Why don't we have the Sanhedrin or Roman report on Jesus's execution? Was it not worth recording?
924328
The bible also says that a few people got a male and female of every animal, put them on a boat and saved them from a flood that lasted 150 days.  The elephants alone would have needed 7.5 tons of food to survive that long.  That is if you only have one type of elephant on board and that is if you were giving them starvation rations of 50 pounds of food per elephant per day.  Also Noah lived to be over 600 years old.  You can't believe everything in the bible.  \n\nWhat the question was, why don't we see the Roman report on the execution?  The Romans were record keepers and I think it would be interesting to see what they recorded about this event.
1388
The fact that a man named Jesus, from Nazareth was crucified under a Roman ruler named Pontius Pilot is one of the best attested to facts in ancient history.  \n\nReligious historians - such as Luke, the doctor, who's testment can be read in any commonly circulated version of the Christian Bible (The Gospel of Luke) -- as well as secular historians like the Roman historian Tactitus all agree on this fact.  They differ in how they choose to understand Jesus' death on the cross -- where a religous historian like Luke would say that Jesus was the "messiah" (the Christ, of Jewish Prophesy) and the son of God, Tacitus, refers to him simply as a nussaince and the originator of a "mischevious superstition".  \n\nSee below for more info.
421013
Absolutely!  every one of them!no matter how people try to twist the facts to support what they believe it doesn't change the facts.  where did his body go? if he didn't raise from the dead.  oh i know....the deciples (who were so afraid that they ran for their lives) suddenly maned up and over took the 20 or so roman soldiers and took him.  and the fact that the roman soldiers weren't killed for admitting they fell asleep ( as was custom to be killed for falling asleep on duty) means nothing? and they 500 that saw him after the resurection?  and they thousands of first century christians who willingly went to their deaths saying that they saw him when all they has to do is admit that they lied or exagerated?  The fact is Most Jews are looking for the messiah to look and be a certain way and he didn't come like they thought he would.\nLook up Dr. Micheal Brown,  he is Jewish Christian,  if you can talk with him and still not believe then somthing is wrong with you
928543
There is both Biblical and non Biblical evidence. Josephus was a Jewish historian of his day. Never a christian BTW. He gave an account of Jesus is his record. Biblically, David the King wrote a Psalm all about the crucifixion a method of execution not used until the Romans invented it some 500 years later. Proof there is not. If there were we would all be damned because proof makes faith of no effective and people as saved by the grace of God through faith. Without faith we die...   Jim
984437
There IS supporting evidence that proves that is was indeed written at the time it should have been. Christians refuse to believe in anything to do with it, simply because it would shred a major part of the Christ myth. It's amazing - even with the knowlegde they have of how the bible was constructed, and even knowing that many books were taken out of the bible as being heresy, they refuse to admit it might possibly be true. Why is it so hard to believe?  It was Judas' destiny to do it! And Jesus must have known that, too! If Judas was, as the text says, Jesus' favorite, and the one chosen, why is that bad? Jesus knew he had to die, he even knew where and how. All Judas did was help the prophecy be fulfilled. And to say his family wrote it to clear Judas' name is just stupid. Be open minded, people! You say you're enlightened by the Word - then you should be able to look at this with open minds.
246837
Jesus was not killed by the Jews. He gave His life willingly as a sacrifice for sin. This was prophesied and fufilled. The Jews rejected their Messiah, yes. But this was also prophesied to happen. The Jews will be redeamed and saved in the end. This is also prophesied and illustrated in Romans. It is very important that you read 17 verses further...\n\nRomans 11:25\nFor I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.\n\nOnce the number of gentiles is come in, God will remove the blinders from Israel.\n___________________________\nSorry, I always want to make that point regarding who killed Jesus. Just want to get it straight. ;)\n\nAs to your detail, Christians should NEVER ignore the Jewish people. They should take great interest in, for example, their Seders. I even did an interesting study on it. http://tinyurl.com/nchkw\nI have always been a proSemitic. I also designed the Holyland Virtual Tour CD. I have been to Israel 3 times (working on 4) and always encourage people to tour there. You will learn so much about the Jewish people there without media bias to poison what you see. I encourage my kids to bless the Jewish people whenever they can. The Jewish people have come to realize they have only one true friend who has stood by them through thick and thin... the evangelical Christian. It perplexes them, but they appreciate it with tears. And I appreciate them and all of the incredible benefits they have developed for our world in medicine, technology and agriculture. Too many benefits to list here.
533285
This is completely outrageous!!\n\nYou wonder why Romans killed a guy who never existed, yet you don't ask what were Europeans doing in Judea at all.\n\nThese bloody invaders murdered 250,000 Jews by crucifiction yet nobody pays tribute to those poor souls.\n\nYet everyone and their uncle cries for a guy who never even existed, can a bigger injustice be even imagined?
358386
So you think maybe the Sanhedrin had a few black guys in there? Maybe Pontius Pilate was a brudda? Palestinians are not black. Romans were not black. The Bible mentions black people. The first convert from outside the world of mainstream Jewry, mentioned in Acts, was a black man "an Ethiopian eunuch, a high officr at the court of Candace, Queen of Sheba" but he was regarded as sufficiently unusual to be mentioned specifically.As for not portraying anything good, well there are very few comedy sequences during a crucifixion. It's generally a messy and unpleasant business. Kinda depends on whether you think the Salvation of mankind qualifies as "good."
576441
Hollywood intends to re-write history but one only needs to research for themselves the validity of the claims. For example the quality of the New Testament documents can be validated outside of the Bible through the research of Josephus Flavius, Tacitus, Caesar's Gallic Wars, Herodotus, and Thucydides. In fact there are 5366 documents discovered so far to validate that the Bible we have today is 99.5% as accurate as it was way back then. \n\nInternal evidence is pretty clear as well. 2 Peter 3:15-16 clearly states that the canon was already in the process of being collected for what we have today in the Bible. There were gnostic books but they were not accepted because they were written by Hellenistic writers that intended to change the original message of the Greek translation to imply that Jesus was not the Son of God. \n\nSee the sources below for addition research. \n\nSource(s):\n\n"Exploring the Da Vinci Code"\n"Breaking the Da Vinci Code"\n"Is the New Testament Documents Reliable?"\n"The Gospel Code"\n"Hidden Gospels - How the Search for Jesus Lost the Way"\n\nLast this is a personal favorite of mine...\n\n"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict" \n\ngo to any book store and pick them up.
569955
In the Jewish Religion- we believe that that'll happen anyway- not on your choice- and you sit there wondering what ever happend by that case - and that's why that other thing happend, since then this would have happend.\nGet my drift?  it'll also show how much time we used properly in the service of GD and vice versa...\nAnd we won't be able to tell GD, well, no I disn't do this or I didn't do that- it's all on video....
726974
One of the best books on this is "The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell.  He is a lawyer who spent years trying to prove that the Bible is false and that Jesus never existed and from independent texts and archaeological sources ended up proving the opposite.  He has a section detailing how priests who copied the manuscripts would, after double checking their copy, go back and count letters in every verse just to insure they hadn't accidently left out or added a letter.\n\n     There are so many manuscripts in existence that they can be compared fairly easily to show there has been no change.  As earlier manuscripts are found it only confirms this more.  It was assumed this would not be the case in the mid 60s and 'experts' from that time are still quoted in academia because they don't like the results of new archaeological discoveries.\n\n     Scholar John Lea compares Shakespeare and the Bible:  He says that it seems strange that the text of Shakespeare, which has been in existence for only a few centuries "should be far more uncertain and corrupt than that of the New Testament, now over eighteen centuries old, during nearly fifteen of which it existed only in manuscript..."\n\n     "With perhaps a dozen or twenty exceptions (mostly involving numbers - my own note) the text of every verse in the New Testament may be said to be so far settled by general consent of scholars, that any dispute as to its readings must relate rather to the intrepretation of the words than to any doubts respeting the words themselves.  But in every one of Shakespeare's thirty-seven plays there are probably a hundred readings still in dispute, a large portion of which materially  affects the meaning of the passages in which they occur."\n\n     Doctor Bernard Ramm notes that "to be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament..."\n\n     "Jews...kept tabs on every letter, syllable, word and paragraph.  They had special classes of men within their culture whose sole duty was to preserve and transmit these documents with practically perfect fidelity-scribes, lawyers, massoretes.  Who ever counted the letters and syllables and words of Plato or Aristotle?  Cicero or Seneca?"\n\n     Very few manuscripts exist of most writings we accept from antiquity without question.  I believe Plato is still in the lead with 27 manuscripts in existence of one of his works.  In contrast, thousands of manuscripts of scripture exist that can be crossreferenced and checked for accuracy.\n\n     The party who wrote above that King James had a political agenda with his translation is correct.  It probably colors less than 1% of his translation.  Nevertheless, the New International Version is probably the most accurate translation currently available as it used a multitude of scholars cross checking each others work and went to original Hebrew manuscripts dating to centuries before the latin translation the King James version used (as the original Hebrew ms. had yet to be discovered at the time).  If you read the King James side by side with the New International Version you will find very little difference.  And no difference where core doctrines (teachings) of Christianity are concerned.
849359
Its not there, however, you are using the wrong calendar.  We should really worship Friday Night to Saturday, with the Jews, as Jesus did.  Using the Calendar and traditions he used.
796073
christians : hellooooooo !\nit is obvious this question cannot be answer with your stupid " it is in the bible " ....duh !\nthe question is about records, like the ones the city make? got it now christians?\nsomething that recorded anything about his existance at the time he existed.\nis there anything?\nnothing?\nhow convinient .....\n\nthere were no birth certificates back then, but there was a census ?\nthere were no death certificates back then, but there was a trial where he was sentenced to death ?\n\nhowcome ,christians, there is nothing about this jesus guy?
992350
The Jews did not kill Jesus.  The Romans did not either.  Mankind as a whole did, or more accurately, Jesus love for mankind.\n\nNails did not and could not hold the Creator to the cross.  Only love could.
1077244
Sorry to hear it's not going well.  People should answer your questions - but if they don't there's always the REPORT ABUSE button.\n\nBTW, Jesus DID eat meat - you can't expect people not to call you on that.  And what's up with our Savior's eyes?
982221
There is no ( or at the very least, precious little) evidence of a person called Jesus outside of the bible.  Xians will say Josephus mentioned him, but in fact, the only translation we have of Josephus was done by a christian writer in the 4th century...we don't have it in the original Latin.  And what is mentioned is very weak and open to interpretation and very likely was subject to interpolation.\n\nThe Romans were meticulous record keepers.  If Jesus existed, and had fostered the kind of revolution that would get their attention by threatening Roman rule, performing miracles, there would be copious writings about him from the Romans, and other sources.\n\nPaul the Apostle is agreeably the earliest christian writer, and he wrote probably a couple decades after the putative events.  Yet Paul makes no reference to a recently living Christ...and if you read his works separate from the rest of the NT, he seems to be writing of a supernatural creature who fought a battle, died and rose again in a spiritual realm, eons ago.  Paul went to Jerusalem to visit Peter, and yet he makes no mention of a pilgramage to Golgotha, or the tomb or any sites that would be shrines to a real person recently living, crucified and risen again ascending into heaven. Paul is bizarrely disinterested in anything relating to a real physical Jesus.\n\nAll other accounts, were written much later.  The earliest Gospel of Mark (by the way, it wasn't written by anybody called Mark, it is anonymous) couldn't have been written any earlier than 40-50 years after the events.  The Gospels all contradict each other as to Jesus life, miracles and death.  I recommend any of Randall Helms books on the New Testament and Gospels for a detailed overview of the problems.\n\nIt really is quite interesting if you are prepared to have an open mind about it.  Jesus, if he existed, was at best a wandering prophet/holyman/philospher.  We have lots of legendary heroes with stories about them, like King Arthur, William Tell...but we know they never actually existed.  I think it more likely he never actually existed, and was created as a "founding father" in the heroic tradition by the early church.
1052747
I think your newspaper made that up 2000 years after Jesus was alive.  There are people who wrote about Jesus's life who lived with him and followed him around everywhere.  They are eyewitness reporters.  You can find their reports about Jesus in the bible, in the New Testament.  Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote gospels about him - a gospel is a short story about Jesus that tells the message of why he was born and why he lived.  Luke was a historian who researched and interviewed people everywhere about all of their experiences with Jesus.\n\nNone of these people mention Jesus being married or having a child.  It is lunacy to think that they could have missed somehting that huge about Jesus's life.