why dont liberals believe Jesus existed if it's in Roman History?

Like the Roman Historian Tacitus wrote in his Annals(written 116AD):

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [or Chrestians; see below] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed"



So it's right there, so why don't some liberals believe?
 
I've always believed Jesus existed. I just don't believe he was or is a god.

There is a huge difference between the two. I exist - but I'm not a god.
 
I am pretty sure most liberals (I'd say somewhere north of 85%) think Jesus existed and care about the subject.

Historians, on the other hand, are still trying to nail it down. Citing some passage from Tacitus written 115 years after the alleged crucifiction does not constitute the type of proof historians are looking for.

Tacitus wrote lots of questionable things. He wasn't what we'd call a rigorous historian today. He relied on gossip and second hand accounts for much of his writings.
 
Back
Top