Honestly, I do not personally have the Roman accounts to “show you” but, the examples were discussed by a well-known and respected college professor of mine (A Phd with a lifetime of interest in Theology, spent researching these things and yes, with his own bias and presuppositions) but whom I trust to be credible and knowledgeable. I very much doubt he would make this up and thus does not cause unbelief for me because I didn’t physically see the Roman reporter writing the report. His knowledge in this matter is far superior to mine, especially in consideration my limited education. I will be happy to e-mail the professor, if you’d like, even though there will be no ultimate use or benefit in doing so.
If I remember correctly, the bulk of roman accounts of Jesus come from a Roman Historian of the time named Flavius Josephus who verifies Jesus’ existance. He verifies that he was having quite an effect on the people. If I remember it went something like this: “And he was much loved by the people” but thats just my memory. His works are publicly available and he verifies that Jesus was at odds with the Jewish authorities and was executed by the local roman garrison, if I remember correctly. A big factor here is that Josephus was a Jew, ethnically. Which means he would have had every reason in the world NOT to verify these things about Jesus, and he did anyway.
But the most important testamony is the explosion of Christianity within decades of Christ’s death and resurrection. Historical Fact: Christianity spread like wildfire! This fact alone certainly doesn’t “prove” the accounts of the gospels to be true, but they certainly add weight to them. Suddenly there were Christians all over the empire who strongly believed these things.
The unprecedented spread of Christianity gives great credit to the trustworthiness of the Gospels if only because its so unlikely. Nearly everything about becoming a Christian prior to 325 AD was BAD, from a secular or pagan point of view. THere were hundreds of pagan religions that said, “pray and offer things to this god and he’ll give you good stuff.” Also, you could freely worship these pagan gods in public all you want.
Then there was Christianity…it said you had to deny yourself, sacrifice, fast, take care of others before yourself, not do fun things like get drunk and have sex with prostitutes and watch people kill eachother in the arena. Oh, and by the way, if for some reason you want to join this religion that offers no fun in this life, you’ll get persecuted…by everyone. You’ll be stoned by Jews, eaten by lions, and burned or crucified by the Roman Authorities. So basically Jews and Pagans have EVERY reaon NOT to become Chrisitan and NO temporal reason to become Christian…and yet within just a few decades it was EVERYWHERE.
Again, does this prove Christianity to be true? No. But it is astounding and must be taken into account in any discussion about the historicity of the Gospels because of the weight it adds to the argument.
For example, lets say the claim is that a man rose from the dead in Omaha. My duty stattion is Offutt, right down the road, and I can assure you, these Nebraskan’s are visciously defensive of their “Huskers.” Now lets say the claim is that this man preached that the Nebraska Cornhuskers were a terrible football team and should not be rooted for. The claim is also that this man rose from the dead and presented himself to 500 people right there in the old market district and continued to preach this message after his resurrection.
Unlikely? Very. And as such, we would expect that, save for a few gullable cool-aid drinking fanatics, most people wouldn’t believe the claim. Especially if it wasn’t true.
For two reasons:
- Its an unlikely claim.
- It is not in the best interest of these Husker fans to add credibility to the anti-husker preaching.
So if a few months later you come to Omaha and see that there are about 20,000 Nebraskans running around believeing that this man rose from the dead (and wearing D.C. Redskins or Dallas Cowboys apparel) you’d have to acknowledge that something is not right here. It certainly doesn’t prove that it occured, but what, other than it ACTUALLY occuring would result in so many people who have every reason NOT to believe it, believing it anyway?
Again, not proof, but very astounding nonetheless.
The best accounts we have are the gospels themselves. The Gospels were all almost certainly written before 70 a.d. because none of them mention the destruction of the Temple (and Christians who wanted to convince people of the truth of Jesus Christ would have included the Temple destruction as it was foretold by Jesus.)
Also, the the lack of PERFECT harmony between the four gospels adds to its credibility. If it were entirely fabricated, the fabricaters would make sure to be consistant. But if four people were looking back on their memory of how things occured and writing their own account from their own point of view years later, there will be slight variations between them. The primary points will be consistant, and there might not even be any sylogistic contrdictions, but ask any journalist or police investigator, there will be variations to a degree similar to that which is found in the Gospels.