why is there no roman record of Jesus execution

[CaptainFritz28]

I mean, the claim initially made was one which can be disproven by a quick Google search, and the claim was not about the resurrection but about Jesus' very existence.

I imagine if BB were to ask about the lack of Roman record for Jesus' resurrection, there would be much more Athiest support.

[Crazy Anglican]

I mean, the claim initially made was one which can be disproven by a quick Google search, and the claim was not about the resurrection but about Jesus' very existence.

I imagine if BB were to ask about the lack of Roman record for Jesus' resurrection, there would be much more Athiest support.

See even the OP was kind of sloppy. I mean, was it really even a challenge to His existence? Lots of people have existed without any record of their executions.

[Pengwinja]

I mean, the claim initially made was one which can be disproven by a quick Google search, and the claim was not about the resurrection but about Jesus' very existence.

I imagine if BB were to ask about the lack of Roman record for Jesus' resurrection, there would be much more Athiest support.

See even the OP was kind of sloppy. I mean, was it really even a challenge to His existence? Lots of people have existed without any record of their executions.

There isn’t a challenge to his existence. There is a challenge to his resurrection, and if he was who he said he was, but that’s an entire other thread.

[Crazy Anglican]

I mean, the claim initially made was one which can be disproven by a quick Google search, and the claim was not about the resurrection but about Jesus' very existence.

I imagine if BB were to ask about the lack of Roman record for Jesus' resurrection, there would be much more Athiest support.

See even the OP was kind of sloppy. I mean, was it really even a challenge to His existence? Lots of people have existed without any record of their executions.

There isn’t a challenge to his existence. There is a challenge to his resurrection, and if he was who he said he was, but that’s an entire other thread.

So you agree that He suffered under Pontius Pilate, [and He]
Was crucified, died and was buried?

[kingofthepirates]

So you agree that He suffered under Pontius Pilate, [and He]
Was crucified, died and was buried?

I think this is a relatively solid and agreed upon fact by society. There are not many people I have met who doubt Jesus was a real guy who lived, was crucified, and later died and was buried (granted, my own experiences are probably skewed, but I'd say that I have interacted with a relatively diverse pool of people).

I think all of us who have posted here so far can agree to this fact, putting aside trolling/joking. I agree that the OP was either sloppy and/or trolling, and further agree completely with Pengwinja that there isn't any challenge to his existence, but the resurrection bit is certainly open to challenge and debate. but that should be a discussion for another thread.

[Pengwinja]

See even the OP was kind of sloppy. I mean, was it really even a challenge to His existence? Lots of people have existed without any record of their executions.

There isn’t a challenge to his existence. There is a challenge to his resurrection, and if he was who he said he was, but that’s an entire other thread.

So you agree that He suffered under Pontius Pilate, [and He]
Was crucified, died and was buried?

Yes, in fact, that’s why I said there isn’t a challenge to his existence.

[Crazy Anglican]

There isn’t a challenge to his existence. There is a challenge to his resurrection, and if he was who he said he was, but that’s an entire other thread.

So you agree that He suffered under Pontius Pilate, [and He]
Was crucified, died and was buried?

Yes, in fact, that’s why I said there isn’t a challenge to his existence.

Awesome, works for me. Trying to get you to accept Christ's resurrection would fall into the category of proselytizing. Not really why I'm here, so happy diploming

[kingofthepirates]

and it all has a nice, peaceful conclusion. all tied together with a nice bow on top :).

[Pengwinja]

So you agree that He suffered under Pontius Pilate, [and He]
Was crucified, died and was buried?

Yes, in fact, that’s why I said there isn’t a challenge to his existence.

Awesome, works for me. Trying to get you to accept Christ's resurrection would fall into the category of proselytizing. Not really why I'm here, so happy diploming

Bold of you to assume that I don’t already accept Christ’s resurrection.

[Crazy Anglican]

You're right, I did make that assumption, and it might be erroneous. I only meant to state that I wasn't attempting to proselytize.

[brainbomb]

In all reality this is actually just a recreation of an old thread from many years ago in which the exact same OP was presented and spawned a large number of replies. Ultimately the real question you should be asking is was Jesus crucifixion due to pressure by Jewish elites of Jerusalem or by Roman fear of Jesus. The answer of course is that Rome didnt give a shit.

[Jamiet99uk]

In all reality this is actually just a recreation of an old thread from many years ago in which the exact same OP was presented and spawned a large number of replies. Ultimately the real question you should be asking is was Jesus crucifixion due to pressure by Jewish elites of Jerusalem or by Roman fear of Jesus. The answer of course is that Rome didnt give a shit.

So, you're saying, blame the Jews.

[Jamiet99uk]

Anyway Beancomb, why did you feel the need to re-create a thread from four years ago?

Do you care that much about Jesus?

Did you just want attention?

Are you a Bot?

[Octavious]

Anyway Beancomb, why did you feel the need to re-create a thread from four years ago?

Do you care that much about Jesus?

Did you just want attention?

Are you a Bot?

Have a heart, Jamie. If Brainbomb wishes to try and recapture his youth by reviving some ancient threads who are we to object? Let him ignore his middle age mediocrity for a few minutes and pretend he's a young, edgy go-getter with a quirky hobby and the world at his feet.

Let's fire up a live game, complain about there being too many league games, and eagerly await this months Ghost Ratings! Huzzah!

[Wattsthematter]

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

This is a bothersome challenge to me. You would challenge a group of people on their lack of belief of something that you admit leans more heavily on faith than it does factual findings and historical evidence? I genuinely wish my experience with the Baptist church and the hate that it okays wasn't one that tore me from my faith, and I'm happy for anyone that can still have a supportive system of higher belief in their life, but I think many people share my sentiment that modern day religion often just allows hateful and bigoted people to proudly lean on "holy" messages that they've twisted and contorted to fit their bias. To me this horrific experience has outweighed the faith I was willing to have.

[Crazy Anglican]

In all reality this is actually just a recreation of an old thread from many years ago in which the exact same OP was presented and spawned a large number of replies. Ultimately the real question you should be asking is was Jesus crucifixion due to pressure by Jewish elites of Jerusalem or by Roman fear of Jesus. The answer of course is that Rome didnt give a shit.

What possible consequence would I place on the priorities of a dead empire?

[Crazy Anglican]

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

This is a bothersome challenge to me. You would challenge a group of people on their lack of belief of something that you admit leans more heavily on faith than it does factual findings and historical evidence? I genuinely wish my experience with the Baptist church and the hate that it okays wasn't one that tore me from my faith, and I'm happy for anyone that can still have a supportive system of higher belief in their life, but I think many people share my sentiment that modern day religion often just allows hateful and bigoted people to proudly lean on "holy" messages that they've twisted and contorted to fit their bias. To me this horrific experience has outweighed the faith I was willing to have.

FWIW, I’m sorry that you had a bad experience with the Baptist church. Still,
I didn’t challenge anyone about their lack of belief, I challenged them about being lazy and not truly thinking their positions through.

[Wattsthematter]

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

This is a bothersome challenge to me. You would challenge a group of people on their lack of belief of something that you admit leans more heavily on faith than it does factual findings and historical evidence? I genuinely wish my experience with the Baptist church and the hate that it okays wasn't one that tore me from my faith, and I'm happy for anyone that can still have a supportive system of higher belief in their life, but I think many people share my sentiment that modern day religion often just allows hateful and bigoted people to proudly lean on "holy" messages that they've twisted and contorted to fit their bias. To me this horrific experience has outweighed the faith I was willing to have.

FWIW, I’m sorry that you had a bad experience with the Baptist church. Still,
I didn’t challenge anyone about their lack of belief, I challenged them about being lazy and not truly thinking their positions through.

I think my point is that a lack of faith doesn't need to be defended?

[Napple]

This is a bothersome challenge to me. You would challenge a group of people on their lack of belief of something that you admit leans more heavily on faith than it does factual findings and historical evidence? I genuinely wish my experience with the Baptist church and the hate that it okays wasn't one that tore me from my faith, and I'm happy for anyone that can still have a supportive system of higher belief in their life, but I think many people share my sentiment that modern day religion often just allows hateful and bigoted people to proudly lean on "holy" messages that they've twisted and contorted to fit their bias. To me this horrific experience has outweighed the faith I was willing to have.

FWIW, I’m sorry that you had a bad experience with the Baptist church. Still,
I didn’t challenge anyone about their lack of belief, I challenged them about being lazy and not truly thinking their positions through.

I think my point is that a lack of faith doesn't need to be defended?

This is a reasonable response to people who argue for Christ with nothing but faith. And to be fair, faith is a key aspect of the religion, and so it does boil down to that at the end. But I think Anglican’s point is that there are often other arguments from Christians that some atheists don’t really acknowledge as if their lack of faith exempts them for thinking about logical, potentially evidence-based apologetic arguments. I am not saying you do this, only that I believe that’s what the original challenge being posed is.

[Crazy Anglican]

This is a bothersome challenge to me. You would challenge a group of people on their lack of belief of something that you admit leans more heavily on faith than it does factual findings and historical evidence? I genuinely wish my experience with the Baptist church and the hate that it okays wasn't one that tore me from my faith, and I'm happy for anyone that can still have a supportive system of higher belief in their life, but I think many people share my sentiment that modern day religion often just allows hateful and bigoted people to proudly lean on "holy" messages that they've twisted and contorted to fit their bias. To me this horrific experience has outweighed the faith I was willing to have.

FWIW, I’m sorry that you had a bad experience with the Baptist church. Still,
I didn’t challenge anyone about their lack of belief, I challenged them about being lazy and not truly thinking their positions through.

I think my point is that a lack of faith doesn't need to be defended?

Any position needs to be defended once you make it public. for instance, you just characterized an entire organization as bigoted, but you don’t think that statement needs to be defended? Once either of us gives a public statement, we invite criticism. If I stand up to make a statement, I’ll defend it. I don’t try to hide behind semantics. Once you criticize something, it’s no longer a disbelief in it, it’s criticism of it. Therefore it’s a claim, not merely disbelief. Claims call for defense. That’s why I perceive the attitude here to be lazy.