Did Pontius Pilate exist?

[Desert Snake]

And the folks around Jerusalem were sophisticated enough to recognize allegory from non-allegory,

So Nazarenes created allegorical stories that other Nazarenes and Essenes took as fact and believed enough in to convert to a new religion.
Your theory is as unbelievable as any other.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

So Nazarenes created allegorical stories that other Nazarenes and Essenes took as fact and believed enough in to convert to a new religion.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Maybe your message is meant for outhouse? He's the one talking about allegorical stories.

Your theory is as unbelievable as any other.

Sure. And just as believable as any other, too.

 

[outhouse]

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.



OK. It's a fine opinion.

My real point is they knew it was mythology, the same exact way mythology was created around the Roman emporers divinity. BUT this doesnt mean it was 100% mythology.

Just like now, and faith, people have different degrees of how much they believe.

My arguement granted is shallow compared to real scholars, but they are valid points that appeal to common sense

because I'm a bad sport

Not at all bud, your fine because your not emotional, and you are debating perfectly fine exploring different opinion.

I started out just like you, squarely in the myth camp 2 years ago.

Umm... are you sure?

when the temple fell they were putting up 500 day on crosses.

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?

No

What im saying is placing a trouble maker on a cross during passover would have been very normal.

What you need to understand is we know a lot about what happened at different passovers in the past. We know a Roman Guard urinated in front of everyone and caused a riot in which tens of thousands were killed.

These passover events were like a modern day rock concert generating massive amounts of revenue.

A zealot influenced person from Galilee, let alone all hard working jews, the common oppressed man, all would have been upset with the Roman infection in the temple, and during passover these emotions were hightened. It was ripe for a martyred man to step up and cause trouble against the corruption that would get him placed on a cross as a severe example of what not to do.

This would have created a massive amount of oral tradition that would have been spread all over the empire by the passover attendants. This explains the rapid growth we see, that paul could not have done alone.

No one really knew about jesus teachings in detail because we really are left with a legend that focuses in general, on the temple event and last week of his life.

With 400,000 ish in attandance, he would have been invisible in these crowds mixed with thousands of other teachers. But causing any trouble at all in defiance of the Roman corruption, would get anyone placed on a cross who would jeopardize the cash inflow.

 

[Quagmire]

Obviously I debate about what I choose to debate about, I just can't help but notice the disdain from those that adhere to a particular point of view, and I think you know what I mean.

You're talking about mythists, right?

I'll read a book by an author of any view, one presenting a case for an hsitorical Jesus to one presenting a case for a Christianity that began with a mythical Christ, I don't care, they're just views offered from reading ancient literature. There are some good cases made by all, but I just can't help but notice that some are agitated by Christ myth theory without even knowing the first thing about it, as if should make a difference to something.

Sounds like a personal problem. I just want to discuss the topic.

 

[steeltoes]

You're talking about mythists, right?



Sounds like a personal problem. I just want to discuss the topic.

Sure, you say that but all I read from you is pot shots.

 

[Quagmire]

Sure, you say that but all I read from you is pot shots.

I had a feeling that's all you were reading. :yes:

I'm just wondering why you keep following me around whining to me about a group I don't belong to.

Seems kind of weird, especially since you keep responding to posts I make directed at someone else, but usually ignore the ones I direct at you.

Looks like you're the one taking pot shots (can't say much for your aim though). :yes:

 

[steeltoes]

I had a feeling that's all you were reading. :yes:

I'm just wondering why you keep following me around whining to me about a group I don't belong to.

Seems kind of weird, especially since you keep responding to posts I make directed at someone else, but usually ignore the ones I direct at you.

Looks like you're the one taking pot shots (can't say much for your aim though). :yes:

I'm on a thread that I started and I follow you around? I just responded to a post you directed at me and then you accuse me of responding to posts you direct at someone else? Sure, whatever you say, at least now I know where you're coming from.

 

[Quagmire]

I'm on a thread that I started and I follow you around? I just responded to a post you directed at me and then you accuse me of responding to posts you direct at someone else? Sure, whatever you say, at least now I know where you're coming from.

This post: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3228519-post251.html, the one that started this pointless little back-and-forth, was not directed at you, and it's it's the umpteenth time you've done this. I wouldn't mind if you said something relevant to the points I bring up, but like I said: so far all I see is a lot of unrelated whining.

Short version: knock it off. :yes:

 

[steeltoes]

This post: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3228519-post251.html, the one that started this pointless little back-and-forth, was not directed at you, and it's it's the umpteenth time you've done this. I wouldn't mind if you said something relevant to the points I bring up, but like I said: so far all I see is a lot of unrelated whining.

Short version: knock it off. :yes:

This is an open forum discussion where anyone can respond to any given post. If you think I am following you around by responding to a point you made then it's like I said, I now know where you are coming from.

 

[Quagmire]

This is an open forum discussion where anyone can respond to any given post. If you think I am following you around by responding to a point you made then it's like I said, I now know where you are coming from.

I'm just asking you, politely, to stop whining at me about things and people that have nothing to do with me or anything I've said.

 

[Desert Snake]

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.



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

So you don't have an opinion, but you're disagreeing with others opinions. o.k.

 

[steeltoes]

I'm just asking you, politely, to stop whining at me about things and people that have nothing to do with me or anything I've said.

You don't know the meaning of the word polite, and don't worry, I won't have a problem not reading your posts anymore.

 

[Quagmire]

You don't know the meaning of the word polite, and don't worry, I won't have a problem not reading your posts anymore.

That's all I'm asking.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

So you don't have an opinion, but you're disagreeing with others opinions. o.k.

I don't have opinions? What a very weird thing for you to claim about me.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't have opinions? What a very weird thing for you to claim about me.

Why? You pretty much said so yourself, in this context. We're talking about hopefully semi-informed opinions on historicity of biblical cahracters, right? So saying "I have no idea" or something like that is basically not having an opinion to argue from.

Read some books on Biblical subjects before trying to argue them is my suggestion, I don't even seek this topic out but I know enough to tell that the 'mythicist' and non-historical arguments only go so far in this subject, you have to know what 'mythic' entails in other belief systems to make any comparison tto Pontius Pilate, Jesus, or other Bibblical characters.
What you still don't seem to grasp is that they are not comparable to most other mythic figures, the religions/history are different, you need a real argument besides, "no idea".

 

[steeltoes]

I stated that I don't have opinions but what I mean is that I don't have strong opinions because I don't know whether Jesus is historical, or to what extent, nor do I think it necessary to emphasize to what extent Jesus is mythical. What difference can it possibly make?

 

[Desert Snake]

I stated that I don't have opinions but what I mean is that I don't have strong opinions because I don't know whether Jesus is historical, or to what extent, nor do I think it necessary to emphasize to what extent Jesus is mythical. What difference can it possibly make?

Well, it makes a difference because if you're arguing the historical Jesus for instance you sort of have to explain the historical references to his existence, and early Christian communities for that matter, you had Christian communities immediately following the Council of Jerusalem time, even in Rome, such as the Essene converts to Christianty, it doesn't fit the mythic bill and certainly doesn't fit the non-historical Jesus theory either. Probably why most Scholars assume Jesus to have existed.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Why? You pretty much said so yourself, in this context. We're talking about hopefully semi-informed opinions on historicity of biblical cahracters, right? So saying "I have no idea" or something like that is basically not having an opinion to argue from.

Maybe if you paid a little closer attention to my messages, you might come to a better understanding of my positions. You are also welcome to ask me clarifying questions rather than telling me what I believe. It might be more productive that way.

Read some books on Biblical subjects before trying to argue them is my suggestion, I don't even seek this topic out but I know enough to tell that the 'mythicist' and non-historical arguments only go so far in this subject, you have to know what 'mythic' entails in other belief systems to make any comparison tto Pontius Pilate, Jesus, or other Bibblical characters.

What can I say. From reading you and reading me, it seems clear that i've read much more about Biblical subjects than you have. Certainly I seem more informed about the specifics. Not to offend. I'm sure you'll do fine when you bring yourself up to date on things. I can make up a little reading list for you if that would help.

What you still don't seem to grasp is that they are not comparable to most other mythic figures, the religions/history are different, you need a real argument besides, "no idea".

Forgive me, but I just haven't seen you engaging any of the historical debate. Maybe you are capable of that, I don't know. Maybe you know more about it but are keeping your knowledge to yourself for some reason?

Perhaps you could try addressing my position which I laid out when you direclty asked for it.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I started out just like you, squarely in the myth camp 2 years ago.

If you were squarely in the myth camp, I don't think you were like me. I don't even know what the myth camp is. I've never been to a 'myther site,' (whatever that is), unless by accident, and I've never read a book by a 'myther' (whatever that might be). I have no good idea what 'mythers' think about Jesus.

But I was a lot like you and most everyone else when I first started to examine the historical Jesus closely. I accepted the cultural assumption in the same way that Palestinians assume America's evil nature. It was just a fact of life. But as I began to argue it, I slowly came to the realization that the whole Jesus story was most probably made up without a flesh-and-blood man at its heart.

It startled me, which is why I continue to argue about it. I still have a hard time accepting my own conclusion. It surprises me that the cultural assumption could be so powerful even in 2013.

It's like I've walked into my living room and spied a 500-pound gorilla making himself comfortable on my sofa as if he's lived there all along, and I've just now noticed him. That's a weird thing to happen to a guy.

A zealot influenced person from Galilee, let alone all hard working jews, the common oppressed man, all would have been upset with the Roman infection in the temple, and during passover these emotions were hightened. It was ripe for a martyred man to step up and cause trouble against the corruption that would get him placed on a cross as a severe example of what not to do.

Sure. And if I were writing fiction, I would definitely choose Passover for my hero to cause trouble and get himself crucified. In real life the troublemaker would most likely walk into the temple on any unimportant Wednesday, but in a piece of fiction the writer would have no choice but to place him there at Passover.

So I can't help but suspect the gospels on the grounds that the elements are arranged more like fiction than like real life.

With 400,000 ish in attandance, he would have been invisible in these crowds mixed with thousands of other teachers. But causing any trouble at all in defiance of the Roman corruption, would get anyone placed on a cross who would jeopardize the cash inflow.

Sure. I agree.

By the way, thanks for the kind and encouraging words about my debate performance. I appreciate it and I think you're doing fine, too. I admire your willingness to throw yourself into the middle of the storm, even if we don't always seem to be tossed about in the same directions.

 

[outhouse]

In real life the troublemaker would most likely walk into the temple on any unimportant Wednesday

Why ?


If one was going to make a statement, large crowds would be a traget.

Passover would also have the oppressed people more livid with hatred for their oppressors.


Passover also would generate the oral traditions the exact way we see.