Why is the only literature, writing or depiction, of Jesus' existence found inside this book...

>nobody wrote about him outside of the bible during that timeline
First, you need to stop assuming that he was a notable figure. He wasn't. He was one of many itinerant apocalyptic preachers in Judea at the time, and he didn't even have very big of a following. As far as the miracles go, there's no reason to assume those happened, since this is supposed to be a historical discussion and not a religious one.

Second, people did write about him. The same sources that talk about other small-time Jewish leaders (Josephus and Tacitus) also mention Jesus. So there really isn't a problem there. seriously, and academic work about Jesus will go over this stuff.

As far as your other two questions, they never happened. The Bible isn't history book. Good job on the bait, I guess.

Oh sorry, I solved the captcha before posting my references. Here they be.

thechirpingofcrickets.com/sweet-fuck-all.html

I always imagined there were probably some decent records of him that were destroyed with Jerusalem.

...

>fucking fuckity hell!! There was so little evidence I never even heard of this book and the right thing to do was not be born in the wrong country. Why!!

Because Jesus was being led by people who practice the Mysteries and they specifically decided or were told to write about him in 'Holy' books because they don't want the idea getting out that magic is real and he was resurrected using the magic of Abramelin the Mage. The person that the women saw at the tomb was an initiate, who could probably fly thanks to the magic of Abramelin.

>There were many historians, poets etc. Alive during the supposed time he was alive. But he is only found inside this book

That's your main flaw, the rest just crumbles down to anti-

If my memory serves me right, there are some historians that do recognize Jesus, but not their so called Messiah or God, but still they've written down what they think he was.

but the rest is just for you to find out, unless you're another retarded atheist wannabe like yesterday, Yeah sure, he doesn't exist ( for you )

This. The Romans made a ton of written records, but only a handful have survived. We have almost nothing on powerful aristocrats living in Roman Palestine - hell, we're lucky to even have so much as a coin with a name on it for many ancient kings. A few references and corroboration of the basic narrative from historians is pretty damn convincing for backwater apocalyptic preacher #238.

Plus, without a historical figure you have to come up with some quite contrived explanations for the existence of early proto-Christian communities and Paul's nonpseudipigraphical letters.

what the fuck are you talking about?

I don't preach christianity though, I preach the existence of God, which can take many forms and gets always the same response from a fedora if accompanied by a testimony.

Isn't Jesus' existence also recorded in the Koran? If memory serves he's one of their prophets, just not their messiah.

In any case OP is a fag

If like 80% of the world is going to hell on the basis of contingent factors of their existence then how insignificant is it that a handful of them should go to hell by willful denial?

The Koran is just one book written by one man centuries later I'm not arguing on behalf of OP but you're an retard.

Even if you give him the 'miracles' which are only miracles because regular people don't see magic everyday, that doesn't mean Jesus was the Son of The Creator of All. He may have been the son of a god that rules in the Pleiades constellation portals but not the Son of the Creator of All. History is controlled by (((THEM))) (don't read Jews).

The pic argues that arguing against evidence has no place when somebody has told you what he saw yet your answer is calling him insane so as to not be wrong.

It's an argument against the "no evidence" excuse.

The only people who truly have never an excuse is those who are never exposed to the concept, you can believe in a god without a religion.

You do know that not all visions are correct, right? People have had visions for their respective religions for centuries.

why is the new testament considered unreliable

Unreliable in terms to what? That it's an accurate depiction of Jesus' life and death?

yeh, but primarily his resurrection

It is occamy razory that a vision represents what you have seen rather than a mental malady.

Sounds like he's just recounting a tale he heard from someone tbqh

You do know that you can give him the resurrection and that still wouldn't make him the son of The Creator of even this Universe, right?
Could be possible that people are shown what happens in different dimensions of reality, that also doesn't mean that hell is eternal or that you'll go to Heaven if you believe a godman can save you from death. (the death part will go over your head, you probably think I'm talking about your death in this life but I'm not)

So you're unironically saying that a divine being is an easier explanation than a mental illness or even just a misperception?

>that still wouldn't make him the son of The Creator of even this Universe, right?
why not

What's the link between resurrection and being God's son? Why does the one follow the other?

because he made a supernatural claim and backed it up with a supernatural act otherwise impossible

I had a dream that I was being farmed and they would put this cheese on my feet and wrap it up and have us all walk around so the our flesh would weight down on and merged with the cheese and then they cut it off and it felt like my whole spine was itchy.

Pretty sure it was a bunch of bullshit.

Who's to say he didn't get his powers from African voodoo or some shit and then just used it to con people into thinking he's divine? I could think of a million different explanations if we're gonna allow supernatural bullshit in this discussion.

>So you're unironically saying that a divine being is an easier explanation than a mental illness

Yes, the existence of god is something that's quite possible, while the existence of recurrent epidemic mental illness is too laughable an idea.

because theres more evidence of a supernatural God existing than of african voodoo existing
teleological argument

That is the single most retarded fucking thing I have read all day, as if mental illness causing religious experiences needs to be epidemic.

Those arguments for God don't support a trinitarian divinity.

>teleological argument
Alright we're done here.

It was written in some cases centuries after Jesus died.

Someone correct me on this...but wasn't Jesus mentioned in the talmud as a "trouble maker"??

Also Jesus was a peasant by aesthetic standards, you really don't write about peasant's or take note to them. I'm sure any rumor outside of the Gospel of Jesus, probably writ him off as a loon. Therefore a limited amount of people actually held onto his story.

it isn't supposed to be
you think thats too late? How about Alexander the Greats biographies made hundreds of years later?
besides, some scholars put portions of 1 Corinthians to have been written within just a couple years (Paul is quoting a old hymn about Christ's resurrection)

It's a long explanation of which you would call bullshit. But to put it shortly, Jesus was a god that rules the Pleiades and the Son of the Creator of this Universe is apparently a god that rules from Orion. That's the easiest explanation I could give you without getting too much into it.

>Also what timeline did Jews get enslaved by Egyptians?
Nobody knows. There have been guesses though.

not a good explanation 2bh

>as if mental illness causing religious experiences needs to be epidemic.

It needs to be because religious experience is epidemic.

Because the historical jesus was a religious/political dissident who got executed for pissing off the authorities in the roman province of palestine. Unlike other such dissidents he really didn't amount to much in his life, no major rebellions or anything like that, so aside from one mention in josephus there is very little written about him.

thats not all thats written about him. its also written that he rose from the dead and is God

Um, if a supernatural 'God' (I hate that word) exists, then you can make the inference that magic exists too. Why wouldn't it?
It's what the 'Illuminati' believes, I'm not too sure how many of the Elites believe it but apparently Jesus was being led by them. It's also bad to associate with Jesus' human name and worship/idolize/etc. it.

because I just told you theres more evidence specifically for God than for magic

Yeah, in the bible. Which isn't actually a good source for those claims as there is little to no independent confirmation of the supposed supernatural events surrounding the death of the dissident in question.

It's unreliable as a source of historical information because it wasn't written as a historical text in the way we understand the genre today. It's a collection of many books, most of which feature contradictory information. The writers of those works didn't intend them to be read as "reliable" historical texts, and that's why no serious scholar does.

Explain what a 'God' is.
First of all, which God? Secondly, magic is part of the Mysteries of the Creator of All and the Creator of this Universe not to mention any God(s)

...

how are the 4 gospels not independent? how are Pauls writings not independent?
Luke is written specifically in historical prose, he even cites sources. Paul gives living sources as well to the Corinthians
omnipotent creator

>omnipotent creator
>omnipotent
No 'God' is omnipotent unless they're connected with the Creator of All.
>creator
This could go for any 'God', pham.

Jesus is the creator of all

>>how are the 4 gospels not independent? how are Pauls writings not independent?
Because these are all written by people who are christians of one sort or another and they have every reason either use hyperbole when they make their claims or to outright lie.

If the supernatural events that supposedly occured following the execution of jesus really happened, there would have been non-christian(polytheist, jewish, etc) sources for them with explanations for the events in question that fit within their understanding of the world.

>Because these are all written by people who are christians of one sort or another and they have every reason either use hyperbole when they make their claims or to outright lie.
what would the authors gain from that
>If the supernatural events that supposedly occured following the execution of jesus really happened, there would have been non-christian(polytheist, jewish, etc) sources for them with explanations for the events in question that fit within their understanding of the world.
how do you know

Jesus is a god that rules over the Pleiades, look into the Jordan Codices. If the damn thing has a body, he's definitely not the Creator of All. Especially since there are beings that answer to other gods. It's also a long shot that Jesus was the Savior.

this is weird and strange. the early christians did not believe this

>>what would the authors gain from that
Converts to their belief system.

>>how do you know
Because there were literate people in the area at that time who would have written something about the events in question if for no other reason then to provide alternate explanations.

The Mysteries have remained a secret for tens of thousands of years, they'll remain a secret for a long time after and there's nothing you can do to stop it.
Define 'Early' Christians.

>Converts to their belief system.
so.... what would they gain from that?
they were kicked out of their synagogues, whipped and beat just for more converts. AND they were even able to find converts as well, who were in turn tortured and ostracized
>Because there were literate people in the area at that time who would have written something about the events in question if for no other reason then to provide alternate explanations.
again, how do you know they would have did this

>explanations for the events in question that fit within their understanding of the world.
One of the things I find most interesting about Mark, which is probably the earliest gospel, is that the author seems to be trying to explain why readers would have heard of Jesus's miracles before reading his work. Throughout the text, no one realizes Jesus is divine, no one sees him perform miracles, and Jesus actually seems kind of secretive about who he is and what he can do. That kind of makes sense if the author is expecting his readers to be skeptical of his claims, since it gives the explanation of "of course you haven't heard about this, no one saw it" to everything. Even the resurrection, since in the original ending, the women just saw an empty tomb and didn't tell anyone about it.

polycarp, ireneaus, ignatious

To put it short, they're babbies

>learned directly from the apostles but still babbies
wow so name a early christian who isn't a babby then

>so.... what would they gain from that?
They thought they were saving souls and earning favor with their god, so that's one thing they would gain. Other more practical effects would have been a place to hide from roman persecution as the romans were cracking down hard on Jewish insurrections of any sort, and the early messianic jews were very good at hiding from that sort of thing as they were not inclined torwards violence.

>>again, how do you know they would have did this
Because that's what literate people do. They write down records of events.

>All of the Apostles were part of the Mysteries
The Apostles were babbies too, at least the ones that were not Poe's.

>They thought they were saving souls and earning favor with their god
why would they believe what they're saying themselves if they're lying or being dishonest

>>The Mysteries have remained a secret for tens of thousands of years, they'll remain a secret for a long time after and there's nothing you can do to stop it.
What the fuck are you even talking about at this point? What mysteries?

they're mysteries, nobody knows what they are

Depends on a whole variety of factors. People do convince themselves into believing things that they themselves didn't think were true before. Also dreams and hallucinations could have played a part as modern interpretations of such things were still a long way off.

And why should I believe your interpretation of these supposed mysteries when the more likely explanation is that nothing mystical or supernatural happened at all?

>Depends on a whole variety of factors
exactly. you're adding more assumptions that necessary
always go with the option which assumes less right?

I was being sarcastic w. you, I'm not that guy

>What mysteries
The secrets of 'God'

youtube.com/watch?v=0VI7V00VaKk
NIGGA, I AM A GOD

How could someone be born from a Virgin at the time when artificial insemination didn't exist back then?

Checkmate christcucks

No actually I'm not. There are far more unnecessary assumptions involved in believing that events happened as those people claimed.

Doesn't matter because there was a prophecy that 'The Christ' would be born to Joseph.

Oh, well never mind then.

>There are far more unnecessary assumptions involved in believing that events happened as those people claimed.
like what assumptions? like paul specifically, why would he lie or exaggerate?
2 Corinthians 11
23 Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one—I am talking like a madman—with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. 24 Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; 26 on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; 27 in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food,[b] in cold and exposure. 28 And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches. 29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to fall, and I am not indignant?

30 If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying. 32 At Damascus, the governor under King Aretas was guarding the city of Damascus in order to seize me, 33 but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall and escaped his hands.

And that's only really relevant to people who already believe your religious claims.

This was supposed to be originally directed at me so I'll answer in short. sometimes the most likely explanation isn't always the correct one. If you were to see what is capable, the most likely explanation would be that he was resurrected by magic.
>And that's only really relevant to people who already believe your religious claims
What are my religious claims?

Paul isn't lying, he likely hallucinated and was trying interpret his hallucinations in a way that would have made sense to him at that time, that in turn led to him becoming part of one of the messianic jewish sects that would eventually become the early christian communities.

I'm glad you at least will grant that Paul was an honest man
1 Corinthians 15
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
>he appeared to more than 500
all hallucinations?

You specifically? I have no fucking clue as you don't seem to be any sort of orthodox christian.

>>sometimes the most likely explanation isn't always the correct one. If you were to see what is capable, the most likely explanation would be that he was resurrected by magic.
Well the problem here is that the burden of proof is on you. I see no reason to believe this claim over the ones posted by any given christian.

>>all hallucinations?
Assuming that this isn't something that was later added to the text by other authors, yes.

Nearly half of """"Paul's"""" epistles are considered forgeries or have a disputed authorship.

>In all of these epistles besides Epistle to the Hebrews, Paul does claim to be the author and writer. However, the contested letters may have been forgeries, as that seems to have been a problem among the early church as a whole.[4]

Seven letters (with consensus dates)[5] considered genuine by most scholars:

>First Thessalonians (c. 50 AD)
>Galatians (c. 53)
>First Corinthians (c. 53–54)
>Philippians (c. 55)
>Philemon (c. 55)
>Second Corinthians (c. 55–56)
>Romans (c. 57)

The letters on which scholars are about evenly divided:[6]

>Colossians
>Second Thessalonians

The letters thought to be pseudepigraphic by about 80% of scholars:[6]

>Ephesians
>First Timothy
>Second Timothy
>Titus

>Finally, Epistle to the Hebrews, though anonymous and not really in the form of a letter, has long been included among Paul's collected letters, but most scholars regard it as not written by Paul.[6]

totes convincing

sacred-texts.com/grim/abr/

when people suffer mass hysteria, they don't all see the same thing. the apostles recorded seeing my Lord appear in the room with them
I only quoted from second corinthians, my boi. thanks for proving my point further

Oh and another possibility is him simply repeating the things he heard from these people without really fact checking the claims in question. This was more common then you'd think and one of many reasons why any given history text from that period tends to be taken with a grain of salt or two at the least.

oh and first corinthians but still

And how do you know that they all actually saw the same thing at the time and didn't all just agree upon that later when they spoke to paul exactly? You can't as none of these people are still alive now to tell us anything.

why would they suddenly all agree upon it?
assumptions among assumptions