I've read that somewhat flimsy apologia too, AndrewFinden.

"Occasionally people ask why there is no record of Jesus in Roman records. The answer is that there are no surviving Roman records but only highly parochial Roman historians who had little interest in the comings and goings of minor cults and were far more concerned about Emperors and Kings. Jesus made a very small splash while he was alive and there was no reason for Roman historians to notice him."

It is pretty weak, too, to simply cut and paste somebody else's ideas, without even an explanation as to why we should take any more notice of their opinion than - say - of yours.

The key issue here is the acceptance that "Jesus made a very small splash while he was alive".

According to the legend, there were around three dozen "miracles" attributed to the guy in a relatively short timeframe, in a highly public manner. Yet we are supposed to believe that not only were these acts performed, but that they made a "very small splash".

http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/miracles.htm

Incidentally, the excuse your source provided also narrows the field of enquiry to "record of Jesus in Roman records". There were presumably other disinterested parties who were in a position to record for posterity these apparently remarkable events?

"I suspect that even if we were to find a batch of letters between Pilate and Tiberius for the very year of Jesus’ death (AD 30), historians would not expect to find mention of him. There were thousands of Jewish trouble-makers in this period, and thousands of executions too"

No-one thought it remarkable that someone went around healing lepers and raising the dead?

Right. They would all have been considered "trouble-makers", I suppose.

What fascinating times they must have been.

@Pericles

>"It is pretty weak, too, to simply cut and paste somebody else's ideas, without even an explanation as to why we should take any more notice of their opinion than - say - of yours."

Well, he's a member of the most prominent ancient history department in Australia (Macquarie Uni) so his opinion certainly is more informed than mine. He says far more succinctly what I have been trying to say. Suggesting that quoting a scholar is 'weak' seems simply a means of deflecting.

>"There were presumably other disinterested parties who were in a position to record for posterity these apparently remarkable events?
"

Perhaps - but you've missed Dickson's point (and simply dismissing it as 'apologia' doesn't cut the mustard, sorry), that asking for specific references and ignoring the ones you've got is not how it works. Presumably, had these extra sources thought the events remarkable and recorded them, you might just dismiss them as you seem to do the canonical sources which did so.

anyhow...im an oppertuinist
there i said it

so when i saw this

i saw a chance to post this

runner is correct
seems the comment should have been directed here
[link to this tropic removed]

i wont post a link..to the actual comment
but its on the other page so its no bother
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11380&page=0
[its on the baby jesus...topic-twaddle]

hope i dont get into trouble..
putting up my patch/fix

linking back the comment
to the topic

i relieved to find gray
is as hunam..as the rest of us

THIS topic..does look a rather long thread
going to take all day to read it
65 pages..of athiestic thinking...gulp

oh lord why do you help me notice these things
why cant i just..let it be..its not easy being me..nor he

anyhow thats why i went...off the back of
this..*time limited.. topic
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4184&page=0

xmass cards..has lots more life in it
so lets wait..and see

anyhow got a lot of reading to catch up on
merry christ/new year..you masses

funny how we get the timmings all wrong
cant half tell this is satans..[athiestic]..realm

i guess i should read what chrys wrote...first
anyhow...peace and goodwill to all

we all got feet of clay eh?

anyhow i have read most of your post chrys
and agree with much of it

see how creed has gotten it all wrong

i loved youur parrable..of the comercialisation of the xmass
by churches..with plenty of tithe money

im yet to read the comments
but will add in my starting point

see nativity scences..ARNT supposed to have a baby jesus
in it..till after he has actually been born...[and yes i agree he wasnt born...dec 25...[i think he was born at pass-over..the logical time for a census]

and he died at the same timming..[exodus]
[i think they link up]

but me being me

took the card topic..that had run its course
and added baby jesus to the card-crib...on xmass/night

actually put UP the xmass tree...the same time
and im keeping it up till exodus

im having certain troubles of course
wether to lop/chop off the tip

and other stuff...
but if your free..id like your feedback
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4184&page=0

all opinion appriciated..[im especially looking for a way to put pictures into the xmass card topic..[actually put xmass cards into the xmass topic]..where we can get others to copy and paste their best cards/thoughts..into a topic greatly missing its best use

anyhow go to read others comments

xmass isnt about jesus..till after xmass
i think thats the big thing we are all missing

these...MONTHS..betwixt..now..and exodus..are symbolical of jesus life

this is the peak time..churches SHOULD be doing THEIR thing

you athiests have had your fun
now lets hear..from those giving back to their messiah

this could be..the big change comming dec 25/1212
when the christ method of dating..heralds in THE NEW YEAR

its high time we got things into some form of logic
ps you can thank grayhams comment..for even finding this topic

i just didnt feel xmass this year
because my thoughts..felt wrong...till i herard from the 3 wiseguys

No, not that one, AndrewFinden.

>>Well, he's a member of the most prominent ancient history department in Australia (Macquarie Uni) so his opinion certainly is more informed than mine.<<

I was referring, as I'm sure you were aware, to the quote from the "Refuting the myth that Jesus never existed" web site that you linked to.

Those sites have as much authority as a wet teaspoon. You would be equally dismissive, I suspect, if I was to point you to www.kkk.com for a valuable opinion on Christian ethics.

"That way is the Christian way - law and order - love of family - love of nation. These are the principles of western Christian civilization. There is a war to destroy these things. Pray that our people see the error of their ways and regain a sense of loyalty. Repent America! Be faithful my fellow believers."

Or, on the other hand, perhaps not. You never can tell these days.

>>Perhaps - but you've missed Dickson's point (and simply dismissing it as 'apologia' doesn't cut the mustard, sorry), that asking for specific references and ignoring the ones you've got is not how it works.<<

I was not asking for specific references. I was simply noting that they did not exist.

Nor did I ignore those available. Merely pointing out that there is no mention in them, anywhere, of the three dozen supposed miracles that apparently underpin Jesus' authority in the eyes of Christian believers.

"Occasionally people ask why there is no record of Jesus in Roman records. The answer is that there are no surviving Roman records but only highly parochial Roman historians who had little interest in the comings and goings of minor cults and were far more concerned about Emperors and Kings. Jesus made a very small splash while he was alive and there was no reason for Roman historians to notice him."

Is the proposition "that there are no surviving Roman records" an absolute one for all Roman records, or just in relation to the proposition that "there are no surviving Roman records" about Jesus?

The reference to "only highly parochial Roman historians" seems to be deflection.

As far as "Jesus made a very small splash while he was alive" - that suggests what he did does not match the claims of what he did - claims I have made in previous post on this thread that have not been addressed (eg the post-resurrection period and events).

It is interesting that John Dickson has also proposed the canonical gospels are 4 separate biographies, which denies their common source and the fact they allegedly only record the last there years of Jesus' life, and virtually nothing of his earlier life.