Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Grandstander, do your own research. It's readily available on the Internet. There are books written about this by antiquity historians. Or, third, take a class in introductory comparative religions.
The fact that Jesus was a real person and died by crucifixion has been agreed upon by the vast majority of historians, Christians and atheists. Yes, there are some holdouts, but then there are people who don't believe The Holocaust ever happened. These people just aren't taken seriously by the vast majority of the rest of us.
Really, this is a moot issue. Don't embarrass yourself.
No argument, no answers, no evidence, all attitude, no substance. Please select some other poster for your demonstrations.
Last edited by Grandstander; 05-10-2013 at 09:12 PM..
All any serious historian has to do, if he will not accept Christian writings,
is look at the onslaught of change brought on by Christ immediately following
his death and resurrection. Christ and His followers changed the entire region
forever, indeed they changed Asia, Africa, Britain also. The impact was deep
on the Greek, Roman, and "Israelite" populations. Many thousands willingly
sacrificed their lives to His Testament. For some, however, no
historical evidence will suffice. That trend is only a recent one, however, and
restricted to the secular atheist revisionists. For 1900 years nobody ever questioned
historical Jesus. The topic is absurd.
I was a comparative religions minor in college. Jesus did exist. There's is no valid dispute about that, even among historians who are atheists. But as for the rest -- all we know for certain is that he was crucified.
But for those of you who don't believe -- and for you those of you who do -- and I'm one of the ones who does not believe -- I've always found it astounding that Paul could have some kind of fit, write a few epistles -- and the world has never been the same. Some of the Jews and Gentiles of that time -- not very many -- went from being an eye-for-an-eye people to a people that believed in love and forgiveness. Christianity quickly spread, and 2000 years later, it's still a viable religion. So there was either something very different about this man Jeshua OR humanity was ready for a paradigm change. And it has been a profound change. For both good and evil.
And that is what is remarkable. Not whether or not Jesus was divine. But how did this religion -- with few followers to begin with -- become such a force throughout the world in such a short period of time.
Of course, Greece's Oracles at Delphi existed for 2000 years, give or take, and I do suppose that Christianity -- the religion -- will come to an end. But not the basic principles of love and forgiveness.
Very nice. I have heard it said that Christianity could have survived without Jesus, but not without Paul.
Paul's success, I believe lies (partially) in the fact that insofar as Paul was concerned, Rome ruled the entire civilized world. This unification of the world, and the worldwide peace that was the result of Caesar Augustus' rule, enable Paul to travel from country to country preaching where he wished. Sometimes he was attacked by groups, but generally what he was doing was not illegal.
The Romans had a very high degree of tolerance for beliefs of others. I know it is popular to believe that Romans fed Christians to lions - and they did - but the fact is, many foreign born people served in the Roman Senate, some of the Roman emperors were black (Gasp!), and there was no witch hunt for Christians. They were thought by most Romans to be a little strange.
The one God concept was not unheard of to Romans. One of Emperor Claudius' dearest friends was Herod Antipas, son of Herod The Great. Herod was a frequent visitor to Rome, and is mentioned many times by both Caligula and Claudius. His religion of one God was thought to be odd, that's all.
An absolutely fascinating book is "Flights into Biblical Archaeology", largely aerial photographs of historical sites. I didn't grow up religious, but I had no idea the degree of historical sites in Israel, many associated with the biblical stories, and that are continuosly being discovered. I mean you can actually go to the 'traditional' well of Abraham in Beersheba, or the rocky knoll in Jerusalem where the crucification took place something apparently not debated by historical evidence, neither is that Jesus grew up in Nazareth; unlike, for instance the location of where he was imprisoned, or the location of the wood for the cross.
King Herod founded and built numerous cities, and fortresses like the Citadel and Herodium, which was recently discovered. The amount of Roman and Byzantine historical sites is simply amazing. Greeks and Egyptian cultures are much older than the story of Jesus. The area had long been civilized, and whatever happened to bring about the story of Jesus, something certainly did.
An absolutely fascinating book is "Flights into Biblical Archaeology", largely aerial photographs of historical sites. I didn't grow up religious, but I had no idea the degree of historical sites in Israel, many associated with the biblical stories, and that are continuosly being discovered. I mean you can actually go to the 'traditional' well of Abraham in Beersheba, or the rocky knoll in Jerusalem where the crucification took place something apparently not debated by historical evidence, neither is that Jesus grew up in Nazareth; unlike, for instance the location of where he was imprisoned, or the location of the wood for the cross.
King Herod founded and built numerous cities, and fortresses like the Citadel and Herodium, which was recently discovered. The amount of Roman and Byzantine historical sites is simply amazing. Greeks and Egyptian cultures are much older than the story of Jesus. The area had long been civilized, and whatever happened to bring about the story of Jesus, something certainly did.
I agree. :-) And I've been to Israel. And my suggestion is that if you can go there -- and to Greece -- and possibly Turkey too - GO.
The above is one among a multitude of problems with the gospels which make it impossible to view them as literally historic. We just do not know who wrote them or who came along and tampered with them after they were written.
Agreed about the Gospels. Apart from anything else, they contradict each other on many points. However, I don't see this as calling the historicity of Jesus into question. Any policeman will tell you that if you question three eye-witnesses you'll often get three quite different stories - but that doesn't mean the crime never happened. They're not lying, just remembering differently.
Even if the Baptism can be explained away, there's still the Crucifixion. Like I said before, it was a huge embarrassment to the early Christians, hence the Gospels' desperate efforts to whitewash Pilate and put the blame on the Jews "They made me do it Guv". If Jesus was fictitious, why not just say that he was stoned to death by Jews (like St Stephen) rather than crucified by Romans?
. If Jesus was fictitious, why not just say that he was stoned to death by Jews (like St Stephen) rather than crucified by Romans?
This goes toward the early schism among Jesus followers....was this movement an extension of the Jewish faith or was it a replacement covenant? For the Judeo-Christians, who sought converts from among Jews, it becomes important that the story says that Jesus was killed by the Romans, not the Jews. For the replacement religion group who were preaching to the Roman gentile world, it was important that Jesus was killed by the Jews, not the Romans. What happens in the gospels is very much related to the agendas of the writers.
There isn't any way of knowing what really went on during the trial of Jesus, or even knowing that there was a trial. (Seems unlikely since only Roman citizens had the right of trial and the Romans were notoriously intolerant of peasant trouble makers in the provinces.) It was the replacement faith faction which ultimately prevailed, so at some point the gospels settled on blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus. The versions we have today depict Jesus being condemned by the Sanhedrin for claiming that he had the power to forgive sins. That wasn't a capital crime in Roman eyes, but encouraging rebellion against Roman authority was, and that is why when the case reached Pilate, the charges had been altered. Now Jesus was accused of telling the crowds not to pay Roman taxes and that he was their new king. Pilate doesn't want to have anything to do with this internal Jewish dispute, but to please the High Priests, he orders the execution, but then washes his hands, absolving himself and Rome, and placing the blame squarely on the Jews.
Something to keep in mind about the gospels....they are deliberate designs, written to fit specific agendas.
While GS certainly doesn't need me to defend him in this debate...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307
As a student of Roman history I can assure you that Jesus was mentioned many times during the reigns of both Tiberius and Caligula.
Pontius Pilate was ordered to report to Tiberius as a result of the uproar over what was a routine crucifixion of a ordinary religious zealot. Fortunately for Pontius Pilate, Tiberius died while Pilate was en route. Caligula, Tiberius' successor, sent Pilate into exile or ordered his execution - no one is really sure. But Pilate sure got the Emperor's attention by messing things up so badly in Judea.
What we know of Pontius Pilate is limited to the gospels, Josephus, Philo and Tacitus as well as the "Pilate stone". Josephus and Philo make the longest mentions and mainly focus on Pilates "vindictiveness, temper and inflexibility". Most of their accounts revolve around the times Pilate managed to upset the local Jewish population and push them to revolt. This generally invovled him setting up banners or shields in the Temple to honor Caesar or spending money from the Temple on public works projects.
They report that the "straw that broke the camel's back" was when Pilate ordered his soldiers to slaughter a bunch of Samaritans that had gone to Mount Gerizim to view some artifacts that were claimed to belong to Moses. Before the group could reach the mountain, Pilate intercepted them, had his troops attack and then executed the prisoners. The Samaritans appealed to Vitellius (Legate of Syria) and he is the one who sent Pilate to see Tiberius and answer for his actions. Philo writes that Tiberius was already familiar with what Pilate was up to as the Jews had appealed to him over Pilate placing golden shields in the Temple to which Tiberius sent a strongly worded rebuke to Pilate ordering the removal of the shields and telling him to be more restrained. Of course, as you said, Tiberius had died before Pilate arrived and his ultimate fate at the hands of Caligula is unknown.
It seemed like you were implying that the crucifixion of Jesus had something to do with Pilate being recalled, but it did not. The only mention of Jesus and Pilate was contained in the writings of Josephus which I posted. It makes a passing reference that Jesus was apparently executed by Pilate, but that's it. Pilate's downfall would have happened at least 4-5 year after the crufixion, perhaps even longer as the historical timelines don't add up with the claims in the Gospel's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fran66
Grandstander, do your own research. It's readily available on the Internet. There are books written about this by antiquity historians. Or, third, take a class in introductory comparative religions.
The fact that Jesus was a real person and died by crucifixion has been agreed upon by the vast majority of historians, Christians and atheists. Yes, there are some holdouts, but then there are people who don't believe The Holocaust ever happened. These people just aren't taken seriously by the vast majority of the rest of us.
Really, this is a moot issue. Don't embarrass yourself.
It's not exactly a moot issue. GS is not arguing the probability of Jesus' existence, he is arguing the evidence, which is anything but definitive. The "vast majority" of historians agree that it is probable that a man named Jesus existed, was some sort of philosopher/teacher and was crucified. That is an acceptance based on logic and probability, not overwhelming evidence, hence GS's arguments that one cannot prove beyond doubt that Jesus actually existed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have heard it said that Christianity could have survived without Jesus, but not without Paul.
), and there was no witch hunt for Christians. They were thought by most Romans to be a little strange.
