Alvida wrote:
Propaganster wrote:
Every single document making reference to Jesus which would be contemporany to his life would have been destroyed? Every single one? I find that a bit hard to believe. They obviously did not destroy every copy of the apostles, but if they could destroy every contemporany account, it was also surely within their power to do so?  
Or there wasn't much written to begin with.   
How about nothing was written? How about James Bond being just as real as Jesus Christ?

I don't think prohibiting or destroying texts would have been beyond powerful people.

I don't think I have argued against the fact that there was a prohibition or that texts cannot be destroyed. I believe that what I did say is that we have no contemporary account of the life of Jesus Christ, and that I find it hard to believe that if such documents exist, that every single one of them was destroyed. But who knows? These may be the documents the Vatican keeps hidden because, say... they paint Jesus as something other than a Messiah?

Hence, they can only be relegated to the rank of Apocrypha.


Obviously, going by my theory, there came a point where it was acceptable to write about Jesus, but maybe not much, hence so little. If the absence of contemporary documentation suggests Jesus didn't exist then couldn't it just as easily be asked if Jesus was a fabrication or composite why isn't there contemporary documentation? There are no limitations on what you make up afterall. The absence of anything suggests more to me that writings were destroyed and/or prohibited. 
Going by your hypothesis, the premise is that Jesus did exist. This is your own conclusion, and I can respect that, but it's still your own conclusion, and masses of people agree with you.

But I guess I am just a bit more skeptical than you are on this given issue, angel.