OK, Christians! I have my KJV!

[Succubus]

Mark 1:28 And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.

Luke 4:14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about.

Luke 4:37 And the fame of him went out into every place of the country round about.

Luke 5:15 But so much the more went there a fame abroad of him: and great mul­ti­tudes came to­gether to hear, and to be healed by him of their in­fir­mi­ties.

Yes I know this conundrum, shall we call it does appear regularly in these discussion but I thought perhaps you might have some new input. If Jesus was so famous then why is there no mention of him in history?
Drich, if you could address this without using the tired old apologist Josephus/Tacitus fall back then I'm pretty sure you will garner much respect around these parts.
I know it's a big ask but if you could just this once look at the story through the eyes of a non believer then you will understand why I refuse to believe it. Drich the story does not make sense.

There is. It's just what was known goes into much detail it is considered a religious text rather than a 3rd party source, unless it was an offical document.

I'm sorry but I cannot parse this.

For example look at what we call "the book of Luke or the book of ACTS" written by an affiliated non-jew/christian commissioned by what was believed to be a very wealth roman official for his own personal enlightenment.

Do either of these 'affiliated non-jew/christians' - 'wealthy Roman officials' have names?

Luke's recording of the book of luke was written before He was converted.

There is no such 'book' in the new testament, do you mean Acts? Acts is badly written fan fiction and for you to claim the author was converted you have to give him a name, Acts just like the four gospels was written anonymously.

it for him was just the documentation of what was known by Paul. Yet this effort is dismissed as a religious text even though a 3rd party person wrote it.

And yet what the author of Acts says about Paul is quite often in direct conflict with what Paul says himself.

...Now if we had a complete library of all ancient writings and jesus shows up as much as he does, then your question wold be valid.

If my granny had wheels she would be a bus.

as it stands however with less than fraction remaining of what was once written it is foolish to say Rome did not write about Christ.

You can not appeal to evidence that does not exist.

It is like having a collection of old TV guides that ranged from 1978 to 1988 then someone asking you can you prove via your tv guides that regan was indeed an actor... after all if President Regan was an actor should the most powerful man of that time who shared a vocation with the people normally featured in TV guide?
TV guid does indeed mention regan as an actor but ironically not during his tenior as president except in passing. it's not till 2017 did they write a large story about Him.

Are you attempting to draw a parallel with the first century void? If all we have are TV guides from that decade you would have a point. But we do have many hundreds of references to Reagan's acting career.

The point drags over to Christ in that without a complete record of what was written we can not say conclusively how much was written. Remember the Heart of Rome was burnt out under Nero (which was after Christ) which if I remember correctly included over 6 scriptoriums which included in the clearing of the way of the collocium at the end of the 1st century.

I'll get back to this.

Now all of that said... Here are some examples of roman officials and non religious third party people acknowledging Jesus in that time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ
There is a mentioning of Jesus being executed by  pilate in His work the "Annals"

Oh alllright then if you insist. Tacitus it is .
If the Tacitus reference is genuine, and there is considerable doubt that it is, then you have two options. He was either referring to what Christians were saying or he had access to Roman records.


"Remember the Heart of Rome was burnt out under Nero"
You can't have it both ways.

It very much looks as though this fire was rather selective in what it destroyed. What records was Tacitus studying, where did he find them, when did he find them?
The Heart of Rome was burnt out in AD 64 and yet in AD 116 Tacitus comes by this absolute revelation! Now that, is a miracle.

<Some silly stuff deleted>

We have the writtings of pilate

We have no such fucking thing!

we also have the letter of lentulus
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Letter_of_Lentulus

This is proof positive you're taking the piss. From your link:

1. there was no Publius Lentulus, governor of Judea, preceding Pontius Pilate; history gives the appointment from A.D. 15-26 to Valerius Grattus
   
2. if there had been a procurator of Syria, he would have written to the Emperor, not to the Senate, because the province was an imperial one; and
   
3. the title "Jesus Christus" was not used as early as this; while the expressions "prophet of truth" and "sons of men" are Hebrew idioms.
   

...there is more written about Him durning that time period than anyone else including julius ceasar... yet for you that is not enough because despite fact that is not what you want to believe.

LIAR!