And please don't just tell me "because he didn't exist" or similar. :-|
2006-10-20 13:11:22 · 9 answers · asked by punkrawkgurl 2 in Education & Reference ➔ Higher Education (University +)
Frankly, because there's practically no evidence that he ever existed - no direct evidence at all. The gospels were written several decades at least after the events they claim to depict, and are not taken seriously as historical documents by any responsible historian, bearing as they do all the hallmarks of composite construction and heavy editing. The mention in Jospehus of "Jesus" is almost certainly a late forged interpolation, and even supposing it authentic, would also have been written many decades after the "fact." There are no authentic relics - not even a corpse! - and nothing else of substance for the historian to examine.
The link below posted by "doyoulikeme" actually confirms what I just wrote about Josephus - "most scholars view the Testimonium Flavianum as dubious" - so there ya go.
2006-10-20 13:13:39 · answer #1 · answered by jonjon418 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Same reason Robin Hood does: There's very little evidence on actual record. No tax records, death records, record of his sentancing, nothing. The bible was written by several people and they either have conflicting stories, or there are several men that match the stories.
By contrast, the Greeks wrote everything down and had it well documented with dates, solid records, and journalistic precision, the Bible is more of a story, some of which might be based on fact, but was not intended or formatted in such a way.
2006-10-20 13:21:17 · answer #2 · answered by Roadpizza 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because the only independent chronicle of his existence came from a roman historian and he did not even have direct 1st hand knowledge.
2006-10-20 13:21:41 · answer #3 · answered by anchorworm 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I guess I'm just commenting on the previous commentors. There is proof he existed, he was written about by many more people than what's in the bible. There's just no proof that he did the "miraculous" things that are portrayed in the bible.
2006-10-20 13:19:59 · answer #4 · answered by sillylittlemen 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To all the ppl who said Jesus didn't exsist they are incorrect. There is recorded evidence that there was a man named Jesus and the miracles that he preformed- that is not apart of the bible. It is hard for people to belive in things that they don't see or feel therefore some people will find it hard to beleive in such texts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Antiquities
http://www.blogfeast.net/doyoulikeme/
2006-10-20 13:28:57 · answer #5 · answered by doyoulikeme 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There's a guy named Jesus that works at a resturaunt I go to often. He works in the kitchen and is from Mexico. I believe he is real.
2006-10-20 13:18:47 · answer #6 · answered by Wurm™ 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you don't want to know that there is absolutely no proof that he ever existed, what are you looking for? Give us a hint
2006-10-20 13:19:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Frankly, because there's practically no evidence whatever that he never existed - no direct evidence at all.
2006-10-20 13:16:41 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
because it's a contradiction from all points of view.
2006-10-20 13:19:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋