(August 6, 2012 at 4:03 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Basically, what we have is a situation in which real, actual commentators on - and from - the first century, including historians and military campaigners covering the region in question, making mention of places, people and events far less remarkable than any JC stories yet not writing even a syllable about this itinerant rabble-rousing cleric. These are people who not only should have noticed; they would have noticed. And yet they didn't. At this point, any unbiased researcher would be asking why that should be.
(emphasis mine*)
There are many possible reasons as to why. Here's my theory...
For the first 4 centuries AD, the Romans did their best to suppress and persecute the early Christians in an attempt to stamp out the evidence.
From the 4th century on, the Romans had an agenda to collect and subsequently suppress all writings regarding the matter so that they could forge their own brand of neo-pagan/christian doctrine.
What's quite telling that my theory may be true is the account that the Jews asked for a curse to put on them for condemning Yeshua to crucifixion. Do you honestly think a group of people would say such a thing?
