Jesus was Myth

[LegionOnomaMoi]

there is nothing here to interest anyone as it concerns history.

That's because I have repeatedly asked you to substantiate your claim about Philo and how we have more evidence for Pilate then Jesus given the nature of both Philo's writing and our manuscript evidence compared to the evidence for Jesus. You just keep dodging.

I refer to Philo and I am a mythicist?

No. As anyone who searches through your posts using keywords like "jesus" could find for themselves, this is hardly the first thread you've participated in having to do with the historical Jesus. It's things like your evaluation of our evidence for Pilate that, combined with the fact
1) You've participated in (at least almost) every historical Jesus thread since joining, despite claiming multiple times in different ways that you are simply an unbiased who doesn't care one way or the other. This is belied by, among other things, your various unsubstantiated claims which range from claiming biblical scholars are get fired if they question the historical Jesus to your recent nonsense about the evidence we have for Pilate relative to that for Jesus.
2) It's been something like half a year, as far as I know, since you first started to make inaccurate statements about this field and those who study it. In all that time, you have yet to add a single reference, indicated you have done any real research, or presented any arguments that have been repeated and addressed time and again (not just by and for you, of course) yet your responses are always unsubstantiated claims.
3) There are really people who couldn't care less about whether Jesus is historical. Some just don't care because they aren't religious and aren't interested in ancient history, and others because they are only interested in history (or just ancient history) and what we can know. You've shown time and time again that if you are interested in things like the history of the Roman empire, Hellenistic literature, Near Eastern history, etc., it hasn't motivated you to actually study anything. Everything you've stated about antiquity relates to the historical Jesus. Why would someone who doesn't care one way or the other about Jesus be concerned only with topics from antiquity that relate to the historical Jesus? They wouldn't.

I've seen this played out so many times I've lost even the curiosity to know what is behind such a mindset.

I haven't read Philo?

You could stop dodging the issue and substantiate your claims about Pilate vs. Jesus you made based on the evidence for Pilate from Philo relative to that we have for Jesus.

I'm incapable of evaluating?

Unless you can present an argument for how you would evaluate the degree of influence (including 0) that Aramaic had on a Greek text, then yes.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Hey, Jayhawker. Did you forget about my invitation to discuss the historical Jesus with me?

Did you forget my preconditions?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Did you forget my preconditions?

Yes. I don't remember you issuing any preconditions. What are they?

Modern American English? I'm OK with that. What else?

 

[steeltoes]

It seems to me that Jesus might have been one of the biggest reasons for trouble possibly occuring during the Passover festival. Thus, he would have posed the greatest threat to Pilate and Caiphas, therfore making it plausible that they would go to the extent of giving him a trial in order to keep the "peace". But at the same time, if he caused "trouble" in such a way where just sending temple gaurds to arrest him, would cause even more trouble, than it would seem fitting that a trial would be neccessary.

I guess you could liken it to Ghandi, if you left the man alone he would cause a lot of trouble, but if you arrested and/or attacked him "unlawfully" in a public manner, whoa boy, there was going to be a lot more trouble than if you just left him alone in the first place.

On that note, I think it would also depend on the strength of his following at that time, as well as has endearment to the general population around him. What do scholars generally agree on as to the number of Jesus' followers at the Passover festival, as well as the pereception of him by the general population that would be attending the Passover festival?

It was the priests that accused Jesus of many things. If Jesus was a concern to the Romans one would think that Pilate would have known what he did.

Mark13 “Crucify him!” they shouted.
14 “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate.


I think you guys should read about the trial in Mark, chapter 15.

 

[nash8]

It was the priests that accused Jesus of many things. If Jesus was a concern to the Romans one would think that Pilate would have known what he did.

Mark13 “Crucify him!” they shouted.
14 “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate.


I think you guys should read about the trial in Mark, chapter 15.

Mark 14 NIV - Jesus Anointed at Bethany - Now the - Bible Gateway
Read the first paragraph.

Then when you look at Mark 15, you have to ask yourself, who was the crowd that the high priests stirred up in order to release Barbaras instead of Jesus? If the high priests were concerned that a public arrest of Jesus would start a riot, that would lend itself to the inclination that the crowd would be Pro-Jesus? If they were that eager to have him crucified, why would the priests care whether they arrested him publicly or not?

Then look at Mark verse 9 and 10. It says, Pilate new that the high priests turned Jesus over to him because of self interest.

My opinion would be that Jesus wasn't really a threat to Rome perse. I seem to remember Jesus saying many times in the Gospels, Give Caseser what is rightgully his (meaning money). I think Jesus was trying to get the Jewish people to cut out the "middle man" so to speak, which was the political leaders of the Jewish community at that time - the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees, the Sadduces, etc.

What is scholarly opinion about the custom of releasing a Jewish prisoner at the Passover festival? It seems to me that this "trial" would be a very likely event to happen if this custom actually happened on a regular basis. And it doesn't seem like me to be a "trial", but a few questions in a public arena, where Pilate was addressing the crowd as to which prisoner they wanted to be released.

 

[steeltoes]

Mark 14 NIV - Jesus Anointed at Bethany - Now the - Bible Gateway
Read the first paragraph.

Then when you look at Mark 15, you have to ask yourself, who was the crowd that the high priests stirred up in order to release Barbaras instead of Jesus? If the high priests were concerned that a public arrest of Jesus would start a riot, that would lend itself to the inclination that the crowd would be Pro-Jesus? If they were that eager to have him crucified, why would the priests care whether they arrested him publicly or not?

It was not about the crowd being pro-Jesus, the problem was that killing during Passover could start a riot whether it was Jesus or anyone else, at least that appears to be the way it could be read.

Then look at Mark verse 9 and 10. It says, Pilate new that the high priests turned Jesus over to him because of self interest.

My opinion would be that Jesus wasn't really a threat to Rome perse. I seem to remember Jesus saying many times in the Gospels, Give Caseser what is rightgully his (meaning money). I think Jesus was trying to get the Jewish people to cut out the "middle man" so to speak, which was the political leaders of the Jewish community at that time - the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees, the Sadduces, etc.

What is scholarly opinion about the custom of releasing a Jewish prisoner at the Passover festival? It seems to me that this "trial" would be a very likely event to happen if this custom actually happened on a regular basis. And it doesn't seem like me to be a "trial", but a few questions in a public arena, where Pilate was addressing the crowd as to which prisoner they wanted to be released.

Apparently there is no known custom of releasing a prisoner at passover.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Hey, Jayhawker. Did you forget about my invitation to discuss the historical Jesus with me?

Did you forget my preconditions?

Yes. I don't remember you issuing any preconditions. What are they?

The historicity of Jesus is not provable: it is simply a (very widely accepted) example of inference to best explanation. There can be no useful discussion of the inference in the absence of an honest and reasonable interlocutor.

L'shalom.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The historicity of Jesus is not provable: it is simply a (very widely accepted) example of inference to best explanation. There can be no useful discussion of the inference in the absence of an honest and reasonable interlocutor.

That's your precondition???

Well, OK. I am certainly an honest and reasonable interlocuter, and I assume that you consider yourself an honest and reasonable debater.

So I will post my first message to you as soon as I can compose it -- in a new one-on-one thread between AmbigGuy and Jayhawker.

Thank you for finally agreeing to this.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That's your precondition???

Well, OK. I am certainly an honest and reasonable interlocuter, and I assume that you consider yourself an honest and reasonable debater.

So I will post my first message to you as soon as I can compose it -- in a new one-on-one thread between AmbigGuy and Jayhawker.

Thank you for finally agreeing to this.

Thank you for this excellent example of your honesty.

 

[outhouse]

the problem was that killing during Passover could start a riot whether it was Jesus or anyone else, at least that appears to be the way it could be read.

.

Have you even read the book?


They had no problem killing trouble makers. Romans policed the event with a heavy hand .

There is even a passage that eludes to Gaileans being killed a just prior to Jesus crucifixion.

They didnt bring in a whole Roman garrison to play nice with the attendants.

 

[steeltoes]

Have you even read the book?


They had no problem killing trouble makers. Romans policed the event with a heavy hand .

There is even a passage that eludes to Gaileans being killed a just prior to Jesus crucifixion.

They didnt bring in a whole Roman garrison to play nice with the attendants.

Read the passage.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Thank you for this excellent example of your honesty.

You're welcome. I will post my first one-on-one message to you no later than tomorrow.

Thank you for finally agreeing to do this.

 

[nash8]

It was not about the crowd being pro-Jesus, the problem was that killing during Passover could start a riot whether it was Jesus or anyone else, at least that appears to be the way it could be read.

Apparently there is no known custom of releasing a prisoner at passover.

A good argument, and can you cite some information that states that this was not a general custom, other than the reference in the Bible.

Have you even read the book?

They had no problem killing trouble makers. Romans policed the event with a heavy hand .

There is even a passage that eludes to Gaileans being killed a just prior to Jesus crucifixion.

They didnt bring in a whole Roman garrison to play nice with the attendants.

Killing someone, I can see starting a riot. If Roman authorities killed Jewish patrons at the Passover festival, right on the spot, I could see how there could be a riot. But I doubt there would be as much of a chance if a man was arrested, then killed after a "trial", which was the case for Jesus as far as I can tell.

 

[steeltoes]

A good argument, and can you cite some information that states that this was not a general custom, other than the reference in the Bible.

I don't believe that there was anything of this "custom" recorded elsewhere and besides it would have been against Jewish law to hold executions during a holy festival such as Passover so this event would have been highly unlikely.

 

[outhouse]

Killing someone, I can see starting a riot. If Roman authorities killed Jewish patrons at the Passover festival, right on the spot, I could see how there could be a riot. But I doubt there would be as much of a chance if a man was arrested, then killed after a "trial", which was the case for Jesus as far as I can tell.

Have you read the part where it states Galileans blood was shed, before Jesus was killed?

Killing someone by hauling them off and setting a example was quite a normal way of Roman punishment. They were brutal to Jews.


Sending a goon squad in at night was the right thing to do, before he succeded on starting a full blown war.

 

[outhouse]

I don't believe that there was anything of this "custom" recorded elsewhere and besides it would have been against Jewish law to hold executions during a holy festival such as Passover so this event would have been highly unlikely.

There was no such custom of releasing a prisoner during Passover.


Roman crime abnd punisment was quite normal for Passover. Riots in the temple were not uncommon, and thus punishment would be severe and a example made.

Your off base there completely

 

[nash8]

Have you read the part where it states Galileans blood was shed, before Jesus was killed?

Killing someone by hauling them off and setting a example was quite a normal way of Roman punishment. They were brutal to Jews.

Sending a goon squad in at night was the right thing to do, before he succeded on starting a full blown war.

There was no such custom of releasing a prisoner during Passover.

Roman crime abnd punisment was quite normal for Passover. Riots in the temple were not uncommon, and thus punishment would be severe and a example made.

Your off base there completely

You say two opposing things in these quotes. One says that it was not uncommon for Roman authorities to make an example by arresting/killing someone during the passover festival. Then you say, sending in a goon squad at night was the right thing to do. By what you said I would glean that Jesus was influential in some sense, as leaders did not want to risk "starting a war" by arresting him in public, but you also say that this would have been something they did quite often, so why would they not have done the same thing with Jesus?

 

[outhouse]

You say two opposing things in these quotes. One says that it was not uncommon for Roman authorities to make an example by arresting/killing someone during the passover festival. Then you say, sending in a goon squad at night was the right thing to do. By what you said I would glean that Jesus was influential in some sense, as leaders did not want to risk "starting a war" by arresting him in public, but you also say that this would have been something they did quite often, so why would they not have done the same thing with Jesus?

Do you think Jews could do what they wanted without Romans coming down on them? If they had too, justice would be dispensed instantly.

Jesus was a trouble maker that was better left for a night time raid. If they thought he needed to be stopped, they would have done so right then and there.

 

[nash8]

But that's my point. It was thought Jesus was enough of a "trouble maker" that it was better to arrest him at night rather than to allow him to possibly cause problems later in a public setting, which indicates that the authorities knew that Jesus had the ability to cause trouble before hand.

Then you have to take into account the actual Bible verses that talk about Pilate knowing that Jewish leaders wanted to get rid of him for their own well being. Of course, this verse could have been altered, or added in at a later time for some reason.

But as it stands, I believe this story lends itself more to the fact that Jesus opposed the Jewish heirarchy oppressing the people, rather than the Romans themselves. My personal belief is that Jesus was not dumb enough to think that the whole of Judea could overthrow the entire Roman empire, nor did he neccesarily want to in my opinion. Rome gave the Jews an abnormal amount of freedom considering their treatment of other cultures they conquered.

I think Jesus was more mad at his own leaders for oppressing their own people, rather than Rome oppressing them. Pilate knew that Jesus posed no threat to Roman rule, but was not going to risk his own life in order to save an innocent man, if that man's death would help maintain the stability of the crowd.

 

[outhouse]

But that's my point. It was thought Jesus was enough of a "trouble maker" that it was better to arrest him at night rather than to allow him to possibly cause problems later in a public setting, which indicates that the authorities knew that Jesus had the ability to cause trouble before hand..

It does not indicate that.

Do you understand how many people 400,000 actually is?

How could these authorities as you call them know pre hand, about a Galilean peasant, in such large crowds, except for ones own actions that made said person visible.

Then you have to take into account the actual Bible verses that talk about Pilate knowing that Jewish leaders wanted to get rid of him for their own well being.

You mean to meet these authors theological motives.

They wanted to stop a trouble maker who was trying or did incite a riot.

But as it stands, I believe this story lends itself more to the fact that Jesus opposed the Jewish heirarchy oppressing the people, rather than the Romans themselves. My personal belief is that Jesus was not dumb enough to think that the whole of Judea could overthrow the entire Roman empire, nor did he neccesarily want to in my opinion. Rome gave the Jews an abnormal amount of freedom considering their treatment of other cultures they conquered.

I don't have a real problem with this.

Except the Romans were the cause, they required the temple to be corrupt. It was the Roman infection that fed the corruption. All Jews would have known this.

Romans were hated for being the oppressors and placing their man as the head Hellenistic Jew Caiaphas running the temple.

I think Jesus was more mad at his own leaders for oppressing their own people, rather than Rome oppressing them.

false as explained above

Rome required the taxation that oppressed the people, their money left in Romans hands. The temple was just the means.

Pilate knew that Jesus posed no threat to Roman rule

No Jew ever could, Pilate knew he would just wipe them out, if push comes to shove.

It wasn't about overthrowing Roman rule, it was about MONEY

Pilate was forced to keep it flowing, and a riot in the temple would stop the money flow he was factually responsible for. he was ONLY there to make sure the money stayed flowing.

, but was not going to risk his own life in order to save an innocent man, if that man's death would help maintain the stability of the crowd

He was there to police the event, and he did. His only rick was to be fired by his Government if the money flow was impeded.

AS it was he was fired for being so brutal, which some think he may have committed suicide although there is no evidence for. His records are silent after being fired.