Did Pontius Pilate exist?

[AmbiguousGuy]

I ask for one little example as it applies to Jesus and you copy and paste a **** load of website content. What's with that?

I think you may have suffered an instance of outscholarment.

 

[Desert Snake]

If you'd rather call it an underlying religious assumption, that's fine with me.

But I see it as simply the extreme position of a common human confusion about language. Even many atheists will argue (fiercely) over what an 'atheist' is, as if the word itself can contain some set meaning. To me, that seems almost like magical thinking. Certainly it seems a confused view of language and how it works.

Can you present a rational argument for the 'mythicist' theory?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Can you present a rational argument for the 'mythicist' theory?

Sure. But you'll have to describe the 'mythicist theory' first. What does it mean?

I'll be happy to take either side if you prefer one over the other.

 

[Desert Snake]

Sure. But you'll have to describe the 'mythicist theory' first. What does it mean?

I'll be happy to take either side if you prefer one over the other.

Just take either 'side', provide an argument for whatever you believe.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Considering the disdain offered by those of a traditional historical view of Jesus towards those that have doubts about that view, ...

Clever distortion - well, actually not so clever. There is nothing wrong with reasonable doubt. The warranted disdain is toward the ignorant who dismiss the consensus and assert fringe positions with arrogant certainty.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Just take either 'side', provide an argument for whatever you believe.

Just to be clear, I rarely have beliefs in the way that most people seem to. I don't believe that Jesus was mythical, for example, nor do I believe that he was historical.

My best guess is that no man named Jesus lived in first-century Judea who would be recognizable to Christians or biblical scholars today. In other words, I think the gospels were not written as reports of a physical man but rather cobbled together to make the Jesus story, which was later taken literally by early worshippers.

Having said that, let me add that I always giggle when a movie begins with the caption: Inspired by true events. Actually I sometimes guffaw. I write fiction myself. To say that my finished story was inspired by true events is as meaningless as meaningless gets, trust me.

So it could be that some raggedy preacher walked around first century Judea, gathered two of the town drunks as disciples, and died of starvation after the Romans finally refused his beggings. And maybe those disciples later claimed that the preacher was the Jewish messiah and Mark heard about that and sat down and composed a story melding this messiah with the ancient godmen tales.

Who freaking knows what historical bits might have "inspired" the gospels.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

There is nothing wrong with reasonable doubt. The warranted disdain is toward the ignorant who dismiss the consensus and assert fringe positions with arrogant certainty.

If you encounter anyone like that around here, I hope you'll let us know. I would like to join you in disdaining him.

 

[steeltoes]

Can you present a rational argument for the 'mythicist' theory?

Christ myth theory and historical Jesus theory are rational arguments, they both can cause irritation.

 

[outhouse]

Just to be clear, I rarely have beliefs in the way that most people seem to. I don't believe that Jesus was mythical, for example, nor do I believe that he was historical.

My best guess is that no man named Jesus lived in first-century Judea who would be recognizable to Christians or biblical scholars today. In other words, I think the gospels were not written as reports of a physical man but rather cobbled together to make the Jesus story, which was later taken literally by early worshippers.

Having said that, let me add that I always giggle when a movie begins with the caption: Inspired by true events. Actually I sometimes guffaw. I write fiction myself. To say that my finished story was inspired by true events is as meaningless as meaningless gets, trust me.

So it could be that some raggedy preacher walked around first century Judea, gathered two of the town drunks as disciples, and died of starvation after the Romans finally refused his beggings. And maybe those disciples later claimed that the preacher was the Jewish messiah and Mark heard about that and sat down and composed a story melding this messiah with the ancient godmen tales.

Who freaking knows what historical bits might have "inspired" the gospels.

Theres only one problem with that.

Were talking about oral and written traditions about a passover event, within the lifetime of the authors.

Had they created this whole cloth fiction, they could have been called on it by those that were at said passover.


No one states mythology wasnt used. The only debate is how much, and what are the origins of said mythology, which most can be traced back, word for word, where it came from, and why.


There is no doubt a martyred man was put on a cross during passover, that generated the mythology by another culture who compiled and redacted written and oral traditions to match what was important to them.

 

[steeltoes]

Clever distortion - well, actually not so clever. There is nothing wrong with reasonable doubt. The warranted disdain is toward the ignorant who dismiss the consensus and assert fringe positions with arrogant certainty.

The so called consensus, what is that other than an opinion held by a majority of Christian scholars, an appeal to tradition or the bandwagon fallacy. The majority uphold tradition, so it must be true. Also see the fallacious appeal to authority, [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it.

[/FONT]If it isn't accompanied with reason and sources of evidence behind it, then ignore it, no matter how much it annoys the poster.[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

 

[outhouse]

The passover event in question had somewhere near 400,000 people in attendance.

You dont make a claim at a passover event that is a lie, with that many people that could call you on your mistake.


You would build a origin that would box you in, if you were creating 100% mythology. You also wouldnt create it within the same generation. You would place it further back in history where it couldnt be questioned.

 

[steeltoes]

Theres only one problem with that.

Were talking about oral and written traditions about a passover event, within the lifetime of the authors.

Had they created this whole cloth fiction, they could have been called on it by those that were at said passover.


No one states mythology wasnt used. The only debate is how much, and what are the origins of said mythology, which most can be traced back, word for word, where it came from, and why.


There is no doubt a martyred man was put on a cross during passover, that generated the mythology by another culture who compiled and redacted written and oral traditions to match what was important to them.

Yes, just like all of those that called on the different birth stories, or all the babies killed when Herod heard that a future threat to the throne was born.

 

[steeltoes]

The passover event in question had somewhere near 400,000 people in attendance.

You dont make a claim at a passover event that is a lie, with that many people that could call you on your mistake.


You would build a origin that would box you in, if you were creating 100% mythology. You also wouldnt create it within the same generation. You would place it further back in history where it couldnt be questioned.

Yeah, like all those babies that were killed by Herod's command that otherwise went unnoticed.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Had they created this whole cloth fiction, they could have been called on it by those that were at said passover.

They were called on it. Didn't you see the quote from John where he admits that they were called on it?

Joseph Smith was called out as a fraud, a bigamist, and a scoundrel, but look how much good that did. The BOM is still revered and its followers ignore any negative talk about Smith. Why would the Jesus followers be different from the Smith followers?

Plus, aren't you always declaring that Jesus basically went unnoticed, or do I have you confused with someone else?

There is no doubt a martyred man was put on a cross during passover, that generated the mythology by another culture who compiled and redacted written and oral traditions to match what was important to them.

Sorry, but according to my best guess, it's almost certain that no actual man was crucified. Very little doubt about that.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You would build a origin that would box you in, if you were creating 100% mythology. You also wouldnt create it within the same generation. You would place it further back in history where it couldnt be questioned.

Steeltoes makes an excellent point which I hadn't considered. Why didn't the Judeans 'call' the gospel writers for claiming that Herod killed all the babies?

Since we know that -- like the Jerusalem earthquake -- these things never actually happened, how did the gospelers get away with claiming that they happened?

If they could get away with false earthquakes and false infanticide, why couldn't they get away with a false Jesus? (Would you mind answering this question directly and clearly for me? It will help me understand your position.)

 

[outhouse]

Yes, just like all of those that called on the different birth stories, or all the babies killed when Herod heard that a future threat to the throne was born.

Do you know the Parallels between jesus and the emporer for the birth legends?

Do you understand how one author paralleled herod and the other moses?


Do you understand why they wrote what they did?


And having a legend like that trying to build the divinity of your deity is common. But placing your deity in a lie wouldnt work

 

[outhouse]

They were called on it. Didn't you see the quote from John where he admits that they were called on it?

Joseph Smith was called out as a fraud, a bigamist, and a scoundrel, but look how much good that did. The BOM is still revered and its followers ignore any negative talk about Smith. Why would the Jesus followers be different from the Smith followers?

Plus, aren't you always declaring that Jesus basically went unnoticed, or do I have you confused with someone else?



Sorry, but according to my best guess, it's almost certain that no actual man was crucified. Very little doubt about that.

Hundreds of thousands of Jews were crucified by Romans.


Please supply the script from GJohn that states that.


Smith has no place in this debate.

 

[outhouse]

Steeltoes makes an excellent point which I hadn't considered. Why didn't the Judeans 'call' the gospel writers for claiming that Herod killed all the babies?

Since we know that -- like the Jerusalem earthquake -- these things never actually happened, how did the gospelers get away with claiming that they happened?

If they could get away with false earthquakes and false infanticide, why couldn't they get away with a false Jesus? (Would you mind answering this question directly and clearly for me? It will help me understand your position.)

Easy answer, the authors were writing allegory and parallels in many places. As a whole they were never ever ment tobe read literally.

And having a legend like that trying to build the divinity of your deity is common. But placing your deity in a lie wouldnt work

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Hundreds of thousands of Jews were crucified by Romans.

Umm... are you sure? That sounds like a big number to me although I'm not claiming you're mistaken. No wonder the place is a desert. They slaughtered all the trees!

Anyway, you're arguing that since hundreds of thousands of Jews were crucified, one of them must have been named Jesus? Is that your argument here?

Please supply the script from GJohn that states that.

It looks like I misread Steeltoes. The verse is actually from the second epistle of John. Although I don't know anything about the dating of 2nd John, a quick look seems to suggest that its author was the same person who wrote the gospel. (If anyone thinks differently, please argue your case with me.)

2 John 1:7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

So it seems that people did indeed falsify Jesus. People who had lived in Jerusalem at the time apparently tried to point out that Jesus wasn't really there.

Smith has no place in this debate.

Oh goodness. So we can't look at parallel cases and contrast and compare?

That's non-scholarly, I guess?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Easy answer, the authors were writing allegory and parallels in many places. As a whole they were never ever ment tobe read literally.

I see. So Herod killing the babies was allegory. And the earthquake was allegory. But Jesus dying on the cross was not allegory. And the folks around Jerusalem were sophisticated enough to recognize allegory from non-allegory, which is why they felt no need to gainsay the Herod story.

You know what I think, outhouse? I think that folks dearly love to play the who-was-Jesus game and that's why everyone wants me to go eat worms... because I'm a bad sport who thinks the game is strutting around with no clothes.

Anyway... just saying.

And having a legend like that trying to build the divinity of your deity is common. But placing your deity in a lie wouldnt work.

OK. It's a fine opinion.