No. It cannot be proven by Roman tax records. All documents that have been recovered from that time have no reference to Jesus. If you know of some then you are the only person in this area of study that has seen them.
I do not mean to be trite, those are just the facts.
The introduction of letters, correspondences and other writings concerning Jesus in an historical setting are all later forgeries put out by church fathers from about 150CE onwards. Preposterous letters from Jesus to Pontius Pilate and from neighboring Communities from and to Jesus. In fact the forgeries became so embarrassing to the church in later years they were removed from circulation. At one time the Catholic church had 32 spears of Longinus.
In a message dated 4/22/02 3:21:09 AM !!!First Boot!!!, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
well, sorry to cut your post off like this, but i dunno about that. i'm no
theist, and i certainly wouldn't call myself a christian, but can it not be
proven that jesus was a real person that existed [through roman tax
records]? i'm not referring to the census given as an excuse for him being
born in bethlehem instead of nazareth; i'm quite certain that this
information is out there from some tax record when he was a young adult. the
fact that i can't seem to locate a source is not helping me. anybody know
what the hell i'm talking about?
of course, it could always be argued that they were forged.
As to the next part:
<i look at jesus more as a....well....a daniel boone type character, where
stories are created around the person due to awe and admiration. who knows,
if we ever go through a nuclear war then maybe when the people emerge
they'll stumble upon data [electronic or, maybe, from a half destroyed
library] describing george washington as a super human that can throw a rock
across potomac bay, and, thus, assume him to be myth. but, we all know him
to have existed.>
Well, they will find documents and writings of his contemporaries that will show that he was known and did walk on earth. This is not the case for Jesus. There are no contemporary writings of or about him until the first Gospel written after 100Ce.
<i *am* definately suspicious, and i take very little of what is in either
testament at face value......but i don't see how you can flat out declare
his existence to be a myth. i mean, how many sources are there *really* that
prove that....i dunno....ramses II existed? alexander the great? that the
pelopponesian war happened? maybe one or two or three at most. yet we take
this as historical fact, even though it's probably quite embellished. the
scriptures may not be a good source of real historical happenings, but
they're good enough to prove that the guy actually lived as far as i'm
concerned....
inri>
Well, I suppose that I would ask what is it that allows some one with no sources other than the bible to say he does exist? My friend, extraordinary claims need extraordinary proofs.
As to my opinion, I have studied this subject for many years and have an extensive library on this subject. I have utilized web sources of early church documents and historical writtings of contemporary historians Jewish, Roman, Greek and others.I have found no writtings of that era, and this is crucial, to support the gospel version.
As to the scriptures being all you need to establish proof that he existed, well that is why Zues and Thor were really here because the Greeks wrote of them. Horus was in fact a true life God because Egyptian writtings are abundant in reference to him.
That is not a very good argument in regard to logic. Belief is another thing. However, it is this baseless belief that causes people to blow themselves and others up from the middle east to abortion clinics in the name of events and people that never existed or happened.
db
