did jesus really die on the cross?

Right there, you wandered off into what is simply fiction.

The era of the Julio-Claudian emperors, coming as it did after the Social Wars, the Servile Wars, the Marian War, the Sullan War, the First Triumvirate, the Julio-Pompeian Civil War and Octavian's Civil War against Marc Antony--represented a very long period, a century, of internal peace and stability such as Rome had not know for centuries.

I know the Christians and Jews like to think they're terribly important, but until the revolt in Judea in 70 CE, they weren't even a boil on the ass of the Roman empire.

IF such a case was presented to the Prefect, however, COULD he have done what Pilate did? Send him to Herod at first, and afterwards convict him because he felt he had no other option without causing civil unrest?
That is what I contend here, you see. Besides, if I can beleive the bible, the Sanhedrin sort of forced the case onto the prefect in order to give it a smudge of authenticity.

Now you run into another problem--no Herod. Herod Antipas (20 BC-c. AD 40), was the tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea. Only Luke claims that Herod was present in Jerusalem, and then there is a tenuous contention that the putative Jesus was sent to Herod because he (Jesus) was a Galilean. One of the major problems with that is that the episode is not mentioned by the other evangelists, and Luke was not a contemporary of the putative Jesus--he could not have been an eyewitness. Certainly Herod could have been in Jerusalem for an event as significant as Passover. But he had no authority in Judea, and, as i've already pointed out, Pilate would have had no authority in, and no reason to take an interest in, a matter of local jurisprudence. There is no reason to assume that the putative Jesus would have been referred to Pilate in the first place, let alone sent by him to Herod.

You people keep running into the problem that you're assuming the gospels respresent an historical record to which it is reasonable to refer. They don't and it is not.

bm

By the way, the Sanhedrin ran a greater risk of fomenting revolt by abdicating their responsibilities to the Romans then they would have by simply exercising their authority to condemn and execute someone, either as a rebel or a heretic. Once again, these were not matters in which Pilate had any authority, and if he were in Jerusalem at Passover, he would have kept as low a profile as possible. The Romans were not only not stupid, they were brilliant administrators in that they consistently did not interfer in local affairs which did not threaten the empire.

I think the Bible should not be entirely discredited as a historical source, after all, most ancient source material is biased or flawed in some way (subjective, giving false accounts of events, etc.)
The reason I try to work with the scripture was because the question asked was in reference to the Bible. (Could Jesus indeed have been crucified?)

Objective Eyewitness accounts of relevant events are almost impossible to find.

Other then that, I find your points reasonable and wellfounded. I believe you are correct, and have evidently looked deeper into the matter at hand. Thanks for enlightening me, Set.

Nevertheless, a great many ancient historical sources have been confirmed by cross-reference to other sources, and by monumental inscriptions and other archaeological sources. For example, Tacitus describes Pilate as having been a Proconsul. This was patently false, and on that basis, many historians doubted that Pilate even existed. However, excavations at Caesarea unearthed an ampitheater which included a dedicatory inscription to Pilate. Tacitus was the governor of Asia when he published the Histories and wrote the Annals. At that time, the governor of Palestine was a Proconsul. When Pilate was in Palestine, it was an equestrian appointment, a prefect. But if Tacitus had read a source which abbreviated the title as Pr., which was used for either Prefect or Proconsul, then he quite reasonably could have made the error of describing Pilate as a Proconsul, when he in fact had been a Prefect.

That's how history works--it is no accident that pre-law students usually majored (at one time, at least) in history--the evidentiary methods are the same in law as in history. The problem with the "gospels" is that they contain glaring contradictions of geography and history, and they are not corroborated by other sources which don't have a religious agenda. They are not discarded as historical sources because they are questionable--merely being questionable doesn't automatically disqualify a source. They are rejected because they contain known errors, and they are not corroborated by any other outside sources.

Even when historical sources "lie," they often provide the basis upon which they are discovered to be in error. The Anglo-Saxon chronicles at one point tells about the invasion of Somerset, and tells how the Britons were defeated, scattered and slaughtered. Fifty years later, the Anglo-Saxon chronicles again tell of the invasion of Somerset. Had the Britons been completed defeated and driven off fifty years earlier, it would not have been necessary to invade a second time. By applying the careful standards of historiography to the "gospels," it becomes apparent that they are very likely not eye-witness accounts, that they were very likely written long after the events they purport to describe, and that based on gross errors of geography and history, they are unreliable. You just need to get over it.

EDIT: By the way, those documents were intended as religious scripture--they were never intended to be historical accounts. That alone makes them suspect.

Senata, why do people like you go to such lengths to offend people and mock peoples' beliefs? You seem to enjoy it.

Just because you have no God; doesn't mean none of the rest of us can have some hope in our lives. You don't respect peoples beliefs or thier arguments put foeward based upon them.

O.K. the original poster (may have been you i cant remember) made the mistake of posting in a History forum when this really belongs in Spirituality and Religion, but "did jesus really die on the cross?" is a question, it invites discussion! Something you have not yet mastered apparently.

Just because you would want to see the thread posted in S & R rather than History doesn't mean it shouldn't have been posted here. In that it has been posted here, i am fully within my rights to comment as i do. If it had been posted in S & R, i would be fully within my rights to post the same comments there.

If your belief is so weak that it will not stand against the criticisms i level, then i submit to you that your belief is not worth having. If your belief is proof against my criticism, then your response is childish and petty. Anyone's beliefs on any topic are fit topics for discussion, up to and including denial and refutation. If you can't handle that, then perhaps you ought to stop reading such threads.

I have not asserted that none of this took place, only that there is not good reason to assume that it is historically correct.

Those who wish to continue to believe every word of it can do so without my approval, and for the fervent believer, they are likely to do so with or without my approval. Those who have a more flexible belief may choose to believe in the message, even is the setting is more than a little improbable.

Whatever anyone chooses to believe, my right to comment is not diminished, nor does any special pleading serve to establish religious belief as a case in which no one may ever make a dissentient comment.

I think i said you were offending people and mocking their beliefs, i did not say that my belief would not stand against your denial. As for responding to your criticisms, you wouldnt accept my refutal of your criticisms; because my belief is fastened by somthing much stronger than any historical knowledge, which changes all the time with new discoveries. My belief is grounded on what we call "Mysterium Fidei" The Mystery of Faith.

In my missal there is a quote from somewhere (im not sure where) and a comment:

"'The judgements of the Lord are true, justified in themselves.' My judgements are to be feared, not to be discussed, because they are incomprehensible to human understanding"

-- The New Marian Missal
+ Imprimatur: L. Suenens, vic. gen.
Mechliniae, die 15 maii 1958

Therefore, I will try to refrain from discussing further.

Whatever floats your boat.

None of that changes the fact that this is a discussion forum, and that no one's beliefs are sacrosanct. Any topic can be freely discussed, and you are simply indulging special pleading.

Nick, your Jesus is Lucifer.