How can Jews and Romans NOT exist without Jesus?
Romans were around long before Jesus supposedly roamed the earth.
No legit historical evidence of the existence of Jesus has ever been found. The only historical "evidence" that we have right now was written down by religiously influenced historians who wrote their books many years after the death of Jesus?
Many Jesuses have roamed the earth, and yes, there have been reports of a supposed "King of the Jews" named Jesus, but those reports and pieces of evidence still have to be proven to have been from Jesus' age. Many books and literal references that mention Jesus have been written many, many years after christianity was a widespread religion. No eye witness accounts have ever been written down, apart from the Bible, which is a book of lies and contradictions.
I have complete Faith in the Quran as the Word of God
If the Quran says Jesus existed, Then I believe he existed
The Prophet Muhammad even said this concerning Jesus son of Mary
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (peace be upon him). He will descent (to the earth). When you see him, recognize him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.
Your logic is flawed. Have you ever heard of the story about the city "Troy"? Just archaeology has discovered the city Troy (or what they believe as the city of Troy), doesn't mean the story written by the man named Homer (supposedly) is 100% true.
The NT is that way too. Just because Jews and Romans did exist, does not mean that Jesus did. Just because that report on Roman Text said that "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum" was crucified, does not actually mean that it was the same "Jesus" we all know. And that doesn't mean that "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum" ever existed, but that his name is written on a text. Its evidence, not proof.
The difference between the two is like seeing a picture of an apple, versus having an apple right in front of you. I'm assuming that there are many theories about Jesus and not existing. This doesn't necessarily mean he ever existed, or didn't exist.
And just because Jesus existed, doesn't mean that God is real. The NT is not an autobiography, but some see it as a fictional Biography, based on real people, and a few real events.
If one ever wishes to "find God/Jesus", then you must stop looking at the things which cannot be proven.
Then Jews and Romans wouldn’t exist either ..
I don’t get how the Jews are not only a people but a religion and culture combined
You can’t have one without the other.
I watched a history report on ancient Roman text that state there was in fact a man crucified by the title of Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum
I’m starting to really believe that Jesus did exist and the existence of a God could in fact be real
Even if an individual by such a name existed in the past, information surounding that individual may have been manipulated, altered, falsified and such..
His existance itself isn't enoguh to prove the entire religion..
Yes. Clearly, a large land empire and a religion that were both around LONG before the time Jesus allegedly (and I emphasize the "allegedly" part, because a.) you didn't produce this history report, and b.) it still wouldn't prove he was the mythological figure Christians make him out to be) clearly would not exist if Jesus didn't exist either.
I'm believer in Christ. Yes I believe he existed.
I mean I know in my gut he is true. But if some one ask me Oh PROVE THAT YO!
Well I can't! because its one of those things you have to experience your self in order to understand.