What non-biblical sources are there for the trial of Jesus?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by AmbiguousGuy

Why do you assume that a man named Jesus lived in that time and place?

Now that would be a novel and interesting thread!

[AmbiguousGuy]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Now that would be a novel and interesting thread!

Yeah, the issue has been mentioned a time or two. I'm just wondering why Agnostic claims that we can't know the details of Jesus' trial but seems to assume that we can know that the Biblical Jesus existed.

[waitasec]

Originally Posted by AmbiguousGuy

Yeah, the issue has been mentioned a time or two. I'm just wondering why Agnostic claims that we can't know the details of Jesus' trial but seems to assume that we can know that the Biblical Jesus existed.

huh?
you posit a false dichotomy..


there are non biblical sources that mention jesus existed...they were not contemporaries, but there are non biblical sources nonetheless


just sayin'

[Agnostic75]

Originally Posted by AmbiguousGuy

Yeah, the issue has been mentioned a time or two. I'm just wondering why Agnostic claims that we can't know the details of Jesus' trial but seems to assume that we can know that the Biblical Jesus existed.

I obviously do not believe that the Biblical Jesus existed. If you meant a historical Jesus, I do not assume that a historical Jesus did or did not exist. That is a very complex topic, and I do not understand it well enough to have an informed opinion about it. However, for purposes of this thread, let's concede for the sake of argument that a historical Jesus existed.

[AmbiguousGuy]

Originally Posted by waitasec

huh?
you posit a false dichotomy..

Hi, waitasec. I guess I think you're mistaken to see it as a dichotomy. In my view, historical truth isn't a Yes/No issue. Neither is the question of whether there A) are or B) aren't non-Biblical historical sources.

there are non biblical sources that mention jesus existed...they were not contemporaries, but there are non biblical sources nonetheless

There are non-Biblical sources which detail the trial of Jesus. I've seen movies with Pilate actually washing his hands and all.

I'm guessing that you may see my statement above as ludicrous, but I'm serious about it. How do you define 'non-biblical historical sources'? Is there a cut-off date? If a guy is writing about Jesus 50 years after the supposed events, do we take that as an historical source?

So far as I know, there aren't any writings which I personally would consider non-Biblical accounts of the trial or even the life of Jesus. Certainly not enough to claim that we can know he existed but not know about his trial. That's all I'm trying to say, I think.

[fallingblood]

Originally Posted by Agnostic75

Are you proposing that everything in the Gospels is historical, and actually happened? If not, then how can you be reasonably certain about the details of the trial of Jesus, including everything that he said, and everything that Pontius Pilate said?

Not at all. I'm saying that the Gospels are good enough evidence to assume that Jesus may have had some trial and was executed for sedition.

I'm also saying that one should look at the Gospels in a historical context.

[AmbiguousGuy]

Originally Posted by Agnostic75

If you meant a historical Jesus, I do not assume that a historical Jesus did or did not exist. That is a very complex topic, and I do not understand it well enough to have an informed opinion about it. However, for purposes of this thread, let's concede for the sake of argument that a historical Jesus existed.

That sounds reasonable. I was just a little startled at the way you put it. No big deal.

[outhouse]

Originally Posted by Agnostic75

I obviously do not believe that the Biblical Jesus existed. If you meant a historical Jesus, I do not assume that a historical Jesus did or did not exist. That is a very complex topic, and I do not understand it well enough to have an informed opinion about it. However, for purposes of this thread, let's concede for the sake of argument that a historical Jesus existed.

there a great chance a historical yeshua did exist, he is not the mythical biblical man. But the legends are based from his existance and movement he started.

This is all we know with [generally speaking] certainty about the yeshua charactor, beyond what I state is only guessing.


There was a traveling teacher of judaism that was baptized by john who ticked off the romans and was put to death on a cross.


historical jesus wiki

for more information/details

[fallingblood]

Originally Posted by outhouse

there a great chance a historical yeshua did exist, he is not the mythical biblical man. But the legends are based from his existance and movement he started.

This is all we know with [generally speaking] certainty about the yeshua charactor, beyond what I state is only guessing.


There was a traveling teacher of judaism that was baptized by john who ticked off the romans and was put to death on a cross.


historical jesus wiki

for more information/details

Actually, there is more that we can know with good certainty, based on where he lived (Nazareth), the religion he practiced (Judaism), the tradition that surrounds him (such as him being born around the time of the death of Herod), as well as the time period that he lived in (the first century C.E.).

[CynthiaCypher]

Originally Posted by Agnostic75

Has anyone posted any non-biblical, first century A.D. sources that state details about the trial of Jesus? For all we know, Jesus might have been killed for reasons that are different from what the Gospels claim.

I highly doubt the Roman would have extensive trial records of all the Jews that they happened to crucify for sedition. It was just a matter of fact and a common occurence in those days. So they wouldn't have taken the trial of Jesus has a matter of importance because well...crucifying Jews was what the Romans did alot of in Judea, so Jesus would have been just another mouthy Jew who got nailed to them.