Quote from piezoe:
Actually Ricter I was perhaps stretching my tale just a little, but there really isn't any hard evidence, just the bible, and that is certainly not reliable.
There are other records-quite reliable- that you are obviously not aware of;
but first you must keep in mind the way records were kept in the past.
There was no wiki or even the internet.
Also, as I have said before, teachers of the old often taught orally, as their time was valuable, and so for the sake of efficiency they often gave their students the meticulous and time-consuming task of writing down what they were taught.
Remember too, that our record keeping of today's presidents are most certainly more detailed and reliable then the limited documentation we have of our founding fathers.
You should also understand that, at the time of Jesus, the Romans themselves had little interest in documenting the lives and deaths of the Heathens and Barbarians which surrounded the capitol.
To the Romans, both Jews and early Christians were considered to be a lowly race- hardly worthy of slavery.
And finally, turn off that monkey switch which has you looking for hot sex and bananas, and turn on a higher switch which will have you looking for some real answers to your questions.
Quote from piezoe:
The problem is that the most of the New Testament was written centuries after Jesus was reputedly crucified.
The problem is actually when ignorant people make dim-witted assertions.
There is adequate evidence to easily suggest the writings were made within the recent years or decades following the crucifixion.
How can we say this?
Let's take a look at the destruction of the Second Temple at Jerusalem, which Jesus predicts will happen in Luke, chapter 21:6
This prophecy was actually fulfilled in the year 70 c.e., just decades following his death.
So why is there no mention of this prediction coming true in any of the gospels?
HINT: His disciples would have certainly wanted people know that his prophecy of this event came to fruition, Would they not?
The logic is pretty simple- that is unless you're too stubborn or retarded to see it. It's because at the time of their testimonies, the destruction of the Temple had not yet occurred , and so they simply did not speak of it.
There is also the very real and logical possibility that the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and/or John could have easily been documented as court record by either Jewish or Gentile Magistrates and their Clerks.
In Luke 21:12-16, Christ's prediction of his disciples' imprisonment and executions that were to take place following his crucifixion is certainly plausible, if not likely, and so their accounts of Christ may have very well been first recorded as legal testimony.
Quote from piezoe:
And Paul, strangely, doesn't mention Jesus specifically in a way that we can be certain of whom he is writing.
Did you happen to notice that Paul didn't mention the destruction of the Second Temple either?
Whether or not you are skeptical of the way in which Paul speaks of Jesus, we should have very little doubts that Paul is quite familiar with the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and perhaps some others.
Had the Temple's destruction already occurred, there is little doubt that Paul would have also wanted to point out to early Christians this remarkable prophesy that Christ had made which came to be.
Again, I will reiterate- Paul makes no mention of the Temple's destruction within his writings simply because the time of the Temple's destruction had not yet come.
So, Piehole, hopefully you can now see that it is at least plausible that the first recorded accounts came before 70 c.e., and whoever told you that the writings came centuries later has grossly misinformed you.
Quote from piezoe:
One thing that has piqued the curiosity of historians is the absence of any Roman record of a crucifixion that could reasonably be attributed to the biblical Jesus of Nazareth.
Just read of the Annals of Tacitus, and there you will find the account Christ's execution well documented within.
As I'm quite sure you are unaware, the writings of Roman Senator, Publius Cornelius Tacitus, are considered to be the very cornerstone of Roman history at around the time of Christ's crucifixion.
Tacitus is widely believed to have had full access to the Roman Senate Records of the time, and may have even read Pontius Pilate's report of the incident before making his public and historic documentation.
Generally speaking, any and all capable scholars consider the work of Tacitus to be authentic and reliable. There is no dispute of his authority in the matters.
He wrote in c 112 c.e. concerning "The Great Fire of Rome", that Nero blamed the Christians for the fire of 64 c.e. in order to avert the true source of blame...
"Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 14-37 at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
Quote from piezoe:
And the Romans are believed to have kept meticulous records of all their crucifixions.
If they kept such meticulous records of their countless crucifixions, then please tell us- Where exactly can these records be viewed?
Please share with us this wealth of information so that scholars world wide who have devoted their lives to the study will also be able to benefit from the education of it.
May I ask, When was the last time you sifted through even a dozen Roman crucifixion records, never mind tens of thousands or millions?
They simply don't exist to our knowledge, but my ears are wide open.
I wonder if you knew the outlandish and misguided statement you just made is likely a rumor fabricated by Pagan and Heathen college professors who are hell bent on discrediting Christ's teachings.
May we presume that you are either purposely being one of those misguiding fools, Or that you've fallen for a fool's ploy?
Bottom line is this:
The Romans despised their executionees in the same way the Nazis disregarded theirs.
They were viewed as less than excrement.
The High Romans would not have taken the time nor put forth the energy to make accurate records of bowel movements that were taken, let alone make an effort to document these low lives that were hung in the fields to rot- who's bodies they burned to light the fields at night and ashes that were used as fertilizer.
