Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-08-2016, 06:09 PM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2016 06:23 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-08-2016 05:58 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(13-08-2016 05:44 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Ok...got that.

Of course you can probably guess what I'm going to say next!

The gospels by and large were written as anti-Jewish propaganda. They undermined the basic traditions of Judaism. Jesus, the central cartoon character,  frequently makes the Pharisees look ordinary... because they were practitioners of Judaism. Jesus had to make Jews look old fashioned. That was his job. He eats with tax collectors, i.e. makes out that these characters were good blokes, whereas they were robbing the Jewish peasants.

I disagree because the gospels also record many things Jesus said that are not complimentary to Christianity, and also contradict the Christianity of the Gentiles and Paul.

Sent only to the Jews and not the Gentiles:

Mat_15:24 But He answered and said, I am not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Mat 10:5 - 10:6 Jesus sent out these twelve, commanding them, saying, "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter into any city of the Samaritans. But rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."


The following contradicts Paul's position that the Law is not required for salvation:

Mat 5:18 For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not a single trace nor one letter shall in any way pass from the Law until all is fulfilled.

There are many examples where the Gospels depict Jesus as only being sent to the Jews, so the concept that they were anti-Jewish propaganda does not appear to be well grounded, since the internal evidence suggests exactly the opposite; they were written as anti-Gentile.

Good point.

This is why I wrote "by and large"

Note that Matthew's Gospel is the most pro semitic.

The gospels, and particularly Matthew's, were written to appeal to Jews as well. Yet they were fundamentally anti-Jewish...despite containing some pro-Jewish sentiment.

Don't forget the gospels are rather amateurish and hotch potch. Bits were added in and extracted for hundreds of years after they were first written. It is quite possible that there were more pro-Jewish ideas and phrases in the other gospels, but they were taken out as the second century progressed.

PS one can't deny the overt anti Semitism here...

One of the authors of Matthew had Jews say,

“His blood be on us and our children” (Matt. 27:24–25, NJB.) Jews publically cursed themselves for being Christ-killers, which is highly improbable. The Jewish passersby allegedly mocked Jesus:

“The passersby jeered at him; they shook their heads and said ‘if you are God’s son, come down from the cross!’” (Matt. 27:39–40, NJB.) The Jewish crowd wouldn’t have been that callous to one of their own. They would have been appalled that Jesus was dying such a despicable death.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2016, 06:20 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-08-2016 05:58 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(13-08-2016 05:44 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Ok...got that.

Of course you can probably guess what I'm going to say next!

The gospels by and large were written as anti-Jewish propaganda. They undermined the basic traditions of Judaism. Jesus, the central cartoon character,  frequently makes the Pharisees look ordinary... because they were practitioners of Judaism. Jesus had to make Jews look old fashioned. That was his job. He eats with tax collectors, i.e. makes out that these characters were good blokes, whereas they were robbing the Jewish peasants.

I disagree because the gospels also record many things Jesus said that are not complimentary to Christianity, and also contradict the Christianity of the Gentiles and Paul.

Sent only to the Jews and not the Gentiles:

Mat_15:24 But He answered and said, I am not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Mat 10:5 - 10:6 Jesus sent out these twelve, commanding them, saying, "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter into any city of the Samaritans. But rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."


The following contradicts Paul's position that the Law is not required for salvation:

Mat 5:18 For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not a single trace nor one letter shall in any way pass from the Law until all is fulfilled.

There are many examples where the Gospels depict Jesus as only being sent to the Jews, so the concept that they were anti-Jewish propaganda does not appear to be well grounded, since the internal evidence suggests exactly the opposite; they were written as anti-Gentile.

It is interesting that the book of Acts, probably written some time in the early second century, is the most overtly anti-Semitic Book in the new Testament. I think the propaganda machine had given up trying to appeal to Jews by this stage.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2016, 06:23 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-08-2016 06:09 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  One of the authors of Matthew had Jews say,

“His blood be on us and our children” (Matt. 27:24–25, NJB.) Jews publically cursed themselves for being Christ-killers, which is highly improbable.

The Jewish passersby allegedly mocked Jesus:

“The passersby jeered at him; they shook their heads and said ‘if you are God’s son, come down from the cross!’” (Matt. 27:39–40, NJB.) The Jewish crowd wouldn’t have been that callous to one of their own. They would have been appalled that Jesus was dying such a despicable death.

I have a couple problems with this, of course.

The Gospel records depict the accusing Jews as not believing that Jesus was the Christ, therefore they would not publicly curse themselves for being Christ-killers.

The Gospel records show they wanted Jesus dead, so why would they be appalled? They didn't consider him to be "one of their own" but rather an enemy of the state.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2016, 06:38 PM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2016 08:18 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-08-2016 06:23 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(13-08-2016 06:09 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  One of the authors of Matthew had Jews say,

“His blood be on us and our children” (Matt. 27:24–25, NJB.) Jews publically cursed themselves for being Christ-killers, which is highly improbable.

The Jewish passersby allegedly mocked Jesus:

“The passersby jeered at him; they shook their heads and said ‘if you are God’s son, come down from the cross!’” (Matt. 27:39–40, NJB.) The Jewish crowd wouldn’t have been that callous to one of their own. They would have been appalled that Jesus was dying such a despicable death.

I have a couple problems with this, of course.

The Gospel records depict the accusing Jews as not believing that Jesus was the Christ, therefore they would not publicly curse themselves for being Christ-killers.

The Gospel records show they wanted Jesus dead, so why would they be appalled? They didn't consider him to be "one of their own" but rather an enemy of the state.

Gosh. Do you think it historical that a Jewish crowd would want Jesus crucified? A Jewish crowd that greeted him with applause as he rode into Jerusalem? I can accept that the Sadducces felt threatened by Jesus, but, almost certainly, not a crowd of fervently patriotic Jews in Jerusalem there to celebrate the passover! The "evidence" the "crowd" was, in fact, pro Jesus, is not well disguised in the gospels. I hope I'm not hogging this thread too much, and apologies to those who have read this before...but the following explains how I see what may have happened...

Yeshua’s Arrest

Yeshua and his entourage were outmaneuvered. The Romans swooped on them in the garden of Gethsemane while Jewish residents slept. John claimed a cohort of soldiers was consigned to collar him:

“Judas the traitor knew the place well, since Jesus had often met his disciples there, and he brought the cohort to this place together with a detachment of guards sent by the chief priests and Pharisees, all with lanterns and torches and weapons” (John 18:3 JB.)

Someone had betrayed him to the Romans. A cohort was six hundred Roman soldiers, one tenth of a legion. Pilate wouldn’t have sent this many men to arrest an agreeable, unarmed, peace-loving preacher who thought he was God. Yeshua was a big fish with an entourage of admirers, swimming in a city packed with potential patrons, so he needed to be decisively dealt with before things got out of hand.

Some of his disciples were with him at the time of his arrest. One or more of them was supposed to be on watch. It must have been intimidating to have that many soldiers tramping toward you in the dead of night, torchlight reflecting off their swords and armor, shining up a silhouette of trees in the distance. It was probably no contest. The Gospels make out Jesus was surprised force was used to capture him;

“And Jesus answered and said unto them, are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take me?” (Mark 14;48, KJV) which doesn’t ring true, particularly when we read in John that

“Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.” (John 18;10, KJV.)

Most of his mates dashed off into the dark, leaving him to his fate. They’d been taken by surprise, outplayed by more experienced, professional opponents. Jesus was trumped before he’d made his master move. He was taken into custody, so was unable to issue instructions. His allies had let him down, and he must have known what was in store. Luke claimed he was sweating blood (Luke 22; 44.) He was trying to tell how terrified Jesus was about his impending crucifixion.

Much is made in the Gospels about Peter’s remorse for disowning Jesus. There were others in the troop too terrified to put their lives on the line, and they must have felt just as guilty. The fact Peter had to lie about his identity suggests the soldiers were chasing anyone who was part of the gang of insurrectionists.

Yeshua would have felt abandoned not only by his friends but also by his god. His work and dreams had come to nothing, and I imagine he probably played the last card of a wretched man by begging his god for a miracle.

The Trial


Matthew claims Jesus was arrested because he claimed he was divine, but Yeshua didn’t fantasize he was God. Jews believed in only one god, Yahweh. He wouldn’t have had any helpers if he’d made such a blasphemous claim. Nor could the Romans have cared less about a peasant’s delusions of grandeur. They never got involved in Jewish religious disputes unless they turned into a security issue. The high priest, the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees, Pilate, and his army all knew Yeshua had hoped to start a rebellion against Rome.

All the Gospel authors made out he was given a trial. He was taken before Pilate and the accusation made:

“We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ, a King.” (Luke 23:2 NKJ.)

Pilate asked Jesus if he was king of the Jews and Jesus answered,

“It is as you say it” (Luke 23:3 NKJ.)

This perfectly described the crux of the issue: Jesus was accused of undermining the government and the taxation system. He effectively signed his own death warrant. Genuine Jewish kings didn’t pay Roman tax, so this contradicted Jesus’ earlier injunction to render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar (see Matthew 22:21.) (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/j...ial.html).

Luke was the only Gospel author who claimed Jesus refused to talk to Herod. Yeshua would have hated Herod, the man who had his cousin beheaded. Herod found Jesus not guilty, which makes no sense, as Luke had earlier claimed Herod wanted Jesus killed. (Luke 13:31.)

Mark claimed,

“the chief priests however had incited the crowd” (Mark 15:11, NJB.)

This poorly explained excuse was the only reason given in any of the Gospels for “the crowd” turning against Jesus. This crowd supposedly shouted that they’d rather have a common criminal, Barabbas, freed instead of Jesus. No such custom of releasing the crowd’s favorite was ever recorded in any non-biblical document. Mark implied this crowd was made up from Jerusalem’s people, who he earlier described as the “multitudes” who had welcomed their king as a hero in a ticker tape parade as Jesus rode into the city. This crowd thought Jesus was a prophet and laid clothes and branches at his feet. The chief priests feared they’d create “an uproar” if Jesus was arrested. Can anyone believe Jerusalem’s people had such a complete change of mind about their hero?

Romans were made to look as if they were really sympathetic towards Jesus. Pilate, the Roman governor, allegedly read a letter from his wife about a dream she had that Jesus was innocent. He supposedly said,

“I find no fault in this man” (Luke 23:4 KJV.)

He’s depicted as trying to talk the angry Jews out of having Jesus crucified, but gave in to the public clamor, because

“in fact a riot was imminent” (Matt. 27:24 KJV.)

So the crowd that was going to riot if Jesus was arrested (see Matt. 26:3–6) was now about to riot if he wasn’t crucified, a scenario that makes no sense. It’s obvious that Jesus’ Jewish compatriots wouldn’t have wanted him crucified, and this passage is a pro Roman fabrication.

Pilate, Rome’s representative, allegedly washed his hands of any responsibility for the decision to kill Jesus. This didn’t happen; it was theatrical propaganda, not real history. To pronounce a man innocent, then command your troops to kill him anyway, is preposterous and unhistorical. Pilate’s job was to keep the peace and make sure Jews paid tax. Jesus was a dangerous subversive threatening a rebellion, so Pilate couldn’t have found him innocent. There was probably no public trial. To have one at that time of year would be just asking for trouble.

Pilate was the Roman prefect of Judaea from AD 26–36. He’s described by contemporary secular historians as being notorious for his cruelty toward the Jews. Philo, an Alexandrian Jew, writing in 41 CE, stated that Pilate’s tenure in power was notable for its

“briberies, insults, robberies, outrages, wanton injustices, constantly repeated executions without trial, and ceaseless and grievous cruelty” (Legatio ad Gaium, 301–302.) Josephus too reported several instances of Pilate flagrantly inciting an insurrection, only to ruthlessly suppress it with his soldiers.

In 36 CE, Vitellius, the Roman Syrian governor, removed Pilate from his office after a violent attack on the Samaritans (Josephus, Antiquities 18.4.85.) He was ordered to Rome to face complaints of excessive cruelty against the Jews, found culpable, and exiled to Vienne, France. His true colors come across in secular history, not in the Gospels. The real Pilate clearly wasn’t a character wracked with ambivalence about whether to crucify Yeshua.

The Gospel authors couldn’t have Romans responsible for killing the son of God, because the Catholic Church became the Church of Rome. The solution was simple; they made the Romans look like unwilling participants in the proceedings, and then they accused the anonymous Jewish rabble of wanting Jesus dead. One of the authors of Matthew had Jews say,

“His blood be on us and our children” (Matt. 27:24–25, NJB.) Jews publically cursed themselves for being Christ-killers, which is highly improbable. The Jewish passersby allegedly mocked Jesus:

“The passersby jeered at him; they shook their heads and said ‘if you are God’s son, come down from the cross!’” (Matt. 27:39–40, NJB.) The Jewish crowd wouldn’t have been that callous to one of their own. They would have been appalled that Jesus was dying such a despicable death.

What’s more, if his fellow Jews had wanted to kill Jesus, he would have been stoned to death, which could only have happened if the Romans gave them permission. Crucifixion was an agonizing, demeaning, public death, one reserved for insurgents. It was used by Romans to intimidate anyone who might undermine their authority. The Roman soldiers nailed zealots up naked on a cross; it was part of the humiliation. The degrading death was designed to discourage other charismatic leaders from having their own dangerous dreams.

The sign or “titulus” (Latin for “inscription” or “label”) was the Roman way of exhibiting the explanation for the execution. It was written by Pilate, and read “King of the Jews,” a reflection of Jesus’ real crime.

Luke had a dying Jesus say

“Father, forgive them, they do not know what they are doing,” (Luke 23:34, NJB)

referring to the Roman soldiers who had just scourged, mocked and nailed him naked to a cross. I think he never said anything of the sort. He’s more likely to have damned these soldiers with his dying breaths!

A Roman centurion supposedly said,

“In truth this was the Son of God” (Matt. 27:54, NJB.)

Yet Christianity, which claimed Jesus was the son of God, had yet to be invented!

The two men Yeshua was crucified with were labeled as “lestai,” incorrectly translated in some bibles as “robbers.” In fact “lestai” was a derogatory term for insurrectionists, who, by armed action, opposed Roman rule (http://www.drabruzzi.com/jesus_movement.htm, http://haqol.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/th...i-rebel/). So Jesus was crucified by the Romans between two zealots, we’re told he thought he was king of the Jews, and the reader is expected to believe he wasn’t a zealot!

Roman law allowed no burial rights to those killed by crucifixion. Yeshua’s emaciated body would have been left on display for the birds and dogs as a deterrent to others who might disobey Rome, although it’s possible Pilate made an exception and gave permission for the body to be buried.

Jesus’ death was a deeply disheartening development. The military muscle the movement may have mounted in Jerusalem had come to nothing, and their commander had been crucified. The kingdom of God must have seemed like an unattainable dream. Yet all was not lost. Yeshua was only one man. The Nazarenes could bounce back, just as they had after John’s demise. Someone charismatic needed to take control. That person was James, Yeshua’s brother.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2016, 08:04 PM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2016 08:08 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-08-2016 10:41 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(13-08-2016 10:37 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Wrong.
Acts 1:6
"When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?"

They were well aware he was no messiah.
Someone cooked that up later.

Since my entire position above clearly states that the resurrection was nothing but a rumor, how then can you possibly argue against it with a quote which addresses a resurrected Christ?

And even if this verse depicted any truth to it (which it certainly does not) how can you arrive at your conclusion when right in the text they are asking him if HE will restore Israel, a theme completely consistent with what was expected of a Messiah?

Insane.

Facepalm

No No No

It PROVES that they were expecting HIM to do what the Jews always expected the messiah to do.

He never did it.
Therefore to conclude they thought he was a messiah is utterly ludicrous. They, just as Paul, thought the end was immanent. That iteration of the cult bears almost NO resemblance to what it turned into later, after the end did not happen when Jerusalem was destroyed. They had to then cook up a new system to keep the new cult going and relevant.

If there was a rumor of a resurrection, the Jews and/or Romans would have mounted some sort of search for him ... after all they went to all the trouble to execute him.

Every post-resurrection "sighting" involves doubt. Jewish "shades" were not recognizable. Too bad you know nothing about ancient Jewish culture.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2016, 08:12 PM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2016 08:29 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-08-2016 06:38 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(13-08-2016 06:23 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  I have a couple problems with this, of course.

The Gospel records depict the accusing Jews as not believing that Jesus was the Christ, therefore they would not publicly curse themselves for being Christ-killers.

The Gospel records show they wanted Jesus dead, so why would they be appalled? They didn't consider him to be "one of their own" but rather an enemy of the state.

Gosh. Do you think it historical that a Jewish crowd would want Jesus crucified? A Jewish crowd that greeted him with applause as he rode into Jerusalem? I can accept that the Sadducee felt threatened by Jesus, but, almost certainly, not a crowd of fervent Jews in Jerusalem to celebrate the passover!

Except of course that the Jews who wanted him dead were members of the Sanhedrin and their supporters. Now let's take a look at what evidence we can work with to justify my position.

All 4 gospels are consistent in that they all agree that the Sanhedrin planned and successfully executed the arrest of Jesus in the middle of the night, when there was no crowds supporting him.

Again, all 4 gospels are consistent in that they all agree that the Sanhedrin took Jesus to Pilate as soon as it got bright enough to do it, again avoiding the crowds who supported Jesus.

All 4 gospels are consistent in that they all agree that the Jews present at the trial before Pilate blackmailed Pilate into crucifying Jesus.

I accept the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth/Yeshua the Nazarene by Pontius Pilate as being historically well evidenced due to the consistency of all relevant historical documents, and because the Criterion of Embarrassment demonstrates the embarrassment of a failed messianic pretender cherished by the Christians.

Your thoughts?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2016, 08:33 PM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2016 09:14 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-08-2016 08:12 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(13-08-2016 06:38 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Gosh. Do you think it historical that a Jewish crowd would want Jesus crucified? A Jewish crowd that greeted him with applause as he rode into Jerusalem? I can accept that the Sadducee felt threatened by Jesus, but, almost certainly, not a crowd of fervent Jews in Jerusalem to celebrate the passover!

Except of course that the Jews who wanted him dead were members of the Sanhedrin and their supporters. Now let's take a look at what evidence we can work with to justify my position.

All 4 gospels are consistent in that they all agree that the Sanhedrin planned and successfully executed the arrest of Jesus in the middle of the night, when there was no crowds supporting him.

Again, all 4 gospels are consistent in that they all agree that the Sanhedrin took Jesus to Pilate as soon as it got bright enough to do it, again avoiding the crowds who supported Jesus.

All 4 gospels are consistent in that they all agree that the Jews present at the trial before Pilate blackmailed Pilate into crucifying Jesus.

I accept the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth/Yeshua the Nazarene by Pontius Pilate as being historically well evidenced due to the consistency of all relevant historical documents, and because the Criterion of Embarrassment demonstrates the embarrassment of a failed messianic pretender cherished by the Christians.

Your thoughts?

Except of course that the Jews who wanted him dead were members of the Sanhedrin and their supporters.

Mmmmm.

I agree that the Sanhedrin would have wanted Jesus either dead, or just out of the picture. Jesus was a trouble causer and was undermining the role of the Sadducees. If there was an insurrection the Sadducees and Sanhedrin would have been in danger, as they were cooperating with the Romans.

Yet was the crowd made up of the Sanhedrin? I don't know. This seems unlikely. Bucky, what do you think?

Perhaps we should consider the world's foremost authority on this topic... Monty Python. When Pilate asks the crowd whether he should "Welease Wodger," it is clear he was addressing a "wowdy wabble".... not the Sandhedrin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik0cqxJElqA
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2016, 08:43 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-08-2016 08:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(13-08-2016 10:41 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Since my entire position above clearly states that the resurrection was nothing but a rumor, how then can you possibly argue against it with a quote which addresses a resurrected Christ?

And even if this verse depicted any truth to it (which it certainly does not) how can you arrive at your conclusion when right in the text they are asking him if HE will restore Israel, a theme completely consistent with what was expected of a Messiah?

Insane.

Facepalm

No No No

It PROVES that they were expecting HIM to do what the Jews always expected the messiah to do.

Again, how does this in any way address my position that the resurrection was nothing but a rumor?

Quote:If there was a rumor of a resurrection, the Jews and/or Romans would have mounted some sort of search for him ... after all they went to all the trouble to execute him.

Unless of course they laughed it off a nothing but a ... mischievous superstition, right?

Quote:Too bad you know nothing about ancient Jewish culture.

Well now, that sounds like a challenge to me. So, go to the boxing ring, pick any relevant subject of YOUR choice in regards to any Jewish/Christian/Roman matter from the time of Jesus until the 5th century.

And now you will find out exactly why I am a historian, and why you are not.

Do it.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2016, 09:01 PM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2016 09:10 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-08-2016 08:12 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(13-08-2016 06:38 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Gosh. Do you think it historical that a Jewish crowd would want Jesus crucified? A Jewish crowd that greeted him with applause as he rode into Jerusalem? I can accept that the Sadducee felt threatened by Jesus, but, almost certainly, not a crowd of fervent Jews in Jerusalem to celebrate the passover!

Except of course that the Jews who wanted him dead were members of the Sanhedrin and their supporters. Now let's take a look at what evidence we can work with to justify my position.

All 4 gospels are consistent in that they all agree that the Sanhedrin planned and successfully executed the arrest of Jesus in the middle of the night, when there was no crowds supporting him.

Again, all 4 gospels are consistent in that they all agree that the Sanhedrin took Jesus to Pilate as soon as it got bright enough to do it, again avoiding the crowds who supported Jesus.

All 4 gospels are consistent in that they all agree that the Jews present at the trial before Pilate blackmailed Pilate into crucifying Jesus.

I accept the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth/Yeshua the Nazarene by Pontius Pilate as being historically well evidenced due to the consistency of all relevant historical documents, and because the Criterion of Embarrassment demonstrates the embarrassment of a failed messianic pretender cherished by the Christians.

Your thoughts?

All 4 gospels are consistent in that they all agree that the Jews present at the trial before Pilate blackmailed Pilate into crucifying Jesus.


"Cajoled" may be a better word than "blackmailed." Yet its a nonsense story.

Just pause and think.

Here we have a young Jewish man riding into Jerusalem as a king, and getting greeted by probably thousands of revellers. They allegedly shout "hosanna," which is a Jewish cry of independence, and lay palms in his path. This Jesus had been wandering around the countryside for the previous year or so, attracting crowds. He had allegedly received news that Herod wanted to kill him.

The crowds are in Jerusalem to celebrate a very Jewish custom... the Passover. This Jesus upsets the local money making machine by overturning the tables in the Temple. There are 3 to 400,000 hotheaded Jews in Jerusalem, and only 3000 Roman troops. The event was a tinderbox that could turn into a fire given the right spark. The high priests must have been nervous, the Sanhedrin must've been nervous, and so must've been Pilate and the Roman troops.

The real Pilate, the one described by secular historians, was known to be hotheaded, impulsive and violent.

Do you really believe the gospels' accounts about how Pilate was reluctant to kill Jesus? Do you really think the Roman soldiers thought that Jesus was the son of God?
Do you really buy the story that the Jews were jealous of Jesus? That Jesus asked God to forgive the Romans because they didn't know what they were doing?

What really happened is obvious. Jesus was a wannabe insurrectionist knocked off by the Roman military before he played his hand by starting an insurrection in Jerusalem. He was crucified between two other zealots. That's what Rome did to you if you didn't pay tax and refused to acknowledge your imperial masters. You were made an example of.

The Gospels' authors were pro Roman... they had to make out that "the Jews" were the bad guys and the Romans the good guys in the dealings with Jesus. They concocted the idea that the Jews had killed their own Messiah. Don't forget who had the last word on what went into the gospels...the holy ROMAN catholic church! Haha

When one thinks about it, the propaganda is incredibly weak, and it is amazing that more people don't realise it. I think that is because most people have a poor understanding of the sociopolitical times in which Jesus lived.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2016, 09:07 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-08-2016 08:43 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(13-08-2016 08:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No No No

It PROVES that they were expecting HIM to do what the Jews always expected the messiah to do.

Again, how does this in any way address my position that the resurrection was nothing but a rumor?

Quote:If there was a rumor of a resurrection, the Jews and/or Romans would have mounted some sort of search for him ... after all they went to all the trouble to execute him.

Unless of course they laughed it off a nothing but a ... mischievous superstition, right?

Quote:Too bad you know nothing about ancient Jewish culture.

Well now, that sounds like a challenge to me. So, go to the boxing ring, pick any relevant subject of YOUR choice in regards to any Jewish/Christian/Roman matter from the time of Jesus until the 5th century.

And now you will find out exactly why I am a historian, and why you are not.

Do it.

Thumbsup

Nope. You've already demonstrated your ignorance of Jewish Apocalypticism.

BTW, the POINT was Jesus' messiah-ship. Nice try to weasel around that and change the subject to the resurrection. You're really very very good at the slippery thing.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: