Writings during the lifetime of Jesus?

[Minimalist]

Let's step out of the three year opening you've given us.

Fuck off....if you'd been paying attention - which is not what you people do well - you would know there is no such limitation. You are inventing this to try to salvage your fucking god.

The original point asked for writings during his lifetime but that was quickly changed. Since your boy was apparently illiterate and couldn't write anything himself we moved on to writers living and writing in the first century who failed to mention even a fantastic rumor of a dead jew coming back to life.

Move the goalposts all you want but there remains exactly ZERO from the first century writers which indicates that your boy was around.

[Undeceived]

Let's step out of the three year opening you've given us.

The original point asked for writings during his lifetime but that was quickly changed. Since your boy was apparently illiterate and couldn't write anything himself we moved on to writers living and writing in the first century who failed to mention even a fantastic rumor of a dead jew coming back to life.

Move the goalposts all you want but there remains exactly ZERO from the first century writers which indicates that your boy was around.

Writers from the 1st century? That's where I shifted my attention to, if you had read my comment further. We have several: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Clement, Ignatius, Phlegon, and (possibly) Mara Bar-Serapion all wrote prior to 100AD. Or would you like to shift the goalposts again?

[Minimalist]

There is no evidence that any of your fucking gospels date from the first century, Try to get that through your thick fucking head.

We are speaking of reputable writers, people who actually existed, were literate, and were commenting on things going on during the first century.

Take your bullshit gospels and blow them out your ass.

[frankiej]

Take your bullshit gospels and blow them out your ass.

I'd rather he just kept them up his ass. That way we may never see them again... and there is no need to create a mess.

[Cyberman]

Basically, what we have is a situation in which real, actual commentators on - and from - the first century, including historians and military campaigners covering the region in question, making mention of places, people and events far less remarkable than any JC stories yet not writing even a syllable about this itinerant rabble-rousing cleric. These are people who not only should have noticed; they would have noticed. And yet they didn't. At this point, any unbiased researcher would be asking why that should be.

[catfish]

Basically, what we have is a situation in which real, actual commentators on - and from - the first century, including historians and military campaigners covering the region in question, making mention of places, people and events far less remarkable than any JC stories yet not writing even a syllable about this itinerant rabble-rousing cleric. These are people who not only should have noticed; they would have noticed. And yet they didn't. At this point, any unbiased researcher would be asking why that should be.

(emphasis mine*)

There are many possible reasons as to why. Here's my theory...

For the first 4 centuries AD, the Romans did their best to suppress and persecute the early Christians in an attempt to stamp out the evidence.
From the 4th century on, the Romans had an agenda to collect and subsequently suppress all writings regarding the matter so that they could forge their own brand of neo-pagan/christian doctrine.

What's quite telling that my theory may be true is the account that the Jews asked for a curse to put on them for condemning Yeshua to crucifixion. Do you honestly think a group of people would say such a thing?

[The Grand Nudger]

Problem is, that's not how the romans handled christianity at all. Problem two, your blood libel bullshit is just that, bullshit.

[Cyberman]

You don't get to pull stuff out of your arse and stick the theory label on it. Well, you can of course, but it won't sell round here. Two words for you, then we can talk:

Citation needed.

---

What's quite telling that my theory may be true is the account that the Jews asked for a curse to put on them for condemning Yeshua to crucifixion. Do you honestly think a group of people would say such a thing?

What's really telling about this whole crucifixion story is that without all the torture and blood sacrifice, the xtians have no basis for salvation to sell to the gullible and the desperate. To put it another way, if JC hadn't been flailed and nailed, then he didn't die for our sins. Thus, to borrow the viewpoint of a god-devised plan for saving humanity, the condemnation of the character was an essential part of it. You lot ought to be parading the Jewish people as heroes who saved the world from sin.

[catfish]

You don't get to pull stuff out of your arse and stick the theory label on it. Well, you can of course, but it won't sell round here. Two words for you, then we can talk:

Citation needed.

---

What's quite telling that my theory may be true is the account that the Jews asked for a curse to put on them for condemning Yeshua to crucifixion. Do you honestly think a group of people would say such a thing?

What's really telling about this whole crucifixion story is that without all the torture and blood sacrifice, the xtians have no basis for salvation to sell to the gullible and the desperate. To put it another way, if JC hadn't been flailed and nailed, then he didn't die for our sins. Thus, to borrow the viewpoint of a god-devised plan for saving humanity, the condemnation of the character was an essential part of it. You lot ought to be parading the Jewish people as heroes who saved the world from sin.

Citation needed for what, may I ask? The curse reference?

I've read the Bible, blood sacrifice doesn't cover the sins of the world by no means. Every sinner would have had to offered up Jesus as a sacrifice to coincide with Jewish law. Even then, sacrifice would only have covered unintentional sin (IE, accidently eating pork). The sacrifice wasn't performed on a proper altar either. The Bibile also states that no man may pay a ransom for another's sin.

As for your claim that without the crucifixion, there would be no salvation, Yeshua's words contradict that statement. "JC" offered reconcilliatian while he was alive by simply believing in his name (YHWH is salvation). He never said one would have to accept some paganised sacrifice and believe in any myths made up after he died.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, crusader, I'd like a citation. By the way, theres plenty of shit that your supposed to believe in "after he died". In fact, it's central to the damned narrative. But why bicker over that right? Cherry picking is in.