Did Pontius Pilate exist?

[1robin]

I disagree with you that bibilical scholars are intellectually apathetic, but of course their profound bias cannot be denied.

It's a shame that so few unbiased scholars feel the urge to enter the field. I often wonder what such secular scholars would make of the historical Jesus.

If a scholar comes to believe the Bible doesn't it make sense that he soon after becomes a Christian. Bias in this case is used to desperage anyone who believes. To pre-eliminate all christian scholars is to eliminate almost all scholars who find the Bible reliable arbitrarily. I guess any evolutionist who believes in evolution should similarly be declared biased and ignored. Bye Bye Dawkins. BTW most NT scholars of any type believe in two facts, Christ was crucified and the tomb was empty shortly after.

 

[steeltoes]

If a scholar comes to believe the Bible doesn't it make sense that he soon after becomes a Christian. Bias in this case is used to desperage anyone who believes. To pre-eliminate all christian scholars is to eliminate almost all scholars who find the Bible reliable arbitrarily. I guess any evolutionist who believes in evolution should similarly be declared biased and ignored. Bye Bye Dawkins. BTW most NT scholars of any type believe in two facts, Christ was crucified and the tomb was empty shortly after.

Don't you think it's a prerequisite for being Christian to believe Christ was crucified and all the rest, so should it not come as a given that Christian scholars come with a bit of a Christian bias?

 

[outhouse]

Don't you think it's a prerequisite for being Christian to believe Christ was crucified and all the rest, so should it not come as a given that Christian scholars come with a bit of a Christian bias?

But your confusing apologetics with scholarships. Most scholars I know are more agnostic, and the ones who follow apologetics are pretty obvious, and carry little weight in a real conversation.

 

[steeltoes]

But your confusing apologetics with scholarships. Most scholars I know are more agnostic, and the ones who follow apologetics are pretty obvious, and carry little weight in a real conversation.

Consider the so called consensus, it hardly reflects an agnostic position, one of not knowing whether Jesus existed or not with the information that we have. The so called consensus is that Jesus existed. Who are these agnostic scholars you know of that don't know if Jesus existed or not?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

How could there ever be an unbiased bible scholar in your world if you're going to immediately label anyone who earns the right to claim the title of "bible scholar" biased by default?

Hey, Quagmire. I think there could be an unbiased Bible scholar. I once read a thick book by Isaac Asimov about the Bible and I remember how wonderful the experience was. None of the special pleading. None of the emotion. He discussed it all as a car mechanic might discuss a carburator. I'd grown up with the Bible, but I learned more from Asimov's book than I had my entire life up until then.

I wish Asimov were here now to dispassionately discuss the (non)historical Jesus with me. We might mention in casual passing that most Biblical scholars believe in an historical Jesus, but I doubt either of us would take that as a serious argument for the historicity of Jesus, much less as the dominant and at times only argument for Jesus.

 

[Quagmire]

Hey, Quagmire. I think there could be an unbiased Bible scholar. I once read a thick book by Isaac Asimov about the Bible and I remember how wonderful the experience was. None of the special pleading. None of the emotion. He discussed it all as a car mechanic might discuss a carburator. I'd grown up with the Bible, but I learned more from Asimov's book than I had my entire life up until then.

I wish Asimov were here now to dispassionately discuss the (non)historical Jesus with me. We might mention in casual passing that most Biblical scholars believe in an historical Jesus, but I doubt either of us would take that as a serious argument for the historicity of Jesus, much less as the dominant and at times only argument for Jesus.

Ah, you don't consider Asminov a scholar then.

 

[outhouse]

Consider the so called consensus, it hardly reflects an agnostic position, one of not knowing whether Jesus existed or not with the information that we have. The so called consensus is that Jesus existed. Who are these agnostic scholars you know of that don't know if Jesus existed or not?

The reason people believe in a HJ is because of education and knowledge, not bias and indoctrination.

When you get to the level of the scholars you criticise, im all ears.


The position of a HJ does not lie in faith at all. Ones theism does not make this determination with credibility.

As I stated apologetically inclined scholars are obvious and not taken seriously.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Ah, you don't consider Asminov a scholar then.

I don't? Well, OK I guess. I can't remember ever considering the issue.

Actually I think of Asimov as just a powerful mind who was interested in all things. And a rationalist. He never fell into poor argumentation or special pleading, not that I could see. He was dispassionately curious.

At least his book about Bible stuff gave me that impression. It's about the only thing of his that I can recall reading.

 

[Quagmire]

Hey, Quagmire. I think there could be an unbiased Bible scholar. I once read a thick book by Isaac Asimov about the Bible and I remember how wonderful the experience was. None of the special pleading. None of the emotion. He discussed it all as a car mechanic might discuss a carburator. I'd grown up with the Bible, but I learned more from Asimov's book than I had my entire life up until then.

I wish Asimov were here now to dispassionately discuss the (non)historical Jesus with me. We might mention in casual passing that most Biblical scholars believe in an historical Jesus, but I doubt either of us would take that as a serious argument for the historicity of Jesus, much less as the dominant and at times only argument for Jesus.

I agree, mostly because I doubt that Asminov would be confused enough or uninformed enough to offer that summation as a fair accessment of the pro-historocity argument.

I don't? Well, OK I guess. I can't remember ever considering the issue.

Actually I think of Asimov as just a powerful mind who was interested in all things. And a rationalist. He never fell into poor argumentation or special pleading, not that I could see. He was dispassionately curious.

At least his book about Bible stuff gave me that impression. It's about the only thing of his that I can recall reading.

Now I'm confused: what exactly is the difference between a Bible scholar and someone with "a powerful mind who was interested in all things. And a rationalist" who's studied enough about Bible stuff to write---going by your own accesment---a worthwhile treatrment on the topic?

 

[steeltoes]

The reason people believe in a HJ is because of education and knowledge, not bias and indoctrination.

When you get to the level of the scholars you criticise, im all ears.


The position of a HJ does not lie in faith at all. Ones theism does not make this determination with credibility.

As I stated apologetically inclined scholars are obvious and not taken seriously.

I guess it beats the hell out of having evidence as for Pontius Pilate. If there was evidence we wouldn't need the special education and the special pleading, but there you go. Historical Jesus is for the educated, I guess if one can afford all the education one can begin to read their Bible as if Jesus is historical.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I agree, mostly because I doubt that Asminov would be confused enough or uninformed enough to offer that summation as a fair accessment of the pro-historocity argument.

I can only go by what I've observed here and in other places where the historicity of Jesus is debated. In all those experiences, the 'scholarly consensus' has been a major weapon in the Realers' arsenals. At times, the only weapon.

Now I'm confused: what exactly is the difference between a Bible scholar and someone with "a powerful mind who was interested in all things. And a rationalist" who's studied enough about Bible stuff to write---going by your own accesment---a worthwhile treatrment on the topic?

Beats me. I think I asked someone earlier in the thread -- who was insisting on the scholarly consensus -- to define 'biblical scholar' for me. You might go back and review his answer if it interests you. I don't think much about Biblical scholars myself, meaning that it's not important to me to make a narrow definition of them.

 

[Quagmire]

I can only go by what I've observed here and in other places where the historicity of Jesus is debated. In all those experiences, the 'scholarly consensus' has been a major weapon in the Realers' arsenals. At times, the only weapon.

I'm sure it seems that way if you ignore everything else. :yes:

Beats me. I think I asked someone earlier in the thread -- who was insisting on the scholarly consensus -- to define 'biblical scholar' for me. You might go back and review his answer if it interests you. I don't think much about Biblical scholars myself, meaning that it's not important to me to make a narrow definition of them.

Seems pretty clear that you already have.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

BTW most NT scholars of any type believe in two facts, Christ was crucified and the tomb was empty shortly after.

I love you, man, but I'm guessing that a claim like that is making the historical-Jesus crowd squirm in their seats.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Seems pretty clear that you already have.

Hey, we all seem as we seem.

 

[outhouse]

. BTW most NT scholars of any type believe in two facts, Christ was crucified and the tomb was empty shortly after.

That is not entirely true.


Crucified yes. Tomb no, there is no concensus on that at all. Crossan thinks he was thrown into a pit.

If you have other sources then please feel free to share.

 

[steeltoes]

That is not entirely true.


Crucified yes. Tomb no, there is no concensus on that at all. Crossan thinks he was thrown into a pit.

If you have other sources then please feel free to share.

I'm curious, how do they know the Q sayings can be attributed to a Jesus that was crucified?

 

[outhouse]

I'm curious, how do they know the Q sayings can be attributed to a Jesus that was crucified?

Who said they were 100% attributed?

As far as I know its only a possibility that Q sayings may go back to a Yehoshua.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Who said they were 100% attributed?

As far as I know its only a possibility that Q sayings may go back to a Yehoshua.

So you think that Matthew and Luke may have plucked oral sayings from the culture and attributed them to Jesus?

How about Thomas? How do we know the origin of his sayings? (I really don't know much about them. I read a few of them awhile back and they seemed about as goofy as some of the zen stuff I hear from time to time.)

 

[steeltoes]

So you think that Matthew and Luke may have plucked oral sayings from the culture and attributed them to Jesus?

How about Thomas? How do we know the origin of his sayings? (I really don't know much about them. I read a few of them awhile back and they seemed about as goofy as some of the zen stuff I hear from time to time.)

They consist of mostly Q and a lot more. 114 verses.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

They consist of mostly Q and a lot more. 114 verses.

Here are a couple of the sayings from Thomas:

#2 Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All."

#11: Jesus said, "This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass away. The dead are not alive, and the living will not die. In the days when you consumed what is dead, you made it what is alive. When you come to dwell in the light, what will you do? On the day when you were one you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?"

As I read through them, I didn't know whether to giggle aloud or whether to take an aspirin for my headache. I can certainly see why they were not included in the canon.