Did Pontius Pilate exist?

[steeltoes]

Luke has Jesus go into the temple and say a few things rather sternly, no violence, no overturned tables, and comes back to preach on a regular basis and the people just love him, and the Jewish priests are jealous.

So my question is, what makes people choose the violent version as a given? Is it because we like violence in our movies?

 

[outhouse]

Luke has Jesus go into the temple and say a few things rather sternly, no violence, no overturned tables, and comes back to preach on a regular basis and the people just love him, and the Jewish priests are jealous.

So my question is, what makes people choose the violent version as a given? Is it because we like violence in our movies?

because it matches the cultural anthropology of the time.

these passovers often turned really really ugly


peaceful it wasnt, tensions were always running high due to the Roman oppression

 

[outhouse]

Remember, Gmark that GLuke uses as a foundation, was writing to a Roman audience. They didnt want to be persecuted like the Jews, and were not going to highlight their own people as evil oppressors.

Also there may not have been over turned tables as there is a OT refference for this action already. Most think he did cause enough trouble one way or another to catch enough attention to be marked for a cross.

 

[steeltoes]

Speaking strictly in a metahistorical sense, the historicity of a great number of Biblical characters is pretty nebulous. Given that we are dealing with a time where not everything was written down, it's actually difficult to say either way.

For instance we don't have any information on Pilate's birth or early life, nor even his death. The closest thing to concrete evidence there is is the so-called "Pilate stone" which may or may not be real (as is the case with many so-called relics and artifacts).

Pilate Stone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At least for Pilate we have something. We also have writings by Philo, a contemporary of Pilate, that describe him. The little that we have significantly ups the probability of Pilate's existence.

 

[outhouse]

Speaking strictly in a metahistorical sense, the historicity of a great number of Biblical characters is pretty nebulous. Given that we are dealing with a time where not everything was written down, it's actually difficult to say either way.

For instance we don't have any information on Pilate's birth or early life, nor even his death. The closest thing to concrete evidence there is is the so-called "Pilate stone" which may or may not be real (as is the case with many so-called relics and artifacts).

Pilate Stone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The stone has historicty. I dont know how or why one could claim otherwise.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

That's how you see Jesus? As a conniving firebrand with a flair for high drama? He plotted out all his moves for the greatest dramatic impact? Gethsemane, The Last Supper, betrayal by Judas, the dove landing on his shoulder after baptism, the nativity? You see a real-life person in all those events and in their organization rather than the manipulations of a storyteller?

We all make our best guesses. Me, I see storytellers -- much like the earlier ones who told stories of Adam and Noah and Moses.

 

[Desert Snake]

We all make our best guesses. Me, I see storytellers -- much like the earlier ones who told stories of Adam and Noah and Moses.

The problem is that it isn't the same time, or chronological theology, or even much character similarity.

Something to keep in mind IMO, The Nazarenes and Essenes /Nazarenes were most likely a sect from the Essenes/ were already 'at odds' with the Pharisees so to speak because of their ascetic views.

 

[outhouse]

That's how you see Jesus? As a conniving firebrand with a flair for high drama? He plotted out all his moves for the greatest dramatic impact? Gethsemane, The Last Supper, betrayal by Judas, the dove landing on his shoulder after baptism, the nativity? You see a real-life person in all those events and in their organization rather than the manipulations of a storyteller?

We all make our best guesses. Me, I see storytellers -- much like the earlier ones who told stories of Adam and Noah and Moses.

I personally dont follow any historicty at all for Adam, Moses, Noah or Abraham. But these people were wrote about hundreds and hundreds of years in the past. Not within a lifetime as with Yehoshua.



Nope I dont see Jesus that way. If we follow history we see that Galileans were typically known as zealots, tax rebels and ones who fought Roman oppression more so then hellenized Jews. Pilate even was known to have a hatred of Galileans.

I only see Jesus as Yehoshua, a Galilean peasant who would have hated Roman oppression and over taxation. The Romans places heavy financial burdens on Jews with over taxation. You also had the Saducees and Pharisees working hand in hand with Roman muscle to extort tithes, and the temple being the treasury was also Roman ran when Romans placed their leader in control. the temple was corrupt due to the Roman corruption, who used these passovers to generate masive amounts of revenue.

Because the gospels were written to and for Roman Gentiles, these authors were far removed from the events and knowledge of Galilean peasant teacher healer. All they could or would have known, is the oral tradition that was generated at a passover event 30-50 years previously. As good as it gets in my book is a Galilean trouble maker got placed on a cross for standing up against the temple corruption when tensions were high and was placed on a cross rather quaickly. This made him a martyr in front of the Jewish and gentile population, which included God-Fearers and Gate Proselytes and other Romans and Gentiles who ended up writing about him.

The split in Judaism existed long before Jesus was born, Jesus in Judaism was a failed messiah with his failure in death. But as we know stories and legends grow over time, and thats what we have from another culture outside Judaism.

I agree a lot of Mythology was used, most of it is however influenced by the OT since Hellenistic Gentiles worshipped Judaism but were not full converts. These non Jews likeley considered themselves Jews as they worshipped Judaism for generations, but had no adherance to the Noahide laws. Thats why we see all the parallels to the mortal Roman emporers divinity used with the NT pages.

 

[Awoon]

I ask because discussing how we know Jesus existed appears to be more than some can bear. So, did Pontius Pilate exist and how do we know?

Rhett Butler used the name Sherman in Gone with the Wind.

Which one existed?

Sherman is known outside the book Gone with the Wind. Is Rhett Butler who married Katy Scarlet O'Hara known outside the book Gone with the Wind?

 

[Desert Snake]

I agree a lot of Mythology was used, most of it is however influenced by the OT since Hellenistic Gentiles worshipped Judaism but were not full converts. These non Jews likeley considered themselves Jews as they worshipped Judaism for generations, but had no adherance to the Noahide laws. Thats why we see all the parallels to the mortal Roman emporers divinity used with the NT pages.

This is really far-fetched. Judaism always co-incided with adherence to full Jewish laws, especially at the time. Only Christians identifying as such would not be practicing the usual Jewish Torah laws. The Noahide laws were never meant for conversion to Judaism, they don't even include many basic rules that Jews would have been following

 

[steeltoes]

I personally dont follow any historicty at all for Adam, Moses, Noah or Abraham. But these people were wrote about hundreds and hundreds of years in the past. Not within a lifetime as with Yehoshua.



Nope I dont see Jesus that way. If we follow history we see that Galileans were typically known as zealots, tax rebels and ones who fought Roman oppression more so then hellenized Jews. Pilate even was known to have a hatred of Galileans.

I only see Jesus as Yehoshua, a Galilean peasant who would have hated Roman oppression and over taxation. The Romans places heavy financial burdens on Jews with over taxation. You also had the Saducees and Pharisees working hand in hand with Roman muscle to extort tithes, and the temple being the treasury was also Roman ran when Romans placed their leader in control. the temple was corrupt due to the Roman corruption, who used these passovers to generate masive amounts of revenue.

Because the gospels were written to and for Roman Gentiles, these authors were far removed from the events and knowledge of Galilean peasant teacher healer. All they could or would have known, is the oral tradition that was generated at a passover event 30-50 years previously. As good as it gets in my book is a Galilean trouble maker got placed on a cross for standing up against the temple corruption when tensions were high and was placed on a cross rather quaickly. This made him a martyr in front of the Jewish and gentile population, which included God-Fearers and Gate Proselytes and other Romans and Gentiles who ended up writing about him.

The split in Judaism existed long before Jesus was born, Jesus in Judaism was a failed messiah with his failure in death. But as we know stories and legends grow over time, and thats what we have from another culture outside Judaism.

I agree a lot of Mythology was used, most of it is however influenced by the OT since Hellenistic Gentiles worshipped Judaism but were not full converts. These non Jews likeley considered themselves Jews as they worshipped Judaism for generations, but had no adherance to the Noahide laws. Thats why we see all the parallels to the mortal Roman emporers divinity used with the NT pages.

Let's assume that there was an historical Jesus from Galilee we read of in the gospels, but what of Paul, what were he and the epistle writers on about?

 

[outhouse]

This is really far-fetched. Judaism always co-incided with adherence to full Jewish laws, especially at the time. Only Christians identifying as such would not be practicing the usual Jewish Torah laws. The Noahide laws were never meant for conversion to Judaism, they don't even include many basic rules that Jews would have been following

Not picking on you bud, but hellenistic Judaism was wide and varied, it was very very diverse before the temple fell.

We know about God-fearers and Gate Proselytes, and Paul flat states those were his targets. pauls Judaism has been debated and still is. Its my personal claim he was just a unfinished lifelong convert himself.

Traditional Jews would have looked down on their Hellenitic counterparts who worshipped Judaism for generations but would not convert, or adhere to Noahide laws like Paul.

Its not far fetched, it is fact, that there were those Gentiles worshipping Judaism for generations that would not convert, but found faith in the one monotheistic god.

Do you think they viewed themselves as Jews after worshipping Jusaism their whole lives, and their ancestors?


And do you think Jews viewed them as Jews?

 

[outhouse]

Let's assume that there was an historical Jesus from Galilee we read of in the gospels, but what of Paul, what were he and the epistle writers on about?

Paul who was a headhunter trying to eliminate this sect for money, tells us he had a feeling within himself. Not a conversion on the road to Damascus like Acts tells. He like all other God-Fearers and Gentiles and Gate Proselytes found this movement appealing because they getting away from the Jews who looked down on them. They were never a real part of Judaism to begin with. They made perfect converts.

Most of what was know about Yehoshua was factually formed from oral tradition. Legends grew for over ten years before Paul wrote anything.

One thing that needs to be stated is this movement was very wide and diverse the same way Judaism was. So you have Paul writing to different houses, not churches they didnt exist. he is trying to get these different groups of people on his page. The later authors of the epistles we dont know who wrote but attributed to paul, were in fact, trying to soften Pauls stance up, and at the same time talk about what was important to their personal sect.

There were so many different views on Yehoshua because very very few even knew him, and we dont know how much of the Jewish sect Paul actually killed. How much inflence the Jewish sect of a few fishermen brothers had would have been minimal. I personally dont place much faith in what is reported about the Jerusalem church. Paul having hunted these people down would have had to portray himself much softer then reality, yet so many people knew he was such a terrible person to jews he had to somewhat admit it, and play himself in a more positive light towards the movement.

 

[outhouse]

Let's assume that there was an historical Jesus from Galilee we read of in the gospels, but what of Paul, what were he and the epistle writers on about?

Oh, one more thing.

The Biblical Jesus is not historical Jesus


I only place him as a traveling teacher/healer, who went from small village to village for a short amount of time. He did this for food scraps to survive. He may have worked in Sepphoris but he was a hand worker doing add jobs at best. poverty stricken, he may have ate better teaching and healing then working. he would have been baptised by John and made a trip to the temple where he was killed for causing trouble.

That is all I opersonal view as having some sort of limited historicity, other then what cultural anthropology tells us of first century galilean Judaism

 

[steeltoes]

Oh, one more thing.

The Biblical Jesus is not historical Jesus


I only place him as a traveling teacher/healer, who went from small village to village for a short amount of time. He did this for food scraps to survive. He may have worked in Sepphoris but he was a hand worker doing add jobs at best. poverty stricken, he may have ate better teaching and healing then working. he would have been baptised by John and made a trip to the temple where he was killed for causing trouble.

That is all I opersonal view as having some sort of limited historicity, other then what cultural anthropology tells us of first century galilean Judaism

OK, but what of the epistle writers, what were they on about?

 

[Desert Snake]

Not picking on you bud, but hellenistic Judaism was wide and varied, it was very very diverse before the temple fell.

We know about God-fearers and Gate Proselytes, and Paul flat states those were his targets. pauls Judaism has been debated and still is. Its my personal claim he was just a unfinished lifelong convert himself.

Traditional Jews would have looked down on their Hellenitic counterparts who worshipped Judaism for generations but would not convert, or adhere to Noahide laws like Paul.

They wouldn't be Jewish if they didn't convert, they would have known what "Judaism" means.

Its not far fetched, it is fact, that there were those Gentiles worshipping Judaism for generations that would not convert, but found faith in the one monotheistic god.

Then that is not converting to Judaism, there is a difference.

Do you think they viewed themselves as Jews after worshipping Jusaism their whole lives, and their ancestors?

No, they would have viewed themselves as non-Jews practicing a faith similar to Judaism.

And do you think Jews viewed them as Jews?

No, "Jews" up until recently were only considered such if they were ethnic Jews or straight converts, not Christians or any other non-Jews practicing a faith similar to Judaism. 'Judaism' as I've stated before is reliant on the Torah laws to distinguish itself from other sects of Abrahamic religions.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The problem is that it isn't the same time, or chronological theology, or even much character similarity.

OK. I don't believe that you could defend such an opinion with evidence and rational argumentation, but I support your right to hold most any opinion which makes you feel good.

 

[steeltoes]

Paul who was a headhunter trying to eliminate this sect for money, tells us he had a feeling within himself. Not a conversion on the road to Damascus like Acts tells. He like all other God-Fearers and Gentiles and Gate Proselytes found this movement appealing because they getting away from the Jews who looked down on them. They were never a real part of Judaism to begin with. They made perfect converts.

Most of what was know about Yehoshua was factually formed from oral tradition. Legends grew for over ten years before Paul wrote anything.

One thing that needs to be stated is this movement was very wide and diverse the same way Judaism was. So you have Paul writing to different houses, not churches they didnt exist. he is trying to get these different groups of people on his page. The later authors of the epistles we dont know who wrote but attributed to paul, were in fact, trying to soften Pauls stance up, and at the same time talk about what was important to their personal sect.

There were so many different views on Yehoshua because very very few even knew him, and we dont know how much of the Jewish sect Paul actually killed. How much inflence the Jewish sect of a few fishermen brothers had would have been minimal. I personally dont place much faith in what is reported about the Jerusalem church. Paul having hunted these people down would have had to portray himself much softer then reality, yet so many people knew he was such a terrible person to jews he had to somewhat admit it, and play himself in a more positive light towards the movement.

So Paul's Christ is the same Jesus we read of in the gospels?

 

[outhouse]

So Paul's Christ is the same Jesus we read of in the gospels?

Did I state such?

 

[fallingblood]

So Paul's Christ is the same Jesus we read of in the gospels?

To a point, yes. The Gospel writers and Paul both saw Jesus as Christ. Now, they did have different perspectives on what this meant. Even the Gospel writers had different perspectives on what this meant. Even today, when talking about scholars on the subject, they have different perspectives on the issue.

So it is the same Jesus, the perspective just changes. While the Gospels give a biographical glance at the life of Jesus (and really, the focus is still the death and resurrection), Paul's focus is the resurrected Jesus. And for the Gospel writers, this is really what mattered as well. If it wasn't believed that Jesus was resurrected, no one would have written a Gospel about him.