no writings attributed to Jesus himself. Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court for good reason. Furthermore, your statement that "you don't like to endorse laziness" seems condescending and is unlikely to stimulate your readers to do much research on their own.