Ask, Seek, Knock

[Minimalist]

Apollonius of Tyana?

[Drich]

Never mind a thousand miles away; what about Roman officials in the very same neighbourhood? Wouldn't someone have written something, even if they were only reporting some story of risen dead walking about that might have been doing the rounds at the time, whether they themselves believed it or not?

Who says they didn't?

Do we have All Roman records from that time?

---

Why would a Roman offical believe any different 1000 miles away?

Roman officials don't seem to anything about it or your fucking dead jew coming back to life. Both, I must tell you, would have been BIG NEWS and would have certainly inspired someone to look into it.

Again, who's to say this exact thing did not happen? there is a tremoundous gap in the written records of the 1st century roman goverment. For even in a soceity where the literacy rate was less than 3% the goverment of that soceity still generated a ton of paper work. To which we have little of. So to say Christ was not recorded by the roman goverment is wishful thinking at best. Unless you have PROOF of your assertion.

---

Apollonius of Tyana?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana

Maybe you should start reading up on some of the stuff you reference.. (the last two have not done you/your arguements any favors)

[pocaracas]

Roman officials don't seem to anything about it or your fucking dead jew coming back to life. Both, I must tell you, would have been BIG NEWS and would have certainly inspired someone to look into it.

Again, who's to say this exact thing did not happen? there is a tremoundous gap in the written records of the 1st century roman goverment. For even in a soceity where the literacy rate was less than 3% the goverment of that soceity still generated a ton of paper work. To which we have little of. So to say Christ was not recorded by the roman goverment is wishful thinking at best. Unless you have PROOF of your assertion.

It would be some spectacular info. Very precious to believers.... very unwanted to prosecutors.
Very conveniently absent to atheists.

[Minimalist]

Again, who's to say this exact thing did not happen?

For 1,000 years the arbiters of what was and was not retained from ancient writing were a bunch of xtian monks. Yet, as early as the 4th century they went looking for historical evidence of the godboy, found none and started to forge some of their own because they were embarrassed that he made no mark on history.

As of right now, it appears that no Roman writer heard of your boy. The earliest Roman writers didn't know of any "jesus" although Pliny the Younger had heard of "christians" ( and Suetonius of "chrestians.") The simple fact is that we don't know when "jesus" was concocted and made part of the story.

If you find some evidence which was not forged by embarrassed early xtian fuckwits please let us know.

[Drich]

Again, who's to say this exact thing did not happen?

For 1,000 years the arbiters of what was and was not retained from ancient writing were a bunch of xtian monks. Yet, as early as the 4th century they went looking for historical evidence of the godboy, found none and started to forge some of their own because they were embarrassed that he made no mark on history.

As of right now, it appears that no Roman writer heard of your boy. The earliest Roman writers didn't know of any "jesus" although Pliny the Younger had heard of "christians" ( and Suetonius of "chrestians.") The simple fact is that we don't know when "jesus" was concocted and made part of the story.

If you find some evidence which was not forged by embarrassed early xtian fuckwits please let us know.

Obstinate or foolish?

The point I was making was that Christ spent very little time actually involved with His ministry here, and couple that fact with the volumes of the missing day to day records from that time period, one can not say that Roman officals did or did not write about Christ. There is simply not enough data to speak from a factual position, oneway or another. Now that said you need to understand minnie, that if you presist then I will take it to mean the you are just a man of faith and that you faith/heart is telling you soomething you are compelled to believe with or without supporting evidence.

[Darkstar]

Now that said you need to understand minnie, that if you presist then I will take it to mean the you are just a man of faith and that you faith/heart is telling you soomething you are compelled to believe with or without supporting evidence.

There is no evidence that the Romans recorded any miracles as having occured. Therefore it would be illogical to assume that it is more likely they did than didn't, until evidence that they did is provided.

[Drich]

Now that said you need to understand minnie, that if you presist then I will take it to mean the you are just a man of faith and that you faith/heart is telling you soomething you are compelled to believe with or without supporting evidence.

There is no evidence that the Romans recorded any miracles as ahving occured. Therefore it would be illogical to assume that it is more likely they did than didn't, until evidence that they did is provided.

You do Not Have a Complete record not even close. So that removes the avaible record as 'proof' of anything. All you can say is this is what we know according to what we have. This is due to the fact that you have gaps that span decades and centuries in some cases and thousands of miles.

To say anything else is an act of faith.

[Darkstar]

To say anything else is an act of faith.

And acts of faith are things theists hold in high regard, so why the double standard? I am only saying we cannot assume that they did write about Jesus, I didn't say we had to assume they didn't.

[Drich]

And acts of faith are things theists hold in high regard, so why the double standard?

Good question! So I ask you, why the double standard? I have no issue to defaulting to my faith. I have answered many questions in this thread "Because God said so." Your counter part more so than you have slamed Christians for their faiths, and yet has defaulted to 'faith' when the evidence and proof you all seem to worship abandons you.

I am only saying we cannot assume that they did write about Jesus, I didn't say we had to assume they didn't.

Agree that is why I have ended each post discussing this fact with this very sentiment.

[Darkstar]

And acts of faith are things theists hold in high regard, so why the double standard?

Good question! So I ask you, why the double standard? I have no issue to defaulting to my faith. I have answered many questions in this thread "Because God said so." Your counter part more so than you have slamed Christians for their faiths, and yet has defaulted to 'faith' when the evidence and proof you all seem to worship abandons you.

I am only saying we cannot assume that they did write about Jesus, I didn't say we had to assume they didn't.

Agree that is why I have ended each post discussing this fact with this very sentiment.

Yeah, so...I'm not defaulting to faith, then. I'm simply saying that we have Roman writings of the era, but none show Jesus as having done any miracles, even the dead people walking the streets is not mentioned. I say we cannot know that the documents showing this never existed, but it would, at the very least be illogical to say they did when no evidence suggests this.