If there is no record of the Romans having crucified a guy called Jesus, isn't the whole christian faith a lie

Question

As many people have pointed out, the Romans kept meticulous records of those they crucified.

With there being no record of anyone called Jesus getting nailed to a tree, isn't the whole christian faith built on a lie?

As one answerer kindly pointed out, by the time the gospels were written, from a historical perspective, it would be like trying to write the history of world war 2 today, but with no hoistorical records to go by, just hearsay.

Add to that, the political motivation that drove the writing of the gospels, and the credibilty is looking a bit sad.

Are christians aware of this lack of credibility?

Schneb.....so where's your evidence? Josephus is the only known record from the romans or jews, and his has been comprehensively discredited.

Answer 1

Actually, secular Roman Records indicate that a man, by the name of Yeshua (Jesus is the Latin Translation of this Aramaic name), from the town of Nazarat (Nazareth), was executed by way of Crucifixion on a Roman Cross (Not a TREE) on the hill of the skull (Otherwise known as Golgotha, which is still in existence, today), all of which coincides with the accounts of the Gospels. The calendar translations would have placed the execution in the approximate year of 33 AD.

You are incorrect about the timeline of the writing of the Gospels. They were written to particular audiences, by different Authors, all of which were disciples of Yeshua. In addition, they were all written and distributed within a few years of the execution.

You need to go back and reexamine your history, taking into account the translational flaws you have obviously made. Just curious as to why you would come here with a lack of accurate information, and with what information you have being flawed, and decide to get inflammatory towards others here. I don't understand why people at this site tend to do that.

Hope this helps...

Answer 2

If there are so many records of the Romans having crucified a guy called Jesus, isn't the whole christian faith true?
As many people have pointed out, the Romans and Jews kept meticulous records of those they crucified.

With there being so many records of Jesus getting nailed to a cross, isn't the whole christian faith built on the truth?

As one answerer kindly pointed out, by the time the gospels were written, from a historical perspective, it would be like trying to write the history of world war 2 today, but with many historical records to go by, and many eye witness accounts.

Add to that, the lack of political motivation that drove the writing of the gospels, and the credibilty is looking watertight.

Are atheists aware of this credibility?

Answer 3

Sorry but try harder whether you believe who Jesus was or not he existed in the flesh and was mentioned by the Romans like Tacitus a Roman Historian who was not a Christian but described Jesus as a teacher who caused trouble and was crucified. Also Celcus another Roman writer mentions Jesus both were not supporters of the Christians so had no interest in supporting an invention.

Answer 4

You seem to forget that Rome was sacked and looted many times, so any records kept in Rome are probably incomplete.

And besides, why would a record be kept in Rome about people who were executed in the Levant anyway, an obscure and distant territory on the borders of the Empire? It seems that people were always revolting and being executed in Judea in the first century anyway -- any records of the myriad of people being put to death would have probably been kept there, and may have been lost during the revolt of 70 AD.

Never-less, there seem to be several indirect references to the death of Jesus:

---------------------------------------
...One of the special effects which accompanied the crucifiction was a period of unnatural darkness. This was confirmed by the Samaritan-born pagan historian Thallus. His works have now been lost, but they were quoted by a Christian writer, Julius Africanus in about 221 AD, while discussing the crucifiction darkness:

"Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun -- unreasonably as it seems to me."

The crucifiction took place at Passover, which is always on a full moon, during which a solar eclipse is impossible. Thallus' third book of histories covered the period to his present day, i.e. 52 AD, a mere 19 years after the event itself. Another first century historian, Phlegon also mentioned a solar eclipse during a full moon during Tiberius Caesar's reign. This is referred to by both Africanus and Philopon.

Roman Historian Tacitus also made mention of the crucifiction, writing in AD 112.

".. people called 'Christians', hated for their abominable crimes. Their name comes from Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius, had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate."
Tacitus, Annals 15.44

Other Historical References to the Crucifiction:

Lucian of Samosata, a Roman satirist (c. 175 AD).

The Babylonian Sandhedrin (Jewish Records).

Flavius Josephus, a Jewish Historian (< 70 AD).

Answer 5

Jesus is a Hellenization. I think it was Jeshua ben Joseph, but it still would have been transliterated because the Romans didn't use Hebrew. Further, who says such records would have survived anyway?

I agree that there is a big credibilty issue, but I'm not entirely certain that this is evidence of it.

Answer 6

The sources that mention jesus are mostly ancient jewish historical texts, all coming from around the times of the jewish revolts against the Roman Empire in Judea. The major Roman source that mentions jesus comes from 112 AD, about 70 years after jesus' death and Passion. In it, Pliny (a Roman historian) writes the following:

"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.{10}"

Answer 7

Even if you consider Christianity a lie the techings of Jesus found in the Bible are still relevant. Whether he did or did not die on a cross the love he showed throughout his life even up to forgiving those who crucified him is an example that all humans should live by.

Answer 8

IF the Roman's never crucified a man called Jesus, than Christianity is a lie.

However, records can be lost. Just because there are no records of it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Answer 9

christians r unaware of many things. I used 2 b 1 of them, 4 over 35 years. I was a pentecostal preacher when YAHWEH began calling me into HIS HOUSE. HE opened my mind so that I may see the many deceptions that were surrounding what I then thought was faith. for example: The English letter "j", used 2 spell the pagan name "jesus", was not in existance in any ones language until the 16th century. OUR SAVIOR & MESSIAH YAHSHUA was born a little over 2000 years ago. The true name of OUR HEAVENLY FATHER YAHWEH was removed from the pages of the scriptures & replaced with the names of pagan gods & lords, as well as the true name of our MESSIAH YAHSHUA. The Romans in the time of YAHSHUA'S murder on the stake (another christian fable- crucified on a cross; not! HE was killed on a stake) would have had HIS name recorded like this: YAHSHUA BEN YAHSEF, OF NAZARETH, IN GALLELI. In our modern terminology, the record would read: In English, Joshua, son of Joseph, of the city of Nazareth, in the Province of Galleli. Please don't allow the deceptions found in the christian dogma cause y 2 miss out on Salvation. Seek the HOUSE OF YAHWEH, THE PILLAR & GROUND OF THE TRUTH!!! Call 325-670-9494

Answer 10

Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:
Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, 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 . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .

Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:
The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.{27}