You wrote:
“You may be wrong.”
Nope.
“I read somewhere that they have records from Pontius Pilate that talks about a Jesus.”
Nope. There are no such contemporary records. What you’re talking about are apocryphal stories.
“Not using his name but about being crucified. I could be wrong but wont hurt to look it up.”
Already have - many times. There are NO contemporary records from the Romans that attest to Jesus. The earliest records are from decades later. The book to read is by F.F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside of the New Testament (1974). Bruce discusses ALL of the known and genuine sources - Suetonius, Tacitus, etc.
“The Description of Publius Lentullus
The following was taken from a manuscript in the possession of Lord Kelly, and in his library, and was copied from an original letter of Publius Lentullus at Rome. It being the usual custom of Roman Governors to advertise the Senate and people of such material things as happened in their provinces in the days of Tiberius Caesar, Publius Lentullus, President of Judea, wrote the following epistle to the Senate concerning the Nazarene called Jesus.
“There appeared in these our days a man, of the Jewish Nation, of great virtue, named Yeshua [Jesus], who is yet living among us, and of the Gentiles is accepted for a Prophet of truth, but His own disciples call Him the Son of God- He raised the dead and cured all manner of diseases. A man of stature somewhat tall, and comely, with very reverent countenance, such as the beholders may both love and fear, his hair of (the colour of) the chestnut, full ripe, plain to His ears, whence downwards it is more orient and curling and wavering about His shoulders. In the midst of His head is a seam or partition in His hair, after the manner of the Nazarenes. His forehead plain and very delicate; His face without spot or wrinkle, beautified with a lovely red; His nose and mouth so formed as nothing can be reprehended; His beard thickish, in colour like His hair, not very long, but forked; His look innocent and mature; His eyes grey, clear, and quick- In reproving hypocrisy He is terrible; in admonishing, courteous and fair spoken; pleasant in conversation, mixed with gravity. It cannot be remembered that any have seen Him Laugh, but many have seen Him Weep. In proportion of body, most excellent; His hands and arms delicate to behold. In speaking, very temperate, modest, and wise. A man, for His singular beauty, surpassing the children of men”
***************** I'm intrigued by the reference of his hair style being in the manner of the Nazarenes (NOT to mean from the village of Nazareth, but of the Nazarene sect of Essenes whose headquarters was at Mt.Carmel, a few miles from Nazareth.
Also, were this ‘made up’, why would the author give His hair, complexion and eye color as quite different that what most people perceive to be of the Jews of that time? (The latter perceptions, I believe, are myopic.)
There is much evidence to support Jesus as belonging to the Nazarene sect - indeed, so stated in the Bible. The Nazarene priesthood also wore shorter, forked beards.
As to hair/eye coloring, there has been much written on that also - but bottom line, the Jewish people then, as now, were from many ‘tribes’, and hardly all of dark hair, short and swarthy - as many are tying to portray Jesus today - because of a skeleton or two that has been found from that time.
That's like finding a skeleton of someone from today, hundreds of years from now, and saying - “See, this is what they looked like.” (Just go to the supermarket and stand for a few minutes, watching people. What would a future archaeologist, finding the bones of one of us, conclude as to what today's people looked like?
I like the Publius Lentullus description as it would seem, were it made up, it would have described a man more in line with the long and present assumption of what he, being a ‘Jew’ would have looked like, as to coloring.
The History Channel's newest show on The Shroud last Easter was the best yet. An artist took months using the unique properties of the Shroud (in producing a 3-D depiction of the subject under certain applications,) and, except for coloring, which of course is not incorporated in the cloth, produced a bust of a man that looked like - JESUS.
The artist fell short, however, I believe, by assuming his hair and eyes to be dark.
(As I mentioned, I am an artist - a portrait artist. I have been following The Shroud since long before The 1978 STURP Team of scientists who were allowed to examine The Shroud. I have read their books, from the forensic experts, the photographers, the botanists - all the sciences. I have been in correspondence with one of the best known of the team, a man who went as a skeptic but has since devoted his life to it's study.
I did my independent research from an art discipline - and find a ‘provenance’, if you will, back far beyond cameras or great painters/minds like daVinci.
I believe The Shroud to be genuine and I believe what He looked/s like is pretty much what we always thought Him to - except for the accepted assumption as to His coloring.
you: nope
I guess if you "read it in a book", it is gospel truth. Must be nice to know everything because you read it and have "faith" in the writer. I do that with the Bible but that is the only book I do that with. I'm not saying you are wrong, just a little arrogant.
Tacitus wrote Annnals around 115AD. Historians agree that Tacitus must have received his information from an earlier, now lost, source. Seuetonius, who had access to imperial records, also wrote of Christ. Thallus, as quoted by Julius Africanus, wrote of the darkness after the crucifixion. Thallus’ original works are lost, but they were contemporary to Christ’s time, even predating the gospels.
By ancient standards these are as contemporary as it often gets. People seem to think that those days were like today with newspapers and the internet. So they aren’t “contemporary” by modern standards, but for those who study ancient history, they’re gold.