Let us consider an argument against Christ's existence.
Perhaps my logic or dogma impedes my understanding.
Some argue the Romans would have recorded the Christ event if it did happen.
Let us entertain that notion.
Would first-century Rome collect testimonies pertaining to what a Jewish man said and did?
Were Jews and their moral views accepted or rejected by Rome?
Would Roman scribes keep records of events and testimonies outside Roman ideologies and values?
Since Christ and followers didn't implement a political change, a coup d'etat or other similar physical effort, what then would demand a scribe's account?
Did the followers of Christ effort a military revolt?
Consider a message revealed which would deflate political power with no independent social media.
Isn't the Christian message defeating to Roman ideology and identity?
Would the people in power censor or promote such a message?
Wouldn't the influential lose power, control and position?
Would they publicize a message that would ultimately defeat them?
Would these people deny or acknowledge accounts which will diminish their legitimacy?
Wasn't the proclamation of faith: Christ is King above and over Caesar, and God having become man, anti-Roman identity?
Are not these two spears which pierce, deflate and defeat Roman ideology, identity and political sovereignty?
Would first-century Roman elites proliferate such a message?
Wasn't the threat to the power structure and status quo, the message of Christ, eliminated along with the adherents?
Am I the simpleton in asking these logical questions?
What does the Jewish Talmud say regarding Christ?
In recent history, was Martin Luther King's civil rights message, or John F. Kennedy's politically unifying message popularly embraced by the social and economic hierarchy of the U.S. elite?
People deny Christ's existence, but they cannot deny the evidence of thousands of Christian martyrs in the first two centuries.