I first appologise if thsi is in the wrong place.

A couple fo weeks agao i was having a discussion with someone on this board with soemone about the fatc that there is proof in the Roman History itself, that Jesus did exist and was cruxified. The person is question (who im dont remember the name, im sorry for that too), asked me to post proof, and i told him/her that i would have to look for it online. Well, what i was talking about is not anywhere that i could find online... and taken that I learned it in school a "couple" of yearsa ago, I really dont have a way to post it online. So it will be one of those cases, of "believe as you wish"...

On the otehr hand taking for all this "lost Gosples" that have now been "surfacing", I guess the case ends up somewhat proven without my help.

Thank you for the atention, and sorry to bugg you guys.

That was a good apology. I don't know if you were postulating proof of Jesus' existence in Roman history or not. I have researched the subject extensively and have found absolutely no historical evidence (other than "gospels" written long after the supposed fact - which the newly rediscovered ones would be just another example of) for the existence of this supposed man-god. I can find just as much evidence for Mithra, Osiris, Erakles, Apollo, or Amun as I can for Jesus and I can find much more evidence for his contemporary man-god Appollonius (he is actually mentioned by historians and even wrote several books).

Considering the Romans were meticulous record keepers, even going so far as to list the dead who drowned in their own toilets, and yet there is no record of Jesus or his trial before Pilate or the Sanhedrin, claims of a real historic Jesus are suspect. Certainly anyone claiming to be the Messiah, (not uncommon in those days ) and having raised the rancor of the Pharisee's as Jesus is alleged to have done, would have an accounting in the Roman record.
So really, there has been nothing provided that support a real historic Jesus to date. One can not utilize the tome of a faith as the proof of the veracity of a faith. Especially when there are no records of any kind alluding to the icon or Patriarch of that faith. Jesus quite simply did not exist. That is not heresy, that's history.

True. If records did exist of Jesus though, would it not also be possible to destroy such things, sort of like "shredding documents" of those days. It is a possibility, right?

A low possibility, but not a high probability. Christianity was not a very large or important religion (only about 50000 out of an Empire population of several million) until Constantine made it (along with Mithraism and Sol Invictus) the official religion of the Empire. Even before the elevation to "Official Religion" a large number of the civil servants were Christians and would have taken steps to perserve such a proof of their "Lord". Especially since their Apologists had been fighting off claims that Jesus never existed by Pagans for 3 centuries!

I don't doubt in my mind that Jesus wasn't a messiah, but proving that he did or didn't exist might be an impossibility. What do we have but written documents in the form of scriptures to prove his existence? What else is needed to prove that he did exist? Would not any other evidence be written down also, or perhaps engraved? Who makes the judgements to their authenticity? How do we know Moses existed but through written or engraved testimonials?
What I am saying is, we only can go by what others have documented, who knows which ones are true, false, or embellishments?