[veritas]

Originally Posted by uh-oh

im not against the bolded part. you assume i want him to have not existed, i am simply stating there isn't enough evidence supporting it, unless you are willing to believe historians passing mentions more than a generation after his alleged death.

when i say jews in this context i am referring to them as a people, not solely as jews in the sense of religion.

also if there was a rebellion the "rebellion" was stamped out before it began. and using the same historical sources you can come to this conclusion. a man sarcastically labelled the king of the jews (inri) was crucified between two rebels. the modern translation is "thieves" but the direct translation was "bandits" but there was no word for bandits in that time. a bandit was a rebel.

rebels go against the state. jesus preaching his gospels and garnering a following would have been alarming to the jews who were under the roman yoke. the romans already occupied the region so those in power wouldn't want to be killed for not being able to maintain the peace. so when romans catch wind of someone amassing numbers and defying the jewish leadership installed, they would obviously execute them to put down the eventual uprising.

so when studying the history of judea you find it rife with uprisings and attempts to overthrow the rule from the beginning. in 6 AD when they first brought in roman soldiers and began exacting a tax throughout when jesus existed to the actual violent jewish rebellions etc. the only records of jesus and his uprising come from biblical sources, and historical mentions more than a generation after his alleged life, and after actual armed rebellions and wars.

so me concluding he is an amalgamation of these events for jewish people to rally behind in the creation of a new religion, since their old religion failed them doesn't seem so far fetched. but you are correct in assuming that is my belief. the difference in our beliefs is i know mine is firmly planted in my own thoughts and logic, which can change at a moments notice if new evidence was introduced. where you seem to think yours is infallible fact, you are putting much more weight into your source(s), and standing by it. i take your source(s) and simply have them as one tentpole in the tent of my views on the matter

also a main difference is i have no vested interest in being correct since i don't prescribe religious beliefs to the matter, and i just view it as historical events

Could he not be both? Could he not be both God manifest in the flesh who refused to go along with the rebellion because he had his own greater motives?

Fair?