webdiplomacy.net

Why is the execution and crucifiction of Jesus found nowhere in Roman record?

The Roman historian Tacitus records Jesus execution at the hands of Pontius Pilate, so I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean to be trollposting, or are you doing it accidentally?

upon much analysis and consideration, I have concluded and thus must concede that brainbomb is correct. the phrase "Roman record" does NOT contain the string "the execution and crucifiction of Jesus".

There is also no Hawaiian record of Jesus’ execution and crucifixion

Wattsthematter wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 30, 2024 1:16 am

There is also no Hawaiian record of Jesus’ execution and crucifixion

Ah! You make a good point. My faith is unraveled and my beliefs fundamentally shaken by this undeniable truth.

How many Roman records of executions are there?

Hominidae wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 30, 2024 5:22 pm

How many Roman records of executions are there?

One would imagine not that many. There are a few Emperors we're not entirely sure about because the records aren't great. 2000 years and the collapse of civilisation will have that effect

Octavious wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 30, 2024 5:42 pm

Hominidae wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 30, 2024 5:22 pm

How many Roman records of executions are there?

One would imagine not that many. There are a few Emperors we're not entirely sure about because the records aren't great. 2000 years and the collapse of civilisation will have that effect

What's Hawaii's excuse tho?

Hominidae wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 30, 2024 5:22 pm

How many Roman records of executions are there?

at least 1, since according to CaptainFritz28, there is record of Jesus's execution.

In all seriousness, I'm not a Christian at all, but I've always found the "Jesus didn't exist" argument to be weird. Like, is it more likely that someone started a religion and based it upon some fictional character who supposedly existed a few generations ago, or is it more likely that that person existed and started the religion himself? Occam's razor.

Hominidae wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 31, 2024 1:16 am

In all seriousness, I'm not a Christian at all, but I've always found the "Jesus didn't exist" argument to be weird. Like, is it more likely that someone started a religion and based it upon some fictional character who supposedly existed a few generations ago, or is it more likely that that person existed and started the religion himself? Occam's razor.

It's the classic trilemma. He existed. There's plenty of evidence he existed. So here are your choices: he was either crazy, a liar, or the real deal.

Here's a quote from the Wikipedia article, "Sources for the historicity of Jesus":

"The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (c. 116 CE), book 15, chapter 44. The relevant passage reads: 'called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.'"

Check out the article for yourself because I know people trash Wikipedia, but that little quote alone cites three external sources for its information. There's several other paragraphs afterwards that claim Tacitus is seen as an authentic, reliable source by scholars.

which ever of the three is true, in the words of Bill Wurtz: you can make a religion out of this!

brainbomb wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 29, 2024 11:27 pm

Why is the execution and crucifiction of Jesus found nowhere in Roman record?

I wouldn't really expect there to be any such record. The Romans executed lots of people and if they kept records of all such executions, most of those records are lost. The Diaspora alone would be a good reason for not finding that many records for the area. They only found solid evidence of Pilate himself this century.

That being said, Pliny the Younger wrote letters to Emperor Trajan for insight on how to deal with Christian trials from Bithynia between 98 and 112 AD. He was writing from Nicomedia (modern day Izmit). That puts Pliny the Younger dealing with the converts to a new Christian Church only 152 miles and less than 22 years removed from the spot (Hieropolis, 80AD) where St. Phillip was martyred. So, Pliny is asking for guidance about how to try people who were most likely converts that heard St. Phillip (an eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus) preach. That's good enough for me. You don't usually get such good evidence from 2,000 year old sources.

Happy Easter, everyone

kingofthepirates wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 31, 2024 1:54 am

which ever of the three is true, in the words of Bill Wurtz: you can make a religion out of this!

“The sun is a deadly laser” -Bill Wurtz

Hominidae wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 31, 2024 1:16 am

In all seriousness, I'm not a Christian at all, but I've always found the "Jesus didn't exist" argument to be weird. Like, is it more likely that someone started a religion and based it upon some fictional character who supposedly existed a few generations ago, or is it more likely that that person existed and started the religion himself? Occam's razor.

Have you heard about the Church of Scientology?

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 31, 2024 7:27 am

Hominidae wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 31, 2024 1:16 am

In all seriousness, I'm not a Christian at all, but I've always found the "Jesus didn't exist" argument to be weird. Like, is it more likely that someone started a religion and based it upon some fictional character who supposedly existed a few generations ago, or is it more likely that that person existed and started the religion himself? Occam's razor.

Have you heard about the Church of Scientology?

Are you proferring the idea that since L. Ron Hubbard existed that certainly Jesus Christ existed? I appreciate the spirit of the argument, but I think that might be a false equivalency.

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 31, 2024 7:27 am

Have you heard about the Church of Scientology?

to be fair, the Church of Scientology is wayyyy more sketchy (it's not really a religion even) than the vast majority (if not all) established religions, and L Ron Hubbard has admitted that it's straight up a con. On top of his fraud convictions. And the many personal experiences of those who have left Scientology. I feel like Occam's razor here would be to believe the eye-witness accounts and take what was said at face value...

Am I the only one who is a little underwhelmed by the level of atheistic opposition here lately?

Hasn't this thread basically amounted to,

Weak challenge to Christianity [There is no Roman evidence of Christ's Crucifixion]
Strong Christian response [Huh? Sure there is. Here's some right here Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger]
Then a basic ignorance of the evidence provided to make a weak (and vague, so certainly clear it up if this isn't what you meant) false equivalency that if Scientology is false then what? all religions are false?
Which is on the level with "If Social Darwinism is evil then all philosophy must be evil".

Are the atheists getting fat and lazy here?

You atheists, with big flabby minds, you need to do some Rumanian thread lifts