[Why are there no contemporary records of Jesus?]
because the bible was the official book, like how some celebrities today give sole rights for an official biography to one person
70 comments
Yeah, and because celebs sell the sole rights of a biography, we never hear from them in magazines, TV, internet and oth... oh wait...
"because the bible was the official book, like how some celebrities today give sole rights for an official biography to one person"
And how exactly does that prevent historians of the era from mentioning that he existed or making note of any of the supposed miracles?
Which books of the New Testament are you talking about?
Christ, it's like these people think no revisions went on at all before the King James version came to be...
But, Jesus wasn't IN ANY of the "official books" until at least 30 years after his supposed death. No one, not one person, thought it might be a good idea to write down the greatest story ever told until Paul's non-corporal encounter?
Which bible?
The Latin Vulgate, the Geneva, the Tynsdale, the Wycliffe, the Douay-Rheims, the King James, the New Catholic, the Jerusalem?
Please tell me which one is the official book. I really want to know.
I sure as fuck could have got you a better deal, honey. When you return, you know, that second coming thing, please call me. Trust me, I'm a lawyer.
But then, if there were contemporary pagan accounts of the existence of Jesus it would convince many other people of the veracity of the bible's accounts. It can't be that Jesus was concerned about dissenting accounts being circulated, as the gospels clearly and irreconcilably contradict each other. I guess your savior really dropped the ball on this.
I guess the gospel of thomas, the infancy gospels, the gospel of judas etc, were unauthorized biographys????
So, then, Harry Potter is real?
Because there's only one author who officially wrote those books. Therefore, by your logic, Harry Potter is god?
B. Just because something is written about a real person, does not mean that what is written is true (G. Washington and a cherry tree...)
C. Just because something is written doesn't mean that it wasn't written as a specific false attack against the person written about (certain birth certificates found online...)
In a way, assuming Jesus actually existed, this is sort of true. Most of the literate people in the Holy Land would have been the scribes and Pharisees, and anything they might have written was sure to be uncomplimentary. So anything that disagreed with the "official book" would probably have been destroyed by any of the various sects who claimed the "sole rights for the official biography" after Jesus' death.
because the bible was the official book
So why is it that the New Testament wasn't written until several decades, and for some books well over a century, after he died and by people who had never known him? Why is it this itinerrant rabbi who supposedly caused such a stir not once mentioned in any contemporary works of the time or recorded in any of the prodigious records kept by the roman authorities?
like how some celebrities today give sole rights for an official biography to one person
The New Testament was written by several different authors living in different places at different times often with little or no knowledge of each other. In fact the was no compiled body of work until centuries later with each manuscript being accepted or rejected by virtue of how much it agreed or disagreed with the theological agenda of the church in the 4th century. There was no "offical" biography or biographer, and virtually none of the manuscripts were penned by people who actually knew Jesus. These facts are both known and accepted by all credible biblical scholars, and to claim you are privvy to some knowledge they aren't is laughable at best.
The Resurrection: the sky turns dark, there are earthquakes and hordes of zombies emerge from their graves.
And no-one thought it was worthwhile noting down for thirty years?
I had long assumed that the disciples were all illiterate, and their deathbed memoirs were dictated to some Roman scribes.
Except for Saul, who was a Pharisaic agent throughout. His letters unfortunately dominated the field very early.
Blame Irenaeus! Hail the Copts!
So this wandering head of an obscure sect, rejected by the mainstream of his own religion, who isn't a Roman citizen, ah - he has a team of copyright lawyers (in the days before copyright, must be one of those miracles we keep hearing about) suing anyone who tries to write unauthorised biographies of him? Sounds pretty plausible to me! o_0
@John
In a way, assuming Jesus actually existed, this is sort of true.
No it isn't, you seem to forget that the Romans were around then, and they definitely didn't give rat's arse about any religion (in the sense that they couldn't be bothered to suppress religions as long as they didn't interfere with their rule), so anything they might have written would have been neutral, the thing is ....
They didn't record anything, and even better, the things they did record are contra-dictionary to the stuff in the bible.
(and don't come back with the persecution of christians by Nero and the likes, that didn't happen, there is very little evidence if any at all for persecution of christians in the early principate, the persecution only started for real when Constantine assumed power, and he was ..... a christian doing what christians do best, persecuting other christians)
If God is all-knowing, then why didn't He lock up the bobble-head and T-shirt concession at the same time?
Please sign an organ donor card. Too bad no one can use your brain, not even you.
@Caustic GnosticNero
a) Violins weren't invented yet
The most complete 'Roman' source about Judea around the time of Jezus is Josephus and he doesn't mention Jezus at all.
Simply put, the whole 'there are no objective sources left because they where all censored' is just an apologist copout.
So once Jesus sold the rights to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, that prevented anyone from even mentioning Jesus bar Joseph, of Nazareth, in ANY public records, ANY letters from one area to another, ANYTHING WHATSOEVER. If Jesus was a celebrity, as CP seems to imply, people would have been talking about him, even if they were somehow not allowed to write biographies of him.
Of course, CP probably also believes that MML&J actually wrote the Gospels commonly attributed to them, that any contradictions between the Gospel stories are coincidence, and that copyright laws existed 2000 years ago.
So he gave the rights to his biography to several people who could not agree on the details, a story that was not written until several decades after his death.
And then he gave editorial rights to an institution that was created AFTER his death and that didn't became unified or powerful for centuries?
Makes sense. I heard Tom Cruise is thinking about doing the same thing.
Zits
image MAKE THAT 0052!!!
You'd think, wouldn't you, that such an event would have caused quite a stir within the Empire.
They say that the roman arse-kissing historian Josephus wrote a bit about it, but his "writings" have been questioned by scholars las later additions.
But ordinary folks who were there - wouldn't you think that they would have left written records of some sort? Journals, diaries, tombstones, epitaphs. . .It's enough to make you wonder.
"[Why are there no contemporary records of Jesus?]
because the bible was the official book, like how some celebrities today give sole rights for an official biography to one person"
That was a very, very, very silly comment.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
