Writings during the lifetime of Jesus?

[Cyberman]

Let me guess... the people back then didn't have anything to write on? [q.v.]

[Drich]

[quote='Minimalist' pid='319562' dateline='1344147669']
[quote]You do know that less than an estimated 3% of the population durning the time of Christ could read or write.[/quote]

Probably pretty close to accurate and not worth quibbling about. (There are degrees of literacy....Roman legionaires were taught to read and write but few could have handled the dialogues of Plato...but they could read the duty roster for cleaning the legionary latrine.)

[quote]The problem is that we are speaking of the people who COULD read and write and did so fairly well.[/quote]Yes out of the 3% of the population those who could read and write could usally do so in several languages, but for the every day shmow. He was an illiterate. (Follow the link i provided in my fist post)

[quote]Yet no Greco-Roman or Jewish author bothers to mention even an outlandish story involving your boy. Not one.[/quote]Your making the point to say out of 6 possiable/known writters, none of which we have complete works from are know to have written of Christ? So what?

[quote]At this point xtians usually try the old "Judaea was an outpost of the empire" routine which was certainly no longer true after Herod the Great built the port of Caesarea. No. Judaea was part of the empire and more importantly it was sitting on major commercial routes. Ideas...not just merchandise...flow along those routes. Still, NOT ONE REFERENCE TO A DEAD JEW COMING BACK TO LIFE. [/quote]AGAIN Because of that 3% the majority belonged to the Preisthood of the Saducees, and they wanted NO Part of Christ. (they are the one's who had Him crusified so why would they then record his miricals?) Then you yourself point out that the roman officals who could read or write could do so only on a utilitarian scale. Outside of this there was only a handful of recognized and documented historean for the Whole of the roman Empire! So tell me again who it was up to to record such events?

[quote]In the second century, Lucian writes of xtians in The Passing of Peregrinus, c 165 and Celsus writes, On the True Doctrine c 170. So, we see that after xtians did begin to spread that Greco-Roman writers did mention them and comment on what they considered their barbaric doctrines.

But not in the first century. Not even once.[/quote]
Because in the first there were little if any writters who would have qualified to followed Jesus and record the events of his life. Not to mention Rome destroyed Jurselem in 70AD wiping out all written records and nearly all of the people. So whatever was written and was kept in or around Jurselem durning that time would have been destroyed. what else could anyone have done but to start over at that point in history?

[Minimalist]

You are making excuses for your boy's absence from the record....but of course insisting that YOUR version is correct. We have far more than 6 first century writers who failed to note anything about your boy but the fact that they did not does not mean that your version is true. In fact, it strongly suggests that your version was made up later on.

Let's add in another factor. Xtians practiced burial. In fact, much like Jews they got in trouble with Roman sanitation laws because of their insistence on burial rather than cremation. And yet....

http://science.nationalgeographic.com/sc...catacombs/

The oldest tunnels date back to the first century. "The Jewish community in Rome built them as cemeteries. Christian catacombs came a century later. They were not secret meeting places to survive persecutions, as historians thought in the past, but burial tunnels, like the Jewish ones," Morabito explains. "They used to grow larger and larger around the tombs of saints because people asked to be buried near their religious leaders."

So, again, we start to see physical remains of xtians at about the same time that Justin Martyr started writing about them and Lucian of Samosata started denouncing them. In the 2d century. Not the first.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

It seems to me that a major weakness of many dogmatic apologists is that they don't seem to have actually read anything other than the bible and Christian apologists. These people are not scholars in any meaningful sense,as they ignore/ridicule/deny any evidence which contradicts their dogmatic beliefs.

The depth of closed minded idiocy of many can be seen in young earth creationist loons. Almost every utterance about evolution shows they have simply not studied evolution at the most basic level. Yet they wonder why skeptics and scholars simply laugh at them

[Minimalist]

Yet they wonder why sceptiks and scholars simply laugh at them

They think it because we hate their fucking god.

[Drich]

It seems to me that a major weakness of many dogmatic apologists is that they don't seem to have actually read anything other than the bible and Christian apologists. These people are not scholars in any meaningful sense,as they ignore/ridicule/deny any evidence which contradicts their dogmatic beliefs.

The depth of closed minded idiocy of many can be seen in young earth creationist loons. Almost every utterance about evolution shows they have simply not studied evolution at the most basic level. Yet they wonder why sceptiks and scholars simply laugh at them

A red herring, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), is a clue which is intentionally or unintentionally misleading or distracting from the actual issue.[1] The term is mostly used to claim that the argument of another person is not relevant to the issue being discussed. In mystery fiction, a clue or lead that turns out not to be relevant to the solution of the mystery would also be a red herring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

What's funny is when a seemingly 'learned man' has to resort to a logical fallacy to prop himelf and his belief back up from what he openly identifies as 'idoticy.' Otherwise why not simply address the points provided with 'evidence and proof?'

[spockrates]

http://etb-biblical-errancy.blogspot.co....-your.html

You really need to stop thinking your jesus was all that original. He really wasn't.

Btw, I found that from a 5 second google search. Learn to use fucking google.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

The quote in context, if anyone is still interested:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/2...father.asp

Thanks, Napoleon for pointing that out.

[BattleD12]

I'm sure this has been done before but I searched and couldn't find it. The following question is more than just a subject for debate to me, and I'm sure if you think about it the same applies to many of you. The whole Christian religion relies on the existence of Jesus. My ex (For the 50th time) is trying to keep me out of our unborn child's life because she believes in the existence of Jesus and his divinity, however, I have serious doubts. I'm sure many of you have found yourselves in similar scenarios where you have been judged as evil, immoral etc., whether it be with family, friends or work colleagues. We don't even have to be "disrespectful" of their beliefs either, we simply have to assert that we do not hold those beliefs.

So here is my question: Can anyone provide me with examples of people/writings that referenced Jesus, during his lifetime? Any priests, philosophers, leaders, scribes, will do.

My research so far suggests that not a single mention of Jesus was made during his lifetime. Now, the sources I have looked at so far all argue that Jesus did not exist. They state that all of the references after the supposed crucifixion are hearsay at best and complete forgeries at worst. What I want to read is a completely unbiased source that can actually back up its claims, and provide references to the exact writings so that I can read them in context. Who's up to the challenge?

I accept that the absence of such writings does not prove that Jesus did not exist, however, it would certainly ring alarm bells for me.

None have been found on Jesus during his life as far as I am concerned. I've looked and looked. Nothing.

P.S. You need to fight for custody.

[Gambit]

It seems to me that a major weakness of many dogmatic apologists is that they don't seem to have actually read anything other than the bible and Christian apologists. These people are not scholars in any meaningful sense,as they ignore/ridicule/deny any evidence which contradicts their dogmatic beliefs.

The depth of closed minded idiocy of many can be seen in young earth creationist loons. Almost every utterance about evolution shows they have simply not studied evolution at the most basic level. Yet they wonder why sceptiks and scholars simply laugh at them

A red herring, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), is a clue which is intentionally or unintentionally misleading or distracting from the actual issue.[1] The term is mostly used to claim that the argument of another person is not relevant to the issue being discussed. In mystery fiction, a clue or lead that turns out not to be relevant to the solution of the mystery would also be a red herring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

What's funny is when a seemingly 'learned man' has to resort to a logical fallacy to prop himelf and his belief back up from what he openly identifies as 'idoticy.' Otherwise why not simply address the points provided with 'evidence and proof?'

Hey, while we're on the whole proof thing, how about you provide some that your God exists? I know it's a novel concept but I'm sure there's a lexicon somewhere that will help you wriggle out of the obligation. Oh wait, no, this is a post written in English, by me. I guess we'll have to wait 2000 years for a future apologist to come along and twist the context of my words to suit.

[Drich]

Hey, while we're on the whole proof thing, how about you provide some that your God exists?

It's not for Christians to provide proof of God. This is something God does for Himself. "We" are to simply point the way for those who earnestly seek the proof God offers..

I know it's a novel concept but I'm sure there's a lexicon somewhere that will help you wriggle out of the obligation. Oh wait, no, this is a post written in English, by me. I guess we'll have to wait 2000 years for a future apologist to come along and twist the context of my words to suit.

I think someone thinks too highly of himself and his understanding of the subject at hand. For nothing needs to be twisted nor is their any deep thought needed to deconstruct your objection.