Unfortunately there's not this religion revolving about his gospel or we would know these things off hand. I checked, it's The Acts of Pilate, unfortunately there is no historical basis or authenticity, unlike for that of the gospel canon that we all worship. nudge, nudge, wink, wink
-
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
Unfortunately there's not this religion revolving about his gospel or we would know these things off hand. I checked, it's The Acts of Pilate, unfortunately there is no historical basis or authenticity, unlike for that of the gospel canon that we all worship. nudge, nudge, wink, wink
Do you know Ancient Greek?
No, I don't, which isn't to say that I have not looked into the matter.
outhouse
Atheistically
So is Brodie, who was just fired for his mythicist views.
I'll defer, then, to those who actually do. "Looking into the matter" is not good enough, since there's a lot of misinformation out there on this subject that those just "looking into the matter" aren't going to catch.
Last edited:
gnomon
Well-Known Member
OK, so I can't possibly know due to conflicting translated interpretations, I'm fine with that.
Last edited:
He had Pontius piles.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
My problem with that is that different experts have different opinions, so I'm hesitant to take the opinion of a debater here as accurate. I would love to watch two experts from opposite camps duke it out here (on the meaning of 'brother' in the NT, for example) while the rest of us got to ask clarifying questions. That's the only way I could hope to form an informed opinion.
Best folks like us can do is make tentative guesses.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Actually Christianity grew very fast even where it was persecuted in the three hundred years before Constantine. Of course starting from scratch it took a bit to dominate entire cultures especially since it began in a minor Middle Eastern tribe composed of mostly illiterate people in a conquered country. We know Constantine accelerated the rate it grew but that could just as well be providence as it could be accidental. Judging from the man himself it was providence.
Yeah, that's been demonstrated in later posts. ^_^
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I didn't get it but I am pretty stupid and tired.
Robin, you aren't stupid, and if you're tired, then there's something we have in common.
Well if God had only one Son, how many times did you expect him to show up in history? Sorry he could not reappear for your sake when the Beatles were competing.
1) The problem with getting "experts from opposite camps" is that, while there are plenty of such experts (from very conservative christian scholars who write Christological treatises as if they were histories to cultural/political critics who seek to reinvent Jesus to be a 60s US radical), you tend to see a more critical approach to sources within Jesus studies than within ancient history in general (where there are those who will argue that a name in a hittite "text" corresponds to the Achilles of the Iliad). What you won't find, with perhaps one or two exceptions among thousands and thousands, is anyone who studies this period and believes we don't have enough evidence to say Jesus existed.
2) If you are that interested, learn ancient Greek. I work in the cognitive sciences (esp. language/cog. ling. & cognitive neuropsychology). I studied ancient languages so that I didn't have to rely on translations (same reason I learned to read German, Italian, & French, among others). Saying "I don't trust the experts, but I'm unwilling to actually study what they say", not to mention a disregard or knowledge of the history of the so-called "quest" (which has been ongoing for 2 centuries), and then saying "I don't want to trust a poster on the matter of formulaic kinship (identification) expressions in Greek, but would like to see the experts whom I don't bother to read" is simply ensuring that you won't be satisfied apart from your opinion.
Nobody is an expert in everything. And while I applaud (and share) your skepticism, when I want to (try to) figure out what's really going on in some field, I study. I don't argue with my brother about musicology and Russian composers under Stalin because I wouldn't have any idea what I was talking about and I don't care to take the time to really question him. It's his field, I'll take his word for it. If you don't want to put in the effort to really learn about the subject, fine. But to then simply rely on a combination of criticisms directed at the experts as well as an ignorance of them and their field, well...that's your right. It just doesn't seem to me to be anything more the skepticism for the sake of supporting what you believed to begin with.
Last edited:
I'm with AmbiguousGuy on this one, I've read too many translations allowing for "brother" to be taken either way, as blood sibling or as a metaphorical brother as in fellow believer. When one is making a case for historical Jesus it can only mean blood sibling, it all comes down to who is doing the translating.
Doesn't Paul write that he received his gospel from no man just a few lines before we read of this "brother of the Lord?"
Great. You can join the multidute of others who haven't done their research yet have no issues with dismissing those who have.
Then stop reading translations.
If Paul never wrote anything, we'd still have more than enough evidence that Jesus existed. However, as
1) You can't read anything other than translations and
2) You refuse to study the subject and dismiss those who have
I suppose you're left with the opinion you had in the first place.
No. Because modern English didn't exist in the first century.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Biblical scholars are profoundly biased toward an historical Jesus. How could they not be? They seem unable to remove themselves from the cultural assumption that Jesus was historical. So while I might accept their opinion on some small matter of fact, I would tend to discount their overviews. Heck, I've had historical supporters argue that humans have no need for heroes and that Jesus isn't presented as a hero figure. If such scholars know so little about the human heart, about what drives us, how can they ever form a good opinion about the historicity of Jesus -- even if they can conjugate exotic verbs in ancient Greek?
Me, I'm not affected by the cultural assumption. I'm free to analyze the issue without caring one way or the other whether Jesus existed. It's why my analysis seems closer to the truth.
Nah. I'm a generalist. No time for every specific which I'd like to master. So I listen to experts, especially experts debating. And I ask questions. For example, I've asked you about the synoptic question and you have declined to answer. If you would answer, I might be convinced to change my opinion but since you will not answer, I have to take that silence as evidence that, expert or not, you are uncomfortable with the issue and so I am likely right about it.
It's just the way my mind works. I probe the experts and watch not only for the details they provide but also for the areas they seem to avoid. So much can be learned from another guy's refusal to answer.
You seem to have me confused with another poster. I haven't even spoken about the 'quest.' Nor have I said anything about refusing to study what scholars say. I have said that I refuse to accept their words as gospel, preferring to watch them in opposition.
It's like the Palestinian/Israeli thing. Listen to an Israeli scholar and you may become a Zionist firebrand. Listen to a Palestinian scholar and you'll want to lob some more rockets into southern Israel. But hear the two of them debate? While being able to ask them questions? Then you can make headway in figuring things out.
Same with the historicity of Jesus. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to sit at the feet of a biblical scholar and accept his truth uncritically.
Sure. Me too. And I've studied the historical Jesus question sufficiently to form a pretty strong opinion. But any scholar is welcome to show me how my opinion is mistaken. Do you think you might discuss the synoptic gospels with me now?
Really? So if he tells you that Tchaichovsky was the best Russian composer to ever live, you'll accept that?
Not me. I'd rather form my own opinions.
Forgive me saying so, Legion, but how could I outargue you on the historicity of Jesus if I didn't know the subject? So far, you have abandoned our debates as soon as I've brought out my most compelling arguments. When you do reply, it's the usual appeal to authority such as you write to me here. You don't argue any 'subject' with which I'm unfamiliar, do you?
Ad hominem is easy. I take it as further evidence that my debate opposite is more comfortable listing my faults than actually debating the issue... and so I am most likely right in my position.
outhouse
Atheistically
Is that true?
Why would Romans create a diety out of one of their oppressed Jewish peasants?
Why do the gospels in gerneral only deal with the last week of his life? would it be that is all they knew because the majority of oral tradition only witnessed this part of the legend surrounding passover?
When we look at the cultural anthropology of passover from this time. We see corruption in the Jewish governement, and we see a perfect place for a peasant to be martyred.
We also have a sect that had never been on board with Judaism as a whole, ready to take a different direction. "Hint", this is not Jesus movement.