>>The bible is a collection of sources, there is more than one
>>source there. It is the definitive collection because many
>of
>>the other accounts were destroyed...
>
>Those sources are not objective at all.

Yup.


>Maybe those books didn't make it in, because the MAN/MEN who
>commissioned the whole project, didn't like how those books
>were written.

No one commisioned it. It was probably a collection of oral histories, written down...

he had the power to do that since he hired the
>writers in the first place....

So no one was hired to write it (except for scribes who commited the physical act...)


>>Personally, whilst Jesus may not have been the son of God (I
>>dont believe that...), he probably existed as a person. I
>mean
>>why not.
>
>An Agenda?

The agenda made him more than just the illegitimate son of a carpenter. There probably was a charismatic Jewish man at that time who led people his name could easily have been Jesus...

>
>>
>>Now you PROVE he didnt exist.
>
>C'mon mayne...
>
>First, the burden of proof is definitely not on me. I'm not
>tryna convert tsunami victims to 'Mau777ism'.

Im not trying to convert anyone to Christianity. Im saying, that a man called Jesus could have existed...

>Second, i'll give you a minute to think about, "prove he
>didn't exist", hoping you can see the obvious lapse in logic.
>
>
>The fact is, there is no proof
>>either way because many of these stories are so
>metaphorical,
>>garbled and messed up over the course of time as to be
>>basically fictional anyway...
>
>No, there's just no proof.
>

I know, I just said that....

Im tempted to sift through Roman documents from the time and see who led uprisings...