RESEARCH PROJECT

[4dmin]

In other words, connect the dots. The Bible says he lived. The Quran said he lived. The historical records said he lived. Why would anyone say he didn't then?

well considering christianity wasn't a religion until constantine and then suddenly while constantines rule the cross and christianity now become one of the major religions... as well as constantine forced people to believe in his idea of christianity, so again... you believe what you want.

You can't take everything word for word, including the bible... so lets say the storys of Constantine are true, if that is true, when we would go as far as to say roman records are true... well there is no known roman record of the crucifixion of Jesus. Yest proabably some point in time a man named jesus died on the cross, but there is no roman history that backs up the bible. Now this i am base on what i know and have read. I took 4 years of latin/classical history w/o any mention of Jesus (and i had the biggest catholic for a teacher) so if there is something there then i'm sure i would of covered it.

The problem here is... you want to question me about if you show me proof, well you've yet to establish that... there is not a bible/quran older than roman records in exsistance, so what is the truth? roman records that have no indication of events as suggested in your religion or a book that is no more than 1000 years old?

[Jaimecbr900]

well considering christianity wasn't a religion until constantine and then suddenly while constantines rule the cross and christianity now become one of the major religions... as well as constantine forced people to believe in his idea of christianity, so again... you believe what you want.

But what about the Roman records that were mentioned and have been established as artifacts that mention the same occurances as the Bible does? They were written AFTER Constantine ruled and even BEFORE. What about those records?

Now this i am base on what i know and have read. I took 4 years of latin/classical history w/o any mention of Jesus (and i had the biggest catholic for a teacher) so if there is something there then i'm sure i would of covered it.

Now now Paul, you know exactly why that teacher didn't discuss "Jesus" in the classroom. It's that good ole idea that if you utter anything remotely religious inside a classroom, then you are suddenly betraying the separation of church and state. It's an utter crock IMO, but that's how the states see it.

The problem here is... you want to question me about if you show me proof, well you've yet to establish that... there is not a bible/quran older than roman records in exsistance, so what is the truth? roman records that have no indication of events as suggested in your religion or a book that is no more than 1000 years old?

But let me ask you something then: If you are saying that Roman records are true, and the link above shows you how Roman records do in fact exist that make mention of everything from Jesus directly, his crucifixion, and his followers (and subsequent religion)....then why would you say that there are no records then? That's what I'm saying by giving you the "proof" you asked for.

[4dmin]

But let me ask you something then: If you are saying that Roman records are true, and the link above shows you how Roman records do in fact exist that make mention of everything from Jesus directly, his crucifixion, and his followers (and subsequent religion)....then why would you say that there are no records then? That's what I'm saying by giving you the "proof" you asked for.

as i stated before i have never read and i just saw a discussion on pbs about this subject and historians/theologist from every major university agree that there is no REAL roman records indicating that the happens as in the bible w/ jesus ever took place. i don't know what link or proof your talking about b/c i have yet to read about any real roman documents that exsist that speak of jesus... even at the same time not all christians believed in jesus... they believed in GOD but not jesus... that is why constantine brought christianity together as one set of beliefs. so if one man decided what was right and what was wrong before the bible was written how do you know these artifacts (bible) are even true... you are reading what was compiled by one MAN, so believe what you want i guess

I would also question: Why would the romans WRITE about it? Name me ANYBODY that has been executed in recent years for claiming to be the son of God, and charged with blasphemy etc etc.. and has been "written" about? It is not written about today, 10 years ago, 100 years ago or in that time. Surely thousands were executed during witch trials, religious persecussions etc, but they would definitely not name them one by one.

well they do have execution documentation dating back to jesus, so it is not out of the question that he should be in there as well, but he is not. and it wouldn't matter to them anyway if he was crazy or not... the only way he would of been executed like many of christians were was if he declined to worship and take part in rituals for the gods.

now to further this... constantine made christianity what it is today so if jesus exsisted and he believed in him than constantine would of made sure it was put into roman doctrine... shit constantine was credited w/ making the cross the religious symbol for christianity. so why isn't jesus in any roman records???

[ISAtlanta300]

well considering christianity wasn't a religion until constantine and then suddenly while constantines rule the cross and christianity now become one of the major religions... as well as constantine forced people to believe in his idea of christianity, so again... you believe what you want.

You can't take everything word for word, including the bible... so lets say the storys of Constantine are true, if that is true, when we would go as far as to say roman records are true... well there is no known roman record of the crucifixion of Jesus. Yest proabably some point in time a man named jesus died on the cross, but there is no roman history that backs up the bible. Now this i am base on what i know and have read. I took 4 years of latin/classical history w/o any mention of Jesus (and i had the biggest catholic for a teacher) so if there is something there then i'm sure i would of covered it.

The problem here is... you want to question me about if you show me proof, well you've yet to establish that... there is not a bible/quran older than roman records in exsistance, so what is the truth? roman records that have no indication of events as suggested in your religion or a book that is no more than 1000 years old?

I would also question: Why would the romans WRITE about it? Name me ANYBODY that has been executed in recent years for claiming to be the son of God, and charged with blasphemy etc etc.. and has been "written" about? It is not written about today, 10 years ago, 100 years ago or in that time. Surely thousands were executed during witch trials, religious persecussions etc, but they would definitely not name them one by one.

To the Romans, Jesus was just another "lunatic", who got executed by proclaiming himself as the messiah. There would be no need for the romans to write a thesis about "just one prisoner".

I believe you are asking for roman papers which would mimic the bible verse for verse, well it ain't going to happen. The romans did not believe in Jesus. You won't find papers that will say "There once was a man from Nantucket.. oops sorry I mean.. There once was a man named Jesus, who was the Son of God and was crucified."


You will find various accounts though, about thing that HAD taken place, and that are also talked about in the bible. References to times, places, kings etc. Accurate descriptions of what was going on that were also described in the bible. Coincidence? I don't think so.