-
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!
Did Pontius Pilate exist?
- Thread starter steeltoes
- Start date
The Pilate Stone is the best we have, and that's pretty solid evidence. The information it provides checks out with history.
Pilate Stone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pontius Pilate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also, there's Philo & Josephus.
I don't know - perhaps because a Roman Prefect was likely to be more substantive than the sect leader of a small sect of subjugated Jews. What do you think?
For the reason you give perhaps it is not possible to know one way or the other if this Jesus ever existed.
Until Constantine converted, Christianity was a very small religion, little more than a fringe, counterculture cult(not meant in derogatory way, just a statement of numbers). Jesus wouldn't have been any more significant than any of the other claimed messiahs and prophets running around at the time.
Do you have a point?
I wouldn't go that far. For example, the followers of others (e.g., John the Baptist) don't seem to have lasted all that long after the death of their leader, while Christianity increased. Also, unlike other sectarian movements within Judaism, early Christians were proselytizers. They were large enough in the 60s for Nero to (it seems) blame the fires on them. And distinct enough to be recognized in the first century by Romans as seperate from Judaism, yet not one of the cults (which, if we want to get a bit more technical, is less about numbers in that period, and more about structure). By the second century, not only was there a thriving production of Christian literature/texts (consisting of everything from letters & apologies to pseudepigrapha), but also an increasing number of rival movements within Christianity.
Okay, then. I stand somewhat corrected.
But the point was that there were other movements at the time besides Christianity that, from what I understand, were about the same in terms of size and influence, such as Mithraism. If I'm wrong on that, as well, let me know.
outhouse
Atheistically
Okay, then. I stand somewhat corrected.
But the point was that there were other movements at the time besides Christianity that, from what I understand, were about the same in terms of size and influence, such as Mithraism. If I'm wrong on that, as well, let me know.
I think the key to that question is "when" more so then just size.
While Christianity started very small, even by the second century it was snowballing rapidly.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
So Pontius Pilate existed but Jesus didn't ,these threads really are getting more entertaining.
Which Christianity? Gnosticism?
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
That makes it more likely that Jesus did exist, don't you think?
Why would people be worshipping a fictional mythos character that soon after the crucifixion"?
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Why would people be worshipping a fictional mythos character that soon after the crucifixion"? Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence.[/FONT]
There certainly were those smaller, larger and about the same size. A better comparison than Mithraism (in which followers also worshipped other gods and would attend/practice the civic cult) might be the proto-rabbinic movement, which increased alongside Christianity (while other Jewish sects like the Sadducees or the Qumran community died out). Christianity was a bit unique in that pagan monotheism didn't really exist (there are arguments that it did, but these rely on an absence of evidence and word play), but the only other monotheistic tradition around didn't seek to convert. On the other hand, Mithraism was unique in that it seems to have been smaller and more "mysterious" than other Hellenistic cults, yet for some time had an underground following of devoted initiates. The problem with comparisons is that one often ends up comparing apples to oranges, but insofar as both are fruit (and Mithraism, Rabbinic Judaism, the cults of Isis, Demeter, etc., are religious in nature just like Christianity), only one who needlessly complicates things by inserting unnecessary technicalities (i.e., me) would bother to comment on the potential issues involved with comparing the size/influence of one cultic practice or religious movement to another.Okay, then. I stand somewhat corrected.
But the point was that there were other movements at the time besides Christianity that, from what I understand, were about the same in terms of size and influence, such as Mithraism. If I'm wrong on that, as well, let me know.
Put simply, you're right.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
That's ridiculous, you have to look at the argument in context