historicity of Jesus

neologist wrote:

I wonder how long the link will last.

Ragman_orig wrote:

My guess is 24 hours...who's got 48 hours? Want to start a a pool?

Gone in less than 24.

NickFun wrote:

I heard Jesus was an excellent carpenter. Why do we never see coffee tables made by him?

There are several in the Vatican smoking lounge.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

Setanta wrote:
No, the "Christians" of the first century of this area were not noticed by the Romans--and therefore there are no Roman records of this nonsense,

I certainly would agree with this statement Set, but then you confuse me when you go on to say the following.

Setanta wrote:
therefore, Dok's call for a source outside the cult is a significant refutation of any claim that there is an historical basis for alleging that the putative Jesus existed.

If admittedly the Romans paid no attention to the "Christians" of first century Palestine to the point of not recording small incidences such as the existence of some crucified preacher, then Dok's claim of non-existence based on a lack of Roman records is pointless and has no meaning since by your own words the Romans did not take notice of this cult.

Or am I missing something in what you were saying?

Thanks

Yes, you are missing something. The Romans very much did take notice of those who threatened rebellion. Although Pilate was a prefect, and therefore not a military commander, there was a detachment of about five cohorts in Palestine precisely because the Zealots were active then, and attempting to foment rebellion. We know this because of Roman records--both that there were troops in Palestine and that the Jewish Zealots threatened revolt. If there were an individual, reported by Jewish religious authorities as being a dangerous revolutionary, and requesting the extraordinary move of arrest and execution by the Romans, at a time when they were already concerned with rebellion in Palestine, why was no record of that made, although there was a record of the military presence there for the very purpose of preventing rebellion?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Doktor S wrote:
Nice tirade....anywhoo...
I suppose you, 'real life', have some sort of historical evidence of the existance of jesus you would like to produce? I'd love to see it.

hi 'DS'

Ever read the New Testament? Eyewitness accounts.

And don't give me that tired 'but that's in the Bible' routine.

When the books were written, they weren't in the Bible

By that idiotic line of reasoning, all mythology makes the cut.

Quote:

The decision to publish them together in one volume happened years after they were written. Comprende?

Illustrating the above, Arthur Pendragon, his compatriots and antagonists, and the events of Camelot, are historically validated through Mallory's assemblage of existing myth and legend into La Morte d'Artur, that we today are familiar with Aesop's Fables confirms the historicity of the events, folks, and critters described therein, and Beowulf's defeat of the dragon heralded the world and its order as we know them today.

Quote:

And btw, why DO you suppose (besides the part about it being a completely unsupportable proposition, that is) the Jews have never taken the position that Jesus never existed?

Apart from taking little notice of it, the Judaic subset of the Abrahamic mythopaeia institutionally, by context, constitution, and concept, functionally and unambiguously stands unalterably opposed to the proposition central to the NT, that being that through the birth, revelations proceeding from the personage of, death, and subsequent resurection of a messiah predicated and effected a "New Covenant". For Jews, its a non-issue ... twarn't never no such thing ever happened, by their mindset. By and large practical, pragmatic types, at least within the constraints of their own particular mysticism, the Jews mostly ain't given much to acknowledging, let alone pondering on, that which by their theophilosophical construct is incongruent with their theophilosophic construct. When it comes to the Jesus of Christianity, they see - in fact can conceive - no reason to dignify the to them absurd concept through recognition via objection.

You got nowhere to go with your line of reasoning, rl, other than to continue treading the footworn canyon of the intellectual circle by which your argument is self confined.

0 Replies

Gotcha Set. Now I better understand what you were saying.

I would still tend to doubt that Roman records would record any executions of the type that claimed the life of Jesus. If one believes the gospel records (and you do not I take it), then it was only the Jewish authorities who played on Pilate's fears of rebellion to convince him to execute Jesus, even though Pilate did not believe Jesus to be a threat. A very small group of malcontents, handled on a local level to apparent satisfaction, would not be the stuff recorded in official Roman records back home. So the lack of a record in Rome of some backwater preacher's execution, much less his life, is not surprising in my opinion.

0 Replies

But you keep referring to a backwater preacher--he was described to Pilate by the Sanhedrin as a dangerous revolutionary. Certainly, they would have taken no notice of a "backwater preacher's" execution--but that is a term you are using in retrospect. I have no reason to accept the NT account, but if for sake of argument one does accept them (and i will deal with why i don't in a moment), then one has the Romans executing Jesus as a revolutionary, not as a Judaic heretic. The Romans had very good reason to record the arrest and execution of a revolutionary, and the more so as Pilate had no military authority, and would have needed the prior approval of the Governor of Syria to take any military action--espeically to move troops into Jerusalem.

In the period when the putative Jesus is alleged to have lived, Judea was a Roman province. The capital of the province was at Caesarea Maritima, on the coast, south of present day Haifa. It was a sub-province of Syria, and it was ruled by a member of the equestrian order. The equestrians, or Equites (roughly=knights), were the "middle class" of the Roman empire. The order had been created and lay between the lower order of Plebs and the upper order of Patres (literally, fathers--the Patricians were also known as the Senatorial order); it's purpose was to provide the functions of a middle class in a modern society, providing middle level managers in business and government. Therefore, Pilate was a Prefect. Only members of the Patrician order were directly appointed to military commands, although an enterprising member of the Equestrian order could rise from the ranks. But Pilate was a Prefect, and that was a civil and not a military appointment. Pilate only had a personal body guard, and all troops in Palestine, and therefore in Judea, were under the command of the Governor of Syria--Pilate would have needed the authority of the Governor to have issued any orders to Roman troops.

Jerusalem was not the capital of the province, Caesarea was, and it was far from Jerusalem. For Pilate to gone to Jerusalem at Passover is not unreasonable. For Pilate to have taken Roman troops to Jerusalem would have been extraordinary, and having no authority to do so, he could only have gotten the right to give orders to the commander of a cohort upon specific appeal to the Legate (Governor) of Syria, in which he would have had to be able to allege special circumstances.

Therefore, even if Pilate were in Jerusalem in that Passover week, he would have had no Roman troops other than his honor guard, and he would have performed no executions. He would have had no authority to try anyone, other than upon an allegation such as the flimsy attempt of the NT to provide a pretext provides--an allegation of rebellion. The Zealots had rebelled against Roman taxation for more than a generation at that point, and the Romans did take note of that. There are very complete records of who the Legates in Syria were at that time (Vitellius at that time, if i recall correctly), and the Roman records are even sufficiently complete to tell us that Ciaphas was appointed one the High Priests by the Prefect who preceeded Pilate (don't recall his name). Vitellius later removed Ciaphas from the office.

And yet we are expected to believe that the Romans, who records of all the Senatorial-rank Legates of Syria for the period are complete, whose records of the Prefects of the province of Iudaea were complete, who even recorded the appointment of High Priests by the Prefects are complete, had no record of someone accused of fomenting rebellion and executed by the Romans. Even were such an accusation made, and the individual in question arrested, Pilate would have been obliged to send him to Antioch in Syria for trial. Only the Legate would have had the authority to try condemn and execute any such individual. A military commander on the scene fighting a "shooting war" against rebels could have executed such an individual out of hand--but then we would be expected to believe that such a military expedition took place, but was not mentioned in any Roman record, not mentioned by Tacitus and not mentioned by Flavius Josephus.

The precise lack of information is one of the biggest objection to the story as told. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you are going to claim that the Romans would not have known about this "backwater preacher," then you're going to have to chuck the whole Passion Week story, and leave Pilate out of it.

0 Replies

By the way, if you do chuck the entire Passion Week story, and plump for backwater preacher--then you have answered the question of the historicity of Jesus with an admission that there is no such historical basis.

0 Replies

The scenario you describe is of course perfectly plausible. But it is no more plausible than the scenerio presented by the gospel accounts. In your scenario, Jesus would have been seen as a revolutionary intent on creating problems for Rome. In that case, I would agree that one would expect to find records of Roman actions against Jesus and his cohorts, much as the records are available for the Roman campaign against Jerusalem circa 70AD.

Of course, if Christ was not a threat to Rome, but rather someone whom the local authorities had it in for due to his conflict with them, then Rome would hardly take notice. The gospel accounts seem to make it rather plain that Pilate had to be convinced to carry out what the Jewish leaders wanted done, ie the execution of Jesus. He (Pilate) did not believe Jesus was a threat to Rome and thus was reluctant to condemn Him. Pilate acceeded to the Jewish demands only when the tide of public opinion seemed to be on the side of execution. Maybe he did so in order to keep the peace and to keep from having the Jewish leaders create a scene that would get back to Rome and not reflect well on himself. Who knows? The point is, at this time, Jesus was nothing more than a local nuisance to Roman authority, not the revolutionary that would make headlines in Rome, nor require a report to Rome of the way things were handled.

As for your explanation on Roman troops and Pilate's need for higher ups to give him authority over some, I do not doubt you at all. Jerusalem was a thorn in the side when it came to Roman rule. It would not be surprising at all that Pilate decided to personally be in Jerusalem during Passover and that it would be a good idea to have Roman soldiers about, just to remind the locals who was in charge and to deter the citizens from causing any problems. How that in some way makes the existence of Jesus any less a reality is not something I quite understand, unless that was just a tangent we somehow got off onto.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

The scenario you describe is of course perfectly plausible. But it is no more plausible than the scenerio presented by the gospel accounts. In your scenario, Jesus would have been seen as a revolutionary intent on creating problems for Rome. In that case, I would agree that one would expect to find records of Roman actions against Jesus and his cohorts, much as the records are available for the Roman campaign against Jerusalem circa 70AD.

Not only do we have records of the campaign of Titus against Jerusalem (Titus was, by the way, the son of the first Flavian Emperor, Vespasian, and succeeded him to the Imperial dignity), we have records of the Maccabees and the Zealots rebelling against the Romans, and especially against Roman taxation, in the entire period from 66 BCE (after the end of the Third Mithradatic War, and the time at which Pompey the Great beseiged Jerusalem, and then entered the "Holy of Holies" in the Temple there) to the deposition of Herod in 44 CE, and the subsequent Jewish rebellion which is described in great detail by Josephus in his The Jewish War.

Quote:

Of course, if Christ was not a threat to Rome, but rather someone whom the local authorities had it in for due to his conflict with them, then Rome would hardly take notice.

Which is exactly the point, because you then are faced with having no historical documents to support the gospel account.

Quote:

The gospel accounts seem to make it rather plain that Pilate had to be convinced to carry out what the Jewish leaders wanted done, ie the execution of Jesus.

He would have been acting illegally in the terms of his portfolio as Prefect and would have been subject to losing his job, and perhaps his head.

Quote:

He (Pilate) did not believe Jesus was a threat to Rome and thus was reluctant to condemn Him.

He was incompetent to condemn him. Were there such an individual, and a serious charge of fomenting rebellion had been brought against him, the Legate at Antioch would have issued orders for his arrest, and one of the local cohort commanders would have executed the order, not Pilate. The individual in question then would have been sent to Antioch, where he would have been condemned and executed, had the Legate seen fit to do so. No matter how you cut it, Pilate had no authority to take such steps, in any circumstances.

Quote:

Pilate acceeded to the Jewish demands only when the tide of public opinion seemed to be on the side of execution. Maybe he did so in order to keep the peace and to keep from having the Jewish leaders create a scene that would get back to Rome and not reflect well on himself. Who knows? The point is, at this time, Jesus was nothing more than a local nuisance to Roman authority, not the revolutionary that would make headlines in Rome.

The point which you seem intent on continuing to ignore is that Pilate was not competent to execute anyone. The only way he could have been executed on the scene would have been on the orders of a military officer already ordered by the Legate of Syria to take military action. Pilate was a civil administrator, he was not a military officer.

Quote:

As for your explanation on Roman troops and Pilate's need for higher ups to give him authority over some, I do not doubt you at all. Jerusalem was a thorn in the side when it came to Roman rule.

Not really. Iudaea provided Rome with no significant tax revenues. The reason rebellion was important to Rome, apart from refusing ever to countenance rebellion, was that Palestine was a communications and cormmerical crossroads. The cohorts were not stationed in cities, which would have been militarily idiotic. It is not necessary to hold Jerusalem to control and protect the roads of the region. Look at a map. Better yet, i'll go get one for you.

http://www.biblestudy.org/maps/palmacc.jpg

Note that it were not necessary to control Jerusalem to control trade routes to the Persian Gulf. Holding the river crossing near Jericho would accomplish that. Roman legions did not set up in cities, and when broken up into their consituent cohorts, they would definitely have built a military stockade and would have made a point of doing so in the open, away from any built-up center, to have a clear field of view around the stockade. There were four or five cohorts in the region at that time (an Augustan legion had 6,000 infantry comprised of ten cohorts of 600 men each--there would have been about 2,500 to 3,000 troops in Palestine at normal times). A cohort at Philadelphia and one at Jericho would have been sufficient to protect the trade route, which would have bypassed Jerusalem to the north. The other three were likely at Caesarea (see the town of "Dor" on this map, on the sea coast), Joppa and Gaza, the principle ports of the area.

Quote:

It would not be surprising at all that Pilate decided to personally be in Jerusalem during Passover and that it would be a good idea to have Roman soldiers about, just to remind the locals who was in charge and to deter the citizens from causing any problems.

You continually ignore what i have already pointed out several times--Pilate had no military authority, and he could not have had "Roman soldiers about," because he did not command any. He had an honor guard, period. That was likely two or three decades--20 or 30 men. He had no authority to take military or police measures and had no authority to execute anyone.

Quote:

How that in some way makes the existence of Jesus any less a reality is not something I quite understand, unless that was just a tangent we somehow got off onto.

The topic of the thread is the historicity of the putative Jesus. I'm not denying that such an individual existed, i'm just pointing out, à propos of the topic, that there is no historical basis for the contention. The tangent we have gotten off onto is whether or not there is good reason to believe that the Romans would have kept any such record. If one stipulates the events of Passion Week, then yes, those would have been circumstances sufficiently extraordinary to have justified keeping such a record--but there isn't one.

You know, you might have to deal with the possibility that your boy Hey-Zeus might have existed, but that the "gospels" are just so much bullshit.

0 Replies

I'm not denying your contention that Pilate was a civil authority. But nothing I have ever read indicates that Pilate, or any other civil authority appointed by Rome, could not authorize an execution for crimes against Rome. Of course, I will concede that I may not have read enough and that I could be wrong.

Nor am I doubting you that Pilate did not have authority to command Roman soldiers. Any soldiers assigned to him as body guard would out of necessity have been under his command. At least it seems so to me, but again, I admit I may be wrong.

As far as our tangent on Roman records, which is where you and I became engaged in discourse, I think it is fair to say that the lack of any mention of Jesus in Roman records does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Jesus did not exist. The only conclusion we can truly draw is that He was not a sufficiently important enough person to draw the attention of Roman record keepers. Of course, this neither proves or disproves His existence.

Nevertheless, it has been an interesting discussion with you Set. Always nice to have a rather civil discussion on a religious topic. Take care.

0 Replies

When are some of you going to understand and just accept that it is not about proof and that it is about faith?

I would go so far as to say that if Jesus Himself appeared in front of some of you it wouldn't matter. Look how many He appeared in front of that didn't know Him. It's not about proof PERIOD. Laughing

0 Replies

Arella Mae wrote:

When are some of you going to understand and just accept that it is not about proof and that it is about faith?

I would go so far as to say that if Jesus Himself appeared in front of some of you it wouldn't matter. Look how many He appeared in front of that didn't know Him. It's not about proof PERIOD.

We know Tom killed Mary, just b/c the is no proof doesnt mean he didnt do it.

0 Replies

You just don't get it Epi. You just don't get it. Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

I get it AM. See my sig line for confirmation.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

I'm not denying your contention that Pilate was a civil authority. But nothing I have ever read indicates that Pilate, or any other civil authority appointed by Rome, could not authorize an execution for crimes against Rome. Of course, I will concede that I may not have read enough and that I could be wrong.

Nor am I doubting you that Pilate did not have authority to command Roman soldiers. Any soldiers assigned to him as body guard would out of necessity have been under his command. At least it seems so to me, but again, I admit I may be wrong.

Yes, you are obviously uninformed about the powers of Roman officials. Given that the Romans were a very legalistic people (they loved going to the court like no one else in history, until the Americans came along), and given that Pilate had no power to try any accused individual, there would have been no basis upon which to claim that your boy Hey-Zeus was found to have been guilty of "crimes against Rome." The dubious, implausible gospel account of the Pilate episode, in fact, would suggest that Pilate did not consider him guilty of any crimes against Rome. The description of Pilate, and his dealings with Ciaphas are completely at odds with what is known historically about the powers and responsiblities of Roman Prefects, and their dealings with local authority. Remember that Ciaphas was appointed by Pilate's predecessor. The Sanhendrin were not giving any orders to a Roman imperial official, and were not even in a position to put any pressure on him.

I haven't suggested that Pilate's honor guard would not have been under his command. I am pointing out that a handful of soldiers under the orders of a man whom they were only detailed to protect do not make for an execution squad.

Quote:

As far as our tangent on Roman records, which is where you and I became engaged in discourse, I think it is fair to say that the lack of any mention of Jesus in Roman records does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Jesus did not exist. The only conclusion we can truly draw is that He was not a sufficiently important enough person to draw the attention of Roman record keepers. Of course, this neither proves or disproves His existence.

Nevertheless, it has been an interesting discussion with you Set. Always nice to have a rather civil discussion on a religious topic. Take care.

He was not so sufficiently important to have drawn that attention, if in fact, he ever existed. And this is not a tangent, it is the meat of the discussion. I am not attempting to prove that your boy Hey-Zeus did not exist--i am addressing the topic of the thread, which is whether or not there is any sound historical basis upon which to make the claim. Having studied the topic in detail almost 40 years ago, and having read deeply into Roman history almost for as long as i've been able to read, and having visited all of these topics again and again, man and boy, i can only conclude that there is no independently corroborated evidence for the existence of this individual.

As for the plausiblity of the contention that such an individual existed, and taught a praiseworthy doctrine, i think that is entirely plausible. I think it is about a 50-50 shot that there was such a person. Either there was a rabbi, then or previously an Essene, who proclaimed such a doctrine; or, that there was an avatar created, an individual who only existed in a series of parables, if you will, to illustrate the core spiritualistic thesis of the Essenes. Take away the fanatical secrecy and adherence to Mosaic Law of the Essenes, and you will have, more or less, the doctrine which is found in those gospels.

Thomas Jefferson, of whom i am definitely not an admirer, always objected to the larding of historical inaccuracy, of fantasy, of other sectarian sources onto the story embodied in the gospels. He wrote to John Adams in 1813:

"In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurgos, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill."

Therefore, Jefferson sought to write an edited vesion of the gospels which was free of all the claptrap. I highly recommend to anyone professing to be a Christian that they read what is commonly called The Jefferson Bible. Personally, i think he remained to gullible about the text, but nevertheless, he sought the essence of the message--and it is a worthy message.

*****************************************

MOAN so typically claims that others "don't get" how important her belief is, and that proof doesn't matter. But proof does matter just as soon as one leaves her circle of fanatical believers. The fanatical believer of any religion would impose their belief on others in the form of legislated morality. The fanatical Christian believer would foist off onto society an Old Testament and a Pauline condemnation of homosexuality, of the subservient role of women, of the rectitude of slavery. Other people are unwilling to accept such hateful nonsense, and the more so as the basis for the contentions which underpin it all are so questionable.

We "get it," we just don't intend to swallow it.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

I get it AM. See my sig line for confirmation.

Hey Eorl. Nice to see you. But sorry, I don't NEED to believe in anything. You either do or you don't. Laughing

0 Replies

Arella Mae wrote:

But sorry, I don't NEED to believe in anything.

Well, here's another lie we can add to the catelogue of MOAN's dishonesty.

0 Replies

That's a bit harsh Set. I think AM really does believe that she does not need to believe, even if she does. I sure you'll admit you WANT to believe AM, and you don't like the idea of being an atheist?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Arella Mae wrote:
But sorry, I don't NEED to believe in anything.

Well, here's another lie we can add to the catelogue of MOAN's dishonesty.

0 Replies

Eorl,

Do I want to be an atheist? Pardon the expression but not only no but hell no! And I say that only because the majority of atheists I run across seem to think it's ok to act like total jackasses because they don't believe in God. So, for that reason alone I want to believe. But do I need to believe in God or anything? No and neither does anyone else. It is my choice. I believe. I heard and I believe. I took a leap of faith and made the choice to stick to my beliefs. And Eorl, I have never considered you the type of atheist I just described.

So, for those that would like to tell me why I do and don't believe or anything else, GO SUCK AN EGG! I have no idea why you do or don't believe anything other than what you've told me and I will not presume to tell you differently. I may have my opinions on it but I have no right to accuse you of lying.

And Setanta, MY NAME IS NOW ARELLA MAE! IF YOU CAN'T RESPECT THAT THEN BUZZ THE HECK OFF! YOU ARE THE RUDEST PERSON I'VE EVER ENCOUNTERED IN MY ENTIRE LIFE! And don't bother telling me to not holler at you or tell you what to do. I JUST DID!

0 Replies

Call me if you ever calm down, little girl. Another typical display of MOAN's ungovernable temper.

0 Replies

historicity of Jesus

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know