Jesus historicity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-11-2014, 09:34 AM
RE: Jesus historicity
(17-11-2014 09:25 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-11-2014 08:10 AM)Free Wrote:  Let me repeat ...

"All ROMAN deities were rejected ..."

It really does not matter what other gods the Jews believed existed within their own religion. What mattered to them was that the Romans would erect statues and other images of Roman gods, or other persons considered to be gods, in the synagogues and in open view within Jewish districts.

The Jews simply would not have any images of gods imposed upon them. Hell, they could not- and still can't to this day- erect an image of the god they believe in.

The Romans were the invaders in Judea. Of course they were hated by the Jews. Over time, when the invading Romans understood the monotheistic religion of the Jews and how they rejected Roman gods, the Romans hated the Jews.

Both of the wars between the Romans and the Jews occurred long after the Romans had already invaded Judea, and long after Rome had occupied Judea. There was more than enough time for hatred to fester, and for a war of religious ideology to break out from the result of that hatred.

Sure, you can add many other reasons why they went to war with each other, but at the root of virtually all those reasons was a festering mutual hatred for each other.

Drinking Beverage

You have some good points. But if the Romans "hated" them that much, at any point they could have just crushed them.

But they did crush them. The only problem was they could not obliterate them because they ere so dispersed, and would often run away and hide.


Quote: Judea was a backwater unimportant province where prominent Romans were never assigned as governors. I doubt they cared much, one way or the other. As far as consistency goes, a consistent myth, is still a myth. "Crucified by Pontius Pilate" would actually be inaccurate. "Crucified WHILE Pontius Pilate was Prefect" may have been more accurate. During the Pax Romana trouble-makers were summarily executed without a trial. Galilean peasants were not afforded a trial. He may have given a "go-ahead" of some sort. I can't imagine there ever really was a trial. Hundreds if not thousands were crucified. Were they all tried ? No.

Christians seem to put Pilate up on a pedestal as if we was some kind of saint.

The reality is, he was a vicious governor who obviously antagonized the Jews if Josephus is to be believed.

I suspect in regards to Jesus, there was a trial. Mind you, the trial itself would have probably annoyed Pilate because he didn't want anything to do with the Jews, including some ridiculous Christ called Jesus.

If the Romans themselves would have captured Jesus, he would have been strung up on a stake without a 2nd thought.

But when the hated Sanhedrin brought Jesus to Pilate, it became something of a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of thing, and Pilate likely entertained himself with a laughable trial.

It wasn't until the Sanhedrin threatened to blackmail Pilate that he strung Jesus up on a cross to save his own ass.

It was an easy no-brainer decision for Pilate.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2014, 09:54 AM
RE: Jesus historicity
(17-11-2014 09:34 AM)Free Wrote:  
(17-11-2014 09:25 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You have some good points. But if the Romans "hated" them that much, at any point they could have just crushed them.

But they did crush them. The only problem was they could not obliterate them because they ere so dispersed, and would often run away and hide.


Quote: Judea was a backwater unimportant province where prominent Romans were never assigned as governors. I doubt they cared much, one way or the other. As far as consistency goes, a consistent myth, is still a myth. "Crucified by Pontius Pilate" would actually be inaccurate. "Crucified WHILE Pontius Pilate was Prefect" may have been more accurate. During the Pax Romana trouble-makers were summarily executed without a trial. Galilean peasants were not afforded a trial. He may have given a "go-ahead" of some sort. I can't imagine there ever really was a trial. Hundreds if not thousands were crucified. Were they all tried ? No.

Christians seem to put Pilate up on a pedestal as if we was some kind of saint.

The reality is, he was a vicious governor who obviously antagonized the Jews if Josephus is to be believed.

I suspect in regards to Jesus, there was a trial. Mind you, the trial itself would have probably annoyed Pilate because he didn't want anything to do with the Jews, including some ridiculous Christ called Jesus.

If the Romans themselves would have captured Jesus, he would have been strung up on a stake without a 2nd thought.

But when the hated Sanhedrin brought Jesus to Pilate, it became something of a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of thing, and Pilate likely entertained himself with a laughable trial.

It wasn't until the Sanhedrin threatened to blackmail Pilate that he strung Jesus up on a cross to save his own ass.

It was an easy no-brainer decision for Pilate.

Jerusalem was occupied by Rome. The Sanhedrin had no power to do anything.
There is no evidence there ever was a trial.

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
17-11-2014, 10:05 AM (This post was last modified: 17-11-2014 10:18 AM by Free.)
RE: Jesus historicity
(17-11-2014 09:54 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-11-2014 09:34 AM)Free Wrote:  But they did crush them. The only problem was they could not obliterate them because they ere so dispersed, and would often run away and hide.



Christians seem to put Pilate up on a pedestal as if we was some kind of saint.

The reality is, he was a vicious governor who obviously antagonized the Jews if Josephus is to be believed.

I suspect in regards to Jesus, there was a trial. Mind you, the trial itself would have probably annoyed Pilate because he didn't want anything to do with the Jews, including some ridiculous Christ called Jesus.

If the Romans themselves would have captured Jesus, he would have been strung up on a stake without a 2nd thought.

But when the hated Sanhedrin brought Jesus to Pilate, it became something of a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of thing, and Pilate likely entertained himself with a laughable trial.

It wasn't until the Sanhedrin threatened to blackmail Pilate that he strung Jesus up on a cross to save his own ass.

It was an easy no-brainer decision for Pilate.

Jerusalem was occupied by Rome. The Sanhedrin had no power to do anything.
There is no evidence there ever was a trial.

If you discount the consistency of all 4 gospels, and the letter attributed to Paul mentioning Jesus witnessing to Pilate, and consider Jospehus' entry a complete and total interpolation, then you can say that.

6 consistent records need to be dismissed, not including what Tacitus said.

Note: Even if Josephus' was a complete interpolation, it is still a record of a trial regardless of who wrote it. In fact, it is still a record of the existence of Jesus as well.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2014, 10:30 AM
RE: Jesus historicity
(17-11-2014 10:05 AM)Free Wrote:  If you discount the consistency of all 4 gospels, and the letter attributed to Paul mentioning Jesus witnessing to Pilate, and consider Jospehus' entry a complete and total interpolation, then you can say that. 6 consistent records need to be dismissed, not including what Tacitus said.

The latter gospels were based on the first so they aren't independent accounts. I don't know if Paul's claims can be linked the same way or not but it makes sense to me that both could be based off a same prevailing myth that was being built up. Josephus and Tacitus are interpolation or hearsay and add nothing.

Quote:Note: Even if Josephus' was a complete interpolation, it is still a record of a trial regardless of who wrote it.

A story about a trial may be a record of a trial or it may be a story about a trial. The odds that either the sanhedrin or the romans held a trial for a common criminal as described make it very questionable as history.

Quote:In fact, it is still a record of the existence of Jesus as well.

Not so much.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2014, 10:46 AM
RE: Jesus historicity
(17-11-2014 10:30 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(17-11-2014 10:05 AM)Free Wrote:  If you discount the consistency of all 4 gospels, and the letter attributed to Paul mentioning Jesus witnessing to Pilate, and consider Jospehus' entry a complete and total interpolation, then you can say that. 6 consistent records need to be dismissed, not including what Tacitus said.

The latter gospels were based on the first so they aren't independent accounts.

The Synoptic perhaps, but each is an individual record nonetheless.

Quote: I don't know if Paul's claims can be linked the same way or not but it makes sense to me that both could be based off a same prevailing myth that was being built up. Josephus and Tacitus are interpolation or hearsay and add nothing.

They could be, but no evidence of that. What needs to be understood is the "argument from silence" position. An argument from silence can be a valid argument if something should reasonably be expected. Therefore, in the case of Jesus being a myth, it is very reasonable for us to expect to find at least one record of somebody someplace in antiquity claiming that Jesus was a myth.

Considering all the ancient writings of this person, there is not a single one that disputes his historicity.

Not one.

Quote:
Quote:Note: Even if Josephus' was a complete interpolation, it is still a record of a trial regardless of who wrote it.

A story about a trial may be a record of a trial or it may be a story about a trial. The odds that either the sanhedrin or the romans held a trial for a common criminal as described make it very questionable as history.

It may be true that the Romans held a "fair" trial for their own citizens, but when it came to the Jews there was nothing fair about it. This is why I said to Bucky that the trial of Jesus was "laughable" and nothing but an amusement to Pilate.

Roman soldiers could not just go out and kill people, otherwise they would spark a revolt. Especially when it comes to crucifixion. They followed orders from their superiors.

Quote:
Quote:In fact, it is still a record of the existence of Jesus as well.

Not so much.

A record nonetheless. Wink

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2014, 11:31 AM
Re: RE: Jesus historicity
(17-11-2014 10:46 AM)Free Wrote:  
(17-11-2014 10:30 AM)unfogged Wrote:  The latter gospels were based on the first so they aren't independent accounts.

The Synoptic perhaps, but each is an individual record nonetheless.

Quote: I don't know if Paul's claims can be linked the same way or not but it makes sense to me that both could be based off a same prevailing myth that was being built up. Josephus and Tacitus are interpolation or hearsay and add nothing.

They could be, but no evidence of that. What needs to be understood is the "argument from silence" position. An argument from silence can be a valid argument if something should reasonably be expected. Therefore, in the case of Jesus being a myth, it is very reasonable for us to expect to find at least one record of somebody someplace in antiquity claiming that Jesus was a myth.

Considering all the ancient writings of this person, there is not a single one that disputes his historicity.

Not one.

Quote:A story about a trial may be a record of a trial or it may be a story about a trial. The odds that either the sanhedrin or the romans held a trial for a common criminal as described make it very questionable as history.

It may be true that the Romans held a "fair" trial for their own citizens, but when it came to the Jews there was nothing fair about it. This is why I said to Bucky that the trial of Jesus was "laughable" and nothing but an amusement to Pilate.

Roman soldiers could not just go out and kill people, otherwise they would spark a revolt. Especially when it comes to crucifixion. They followed orders from their superiors.

Quote:Not so much.

A record nonetheless. Wink
Well then Free it is clear why you fail to understand cosmology. I feel bad for the extraordinarily patient forumites that wasted their time trying to explain it to you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2014, 11:38 AM (This post was last modified: 17-11-2014 11:43 AM by Free.)
RE: Jesus historicity
(17-11-2014 11:31 AM)photon9 Wrote:  Well then Free it is clear why you fail to understand cosmology. I feel bad for the extraordinarily patient forumites that wasted their time trying to explain it to you.

And how does that add anything to the topic of this discussion?

Ad hominem much?

Non sequitur much?


Big Grin

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2014, 11:46 AM
Re: RE: Jesus historicity
(17-11-2014 11:38 AM)Free Wrote:  
(17-11-2014 11:31 AM)photon9 Wrote:  Well then Free it is clear why you fail to understand cosmology. I feel bad for the extraordinarily patient forumites that wasted their time trying to explain it to you.

And how does that add anything to the topic of this discussion?

Ad hominem much?

Non sequitur much?


Big Grin
You don't understand ad hominem obviously, but it is telling that you view my post as one lol!

Non-sequitor, perhaps. I'm just trying to keep people from wasting their time engaging you when it's clear you you can't and won't listen to what they say.

This is also not ad hominem but I know you will take it as such.

You sir are a fraud!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2014, 11:58 AM
RE: Jesus historicity
(17-11-2014 10:05 AM)Free Wrote:  
(17-11-2014 09:54 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Jerusalem was occupied by Rome. The Sanhedrin had no power to do anything.
There is no evidence there ever was a trial.

If you discount the consistency of all 4 gospels, and the letter attributed to Paul mentioning Jesus witnessing to Pilate, and consider Jospehus' entry a complete and total interpolation, then you can say that.

6 consistent records need to be dismissed, not including what Tacitus said.

Note: Even if Josephus' was a complete interpolation, it is still a record of a trial regardless of who wrote it. In fact, it is still a record of the existence of Jesus as well.

The accounts of the (supposed) trial are vastly different. Gospels are not "accounts" of anything. There are hardly "consistent records". We know peasants were not afforded trials, in general. There was a standing order in the Pax Romana to summarily execute trouble-makers without a trial. The gospels are in no way "independent accounts". The Synoptics are based on "Q", and what is written in John, (who changed the day to accord with his "sacrificial lamb" theory AND put a long speech in his mouth, AFTER the others claimed he was silent) is not exactly reliable.

You're vastly exaggerating what there is.

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
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
17-11-2014, 12:03 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
The consistency of all 4 gospels?

You gotta be full on face fucking me?!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Fodder_From_The_Truth's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: