oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Cool.....
i have been scrutinising the reports of the pilate interview and have some points to post later.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is the "crcifixion" just a metaphor?
- Thread starter Desert Snake
- Start date
i have been scrutinising the reports of the pilate interview and have some points to post later.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
what is his best book's title?
outhouse
Atheistically
I like listening to him in person "youtube" or his speeches while on TV.
He has some great articles out as well, where he can be quoted.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
i always wondered why you defended that so-and-so.
does this make you a pauline-apologist?
edit... Must go......
outhouse
Atheistically
Not at all.
Just means I wanted to understand Paul better.
Some things you can learn have nothing to do with Paul. More about first century cultural anthropology.
Helped me not be so biased against him.
outhouse
Atheistically
I cal him a murderer, who was hired as a headhunter by the Saducees.
If you call that defending, more power to you.
You would love some of the apocrypha out on Paul. Some make much more sense then him being a Pharisee.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
what do you think of lenski's model?
outhouse
Atheistically
Great foundation in sociology and the evolution of religion. His models are widely accepted.
There is a lot to know here in detail, and I do not know any of it.
evolutionary synthesis
Structure, coating systems
Structural dynamics of the distribution system
stratification theory
Could not explain a thing about this.
outhouse
Atheistically
back on topic. Non biblical reference. IN DETAIL.
Crucifixion of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Other accounts and references
An early non-Christian reference to the crucifixion of Jesus is likely to be Mara Bar-Serapion's letter to his son, written sometime after AD 73 but before the 3rd century AD.[63][64][65] The letter includes no Christian themes and the author is presumed to be a pagan.[63][64][66] The letter refers to the retributions that followed the unjust treatment of three wise men: Socrates, Pythagoras, and "the wise king" of the Jews.[63][65] Some scholars see little doubt that the reference to the execution of the "king of the Jews" is about the crucifixion of Jesus, while others place less value in the letter, given the possible ambiguity in the reference.[66][67]
In the Antiquities of the Jews (written about 93 AD) Jewish historian Josephus, stated (Ant 18.3) that Jesus was crucified by Pilate, writing that:[68]
Early in the second century another reference to the crucifixion of Jesus was made by Tacitus, generally considered one of the greatest Roman historians.[73][74] Writing in The Annals (c. 116 AD), Tacitus described the persecution of Christians by Nero and stated (Annals 15.44) that Pilate ordered the execution of Jesus:[68][75]
Another possible reference to the crucifixion ("hanging" cf. Luke 23:39; Galatians 3:13) is found in the Babylonian Talmud:
In opposition to the vast majority of Biblical and mainstream scholarship, Muslims maintain that Jesus was not crucified and that those who thought they had killed him had mistakenly killed Judas Iscariot, Simon of Cyrene, or someone else in his place.[83] They hold this belief based on various interpretations of Quran 4:157–158, which states: "they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them [or it appeared so unto them], ... Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself".[83]
Some early Christian Gnostic sects, believing Jesus did not have a physical substance, denied that he was crucified.[84][85] In response, Ignatius of Antioch insisted that Jesus was truly born and was truly crucified and wrote that those who held that Jesus only seemed to suffer only seemed to be Christians.[86][87]
Crucifixion of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Other accounts and references
An early non-Christian reference to the crucifixion of Jesus is likely to be Mara Bar-Serapion's letter to his son, written sometime after AD 73 but before the 3rd century AD.[63][64][65] The letter includes no Christian themes and the author is presumed to be a pagan.[63][64][66] The letter refers to the retributions that followed the unjust treatment of three wise men: Socrates, Pythagoras, and "the wise king" of the Jews.[63][65] Some scholars see little doubt that the reference to the execution of the "king of the Jews" is about the crucifixion of Jesus, while others place less value in the letter, given the possible ambiguity in the reference.[66][67]
In the Antiquities of the Jews (written about 93 AD) Jewish historian Josephus, stated (Ant 18.3) that Jesus was crucified by Pilate, writing that:[68]
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, ... He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles ... And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross ...
Most modern scholars agree that while this Josephus passage (called the Testimonium Flavianum) includes some later interpolations, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate.[69][70][71] It is notable that Josephus and other historians didn't live during Jesus' lifetime. James Dunn states that there is "broad consensus" among scholars regarding the nature of an authentic reference to the crucifixion of Jesus in the Testimonium.[72]
Early in the second century another reference to the crucifixion of Jesus was made by Tacitus, generally considered one of the greatest Roman historians.[73][74] Writing in The Annals (c. 116 AD), Tacitus described the persecution of Christians by Nero and stated (Annals 15.44) that Pilate ordered the execution of Jesus:[68][75]
Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.
Scholars generally consider the Tacitus reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate to be genuine, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[73][76][77][78][79][80] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[9]
Another possible reference to the crucifixion ("hanging" cf. Luke 23:39; Galatians 3:13) is found in the Babylonian Talmud:
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!
—Sanhedrin 43a, Babylonian Talmud (Soncino Edition)
Although the question of the equivalence of the identities of Yeshu and Jesus has at times been debated, many historians agree that the above 2nd-century passage is likely to be about Jesus, Peter Schäfer stating that there can be no doubt that this narrative of the execution in the Talmud refers to Jesus of Nazareth.[81] Robert Van Voorst states that the Sanhedrin 43a reference to Jesus can be confirmed not only from the reference itself, but from the context that surrounds it.[82]—Sanhedrin 43a, Babylonian Talmud (Soncino Edition)
In opposition to the vast majority of Biblical and mainstream scholarship, Muslims maintain that Jesus was not crucified and that those who thought they had killed him had mistakenly killed Judas Iscariot, Simon of Cyrene, or someone else in his place.[83] They hold this belief based on various interpretations of Quran 4:157–158, which states: "they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them [or it appeared so unto them], ... Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself".[83]
Some early Christian Gnostic sects, believing Jesus did not have a physical substance, denied that he was crucified.[84][85] In response, Ignatius of Antioch insisted that Jesus was truly born and was truly crucified and wrote that those who held that Jesus only seemed to suffer only seemed to be Christians.[86][87]
You took a free online course for a month and you call that attending Harvard?
Last edited:
How about we remove lines from other narratives such as Superman in order to get to an historical Clark Kent. Or should we just stick to gMark and commit special pleading?
Is this some kind of a joke?
"Most modern scholars agree that while this Josephus passage (called the Testimonium Flavianum) includes some later interpolations, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate. It is notable that Josephus and other historians didn't live during Jesus' lifetime." wiki
That it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus appears to be wishful thinking.
"Most modern scholars agree that while this Josephus passage (called the Testimonium Flavianum) includes some later interpolations, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate. It is notable that Josephus and other historians didn't live during Jesus' lifetime." wiki
That it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus appears to be wishful thinking.
Last edited:
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
My focus was on fundamentalism and sectarian violence. Very relevant.
Spare me the childish ad hominem attack.
You have demonstrated an utter ignorance of the field you are debating so stick to debate and quit the stupid insults.
nash8
Da man, when I walk thru!
I wasn't repeating myself. I was explaining why I felt the way I did about the Gospel's in regard to historicity, as well as explaining why I don't think many contemporary historian's wrote about him. He just wasn't that important until the Jesus movement became more prominent. And this wasn't until late in the 1st century, and really even later. By then, the religion had grown into something different altogether, and there was more emphasis on promoting ones agenda with regard to Jesus, rather than promoting a history of the events.
The legitimacy of Josephus is definitely hotly contested, but as the wiki article states, a reference to Jesus' existence and crucifixion is generally regarded as authentic. I will admit after researching there are definitely some questionable items, such as the brevity of the reference compared to Josephus' other reference, as well as the lack of mention by Christian authors debating Jesus' existence before Eusebius. But if this entire excerpt was added in, when was it added? Why does it just show up with Eusebius? Why would Christian author's between Justin Martyr and Eusebius not use the reference from Josephus. However, the Arabic copy sheds a lot of light on the situation, and I find it closest to what I believe was actually written. In my opinion, the evidence for partial authenticity is equivalent to that of total interpolation.
I quoted all your comments so I was able to read them while responding, as to make my responses directly from what you said.
Lastly, why do we need extra biblical sources to confirm the NT? Why, in your opinion, does the NT not stand alone of itself as evidence?
Where can I find info on the apocrypha on Paul? I've read a lot of the apocrypha, but I have never seen any references to Paul that I can remember.
Why do you say that? It seems like the evidence for partial authenticity is nearly equivalent to that of total interpolation.
Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
nash8
Da man, when I walk thru!
It seems to me that both of you are short of debating, and not short on the ad hominem attacks. :slap:
How bout a 1v1 debate. I think this would be a good one.
Define "external". Are not Pauls letter's "external" to the Gospel of Mark? Is not James "external" to both?
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
The reason why you need external sources is for corroboration. You can evidence the historicity of a text by finding external sources that confirm it. The NT does not stand alone as evidence because you can not use a source to confirm itself.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Example please?