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

[fallingblood]

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.

Like I have said numerous times, no. The only sources we have are the Gospels. Yet, that should be more than enough.

[URAVIP2ME]

Originally Posted by waitasec

this may be off topic but so is your post . having said that, i want to know how god can be condemned for blasphemy for claiming to be god what's up with the double talk?

There is No double talk at: John 10v36 .

The JEWS say Jesus is guilty of blasphemy [why]
because Jesus said he is the Son of God.

There is No double talk at: John 19v7 .

The JEWS say they have a law, and by their law Jesus ought to die [why]
because Jesus made himself the Son of God.


[Matthew 27v43; Luke 4v41]

[fallingblood]

Originally Posted by waitasec

this may be off topic but so is your post . having said that,
i want to know how god can be condemned for blasphemy for claiming to be god
what's up with the double talk?

Not to mention that blasphemy wasn't punishable by death anyway. I also don't think tax evasion would have been either.

[waitasec]

Originally Posted by URAVIP2ME

There is No double talk at: John 10v36 .

The JEWS say Jesus is guilty of blasphemy [why]
because Jesus said he is the Son of God.

There is No double talk at: John 19v7 .

The JEWS say they have a law, and by their law Jesus ought to die [why]
because Jesus made himself the Son of God.


[Matthew 27v43; Luke 4v41]

i'm not talking about jesus...i'm talking about your double talk.

how is it that god can be charged for blasphemy by claiming to be god?

[waitasec]

Originally Posted by fallingblood

Not to mention that blasphemy wasn't punishable by death anyway. I also don't think tax evasion would have been either.

that i did not know...

[URAVIP2ME]

Originally Posted by fallingblood

Not to mention that blasphemy wasn't punishable by death anyway. I also don't think tax evasion would have been either.

Correct. Because blasphemy could not have gotten Jesus the death sentence,
then political charges had to be trumped up.

Paying of taxes was one of the political charges according to Luke [23v2]

Jesus was now being accused of perverting the nation [causing an uproar],
forbidding to give tribute to Caesar [tax evasion],
and saying he himself is Christ a king. [sedition, treason, injured majesty]

Breaking the law of injured majesty [saying he was king] was the most serious.

[outhouse]

Originally Posted by URAVIP2ME

There is No double talk at: John 10v36 .

The JEWS say Jesus is guilty of blasphemy [why]
because Jesus said he is the Son of God.

There is No double talk at: John 19v7 .

The JEWS say they have a law, and by their law Jesus ought to die [why]
because Jesus made himself the Son of God.


[Matthew 27v43; Luke 4v41]

But the multiple authors of john never knew or met jesus to know what he did or did not say.

All your going by is what a unknown outhor or group of authors wanted him to say

[Agnostic75]

Originally Posted by fallingblood

Like I have said numerous times, no. The only sources we have are the Gospels. Yet, that should be more than enough.

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?

[Jayhawker Soule]

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, ...

First, that's not at all what fallingblood said, Second, "reasonable certainty" is an inappropriate if not absurd threshold. There is an enormous amount of early history of which there is simply no possibility of certainty. So, for example, are you "reasonably certain" of the reasons for the trial of Socrates? And any number of comparable questions could be asked.

Kirby concludes his discussion of Antiquities 20.9.1 as follows:

"But assuming that at least the shorter reference is authentic, what can we conclude from this? It shows that Josephus accepted the historicity of Jesus. Simply by the standard practice of conducting history, a comment from Josephus about a fact of the first century constitutes prima facie evidence for that fact. It ought to be accepted as history unless there is good reason for disputing the fact."

I'm not interested in discussing Josephus here. Rather my focus is on the point highlighted above - which I assume is asserting no more and no less than was fallingblood. It may be fun to pose as a skeptical naysayer, but it's simply not a very mature way to do history. The appropriate question to ask is: Are there reasons to question some or all of the trial narrative found in Christian scriptures? Perhaps yes; perhaps no. But the mere fact that the source is Christian scripture is not, in and of itself, sufficient reason.

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

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

For all we know, he didn't. And if he didn't live, he couldn't have been tried or executed.