Religion

[domalino]

But you forget that there are loads of surviving texts from the first century the romans were very diligent in that respect
And not one mention of a jesus

Not one...except Tacitus and Pliny.

Tacitus is renowned for being reliable, to the extent that whenever he was writing about stuff that was not known to be true, he would highlight that, and he didnt when writing about Jesus.

We're talking about a guy who started a a rabble in a provincial town before getting executed, you wouldn't expect there to be dozens of sources across the Roman empire from his lifetime especially when it's what happens after his death that makes him noteworthy to them.

 

[vmsuhail]

But you forget that there are loads of surviving texts from the first century the romans were very diligent in that respect
And not one mention of a jesus
The 4 you mention cannot be eyewitnesses
So we are dealing with at best second hand information
Josephus at around 93ad we are two generations later and more for the others
So
Josephus is scant at best and the fact it’s still debated means until definitive remains dubious

Have all the Roman records survived ?

 

[tonea2003]

Have all the Roman records survived ?

Don’t be silly

 

[aguero93:20]

Ok. If you follow the other discussion happening here, Josephus is being quoted as a source for the historicity of Jesus(as), but the Bible is not. Can you name a primary historical source of events in Jerusalem, 1st century A.D ?

At least 2 Roman censuses occurred in the period, 6 AD and 28 AD. Both are primary sources. The Romans were, after all, fastidious record keepers.

 

[tonea2003]

Not one...except Tacitus and Pliny.

Tacitus is renowned for being reliable, to the extent that whenever he was writing about stuff that was not known to be true, he would highlight that, and he didnt when writing about Jesus.

We're talking about a guy who started a a rabble in a provincial town before getting executed, you wouldn't expect there to be dozens of sources across the Roman empire from his lifetime especially when it's what happens after his death that makes him noteworthy to them.

Tacitus was born around 56 ad so minimum ad 76 before writing anything
annals is second century so could quite easily be aware of at least marks gospel(70/73ad)
Pliny is similar
They are both not primary sources
So where would they get their information from

 

[vmsuhail]

At least 2 Roman censuses occurred in the period, 6 AD and 28 AD. Both are primary sources. The Romans were, after all, fastidious record keepers.

Ok. So what information do we have about Pilate in the Roman records ?

 

[aguero93:20]

Ok. So what information do we have about Pilate in the Roman records ?

Bugger all really, hardly compelling evidence for the existence of Jesus. AFAIK outside of the bible he's only mentioned very briefly by Tacitus.

 

[tonea2003]

Not one...except Tacitus and Pliny.

Tacitus is renowned for being reliable, to the extent that whenever he was writing about stuff that was not known to be true, he would highlight that, and he didnt when writing about Jesus.

We're talking about a guy who started a a rabble in a provincial town before getting executed, you wouldn't expect there to be dozens of sources across the Roman empire from his lifetime especially when it's what happens after his death that makes him noteworthy to them.

So its someone who started a rabble and got executed
no you wouldn’t expect records of that
But that gives you a dilemma
The bible is now a load of made up pony
If that’s the case
You can’t have it both ways mate

 

[tonea2003]

Ok. So what information do we have about Pilate in the Roman records ?

Pilate is well known to be a very nasty governor who would of been nothing like the lily livered version in the bible
If memory serves me correctly he was removed from his post and sent back to Rome as he was getting out of hand
But will have to check my facts

 

[vmsuhail]

Pilate is well known to be a very nasty governor who would of been nothing like the lily livered version in the bible
If memory serves me correctly he was removed from his post and sent back to Rome as he was getting out of hand
But will have to check my facts

Those information come from other sources like Josephus. There is not much in the Roman records about this Roman governor, so it's not some encyclopaedia as is made out to be.