If Jesus walked on water, fed thousands, etc.. than why didn't any of the philosophers of his day write about him(Except Josephus Flavius and he's hardly considered reliable). And why didnt' the masses write about him? Only a handful of his followers kept track and his New Testament wasn't compiled until about 400 years after he died.

Josephus was not the only one outside the Church to write about Jesus Christ. If you read the Jewish Talmud, you will find Him written about there, too. He is written about very negatively there -- but His miracles are acknowledged (chalked up to demons, however).

Those who saw Him did write about Him, in other words. They either saw and believed, as did His Apostles and disciples, many of whom wrote about Him in the New Testament books, or they attributed His miracles to demons (as the Talmud does).

The Books of the New Testament were compiled by the Catholic Church later on -- but they were written, and therefore in existence, soon after Christ's death and resurrection. In other words, the Church had the Books, but only later decided which were "canonical" (the canon was later formally closed at the Council of Trent in reaction to the Protestant removal of 7 Books from the Old Testament canon).

Quote
La Minturnesa
Josephus was not the only one outside the Church to write about Jesus Christ. If you read the Jewish Talmud, you will find Him written about there, too. He is written about very negatively there -- but His miracles are acknowledged (chalked up to demons, however).

Those who saw Him did write about Him, in other words. They either saw and believed, as did His Apostles and disciples, many of whom wrote about Him in the New Testament books, or they attributed His miracles to demons (as the Talmud does).

The Books of the New Testament were compiled by the Catholic Church later on -- but they were written, and therefore in existence, soon after Christ's death and resurrection. In other words, the Church had the Books, but only later decided which were "canonical" (the canon was later formally closed at the Council of Trent in reaction to the Protestant removal of 7 Books from the Old Testament canon).

I'll take this point by point. First of all, the Talmud uses the term "Jesus" to mean any one of a number of things and is not necessarily pointing to the central figure in Xianity. Jesus or "Yeshu" means "y'mach sh'mo" - his name should be blotted out. This term is used when the Talmud wants to mention the deeds of a person, but not give him the immortality that mentioning him by name in the Talmud would give him.
So it could be about any one of a number of people. Judaism doesn't' really spend much time concentrating on Jesus. He's pretty much ignored in most seminaries.
There was also Jesus ben Sirach, etc. . So Jesus isn't just about your savior.
Also, there was a Jesus who was a student of ibn Perachya who was said to be a miracle worker. He did the miracles because he knew the "shem hemepherish" the 72 letter ineffable name of God. This same name is reputed to be able to create robot "Frankenstein" like constructs called "golems".
When Jesus student of Perachya did miracles, he was said to take a stick and inscribe the shem hamepherish in the sand.
As far as invoking demons to do miracles, I never heard that one before. Where in the Talmud is it?

It could be man that most of the followers of Christ, Yahusuhua Ha Mashiach were of the poorer masses. There were no public schools back then. Educated people who could read and write back then, and forgive me if I'm wrong, the wealthy and the powerful. The elites of the day. Which is who Christ railed against. Those Pharisees were more likely those who went on to write the Talmud which is nothing more than a Jewish version of the satanic bible.

I would guess that if more of the people, those of the masses, who followed Christ were able to write, they would have. And, you also must consider the power that the Catholic church had amassed by the Council of Trent. For the most part they were already apostate. They compiled the four gospels specifically because they led people to believe that those were the most accurate portrayals of Christ. Two of them were disciples, two were apostles. In other words two walked with Him and two wrote what from the accounts of others as it was told by them, with their own personal touches.

I imagine there are or at least were, many more accounts, however, the accounts we have today of the original text are meticulously kept in environmentally sealed vaults. I don't image the writings that the council found non canonical were considered important and therefore left out.