Jesus

[firedragon]

There is no way of corroborating the events of the gospels so it isn't saying much to reject the character of Pontius Pilate as it is portrayed in the NT.

The portrayal of Pilate in the NT is obviously not in line with the historical narrative of pilate. This is well known and well established.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Out of all the characters that lived around the time that Jesus lived is there any proof or evidence that any of them were actually historical people that actually lived or are they fictional characters?

Sure, there are plenty who's existance is supported by both contemporary as independent evidence. And not just relient on hearsay or anecdotes in written form, but also through archeological artifacts.

The Roman Emperors would be obvious ones.
Tiberius, Calligula, Claudius

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The portrayal of Pilate in the NT is obviously not in line with the historical narrative of pilate. This is well known and well established.

So it might as wel be describing someone else then....

It's kind of like writing a novel about New York and depicting Obama as one of the avengers with superpowers.
Might as well make up a name then, no?

 

[firedragon]

So it might as wel be describing someone else then....

It's kind of like writing a novel about New York and depicting Obama as one of the avengers with superpowers.
Might as well make up a name then, no?

Its the same person, different description.

So the answer is no.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Its the same person, different description.

So the answer is no.

Disagree.
Obama as an avenger with superpowers, is not at all a "description" of the actual person Obama.
It's rather a description of a fictional person that I just happened to call Obama.

Or I took the actual person Obama and then expanded his real character with fictional descriptions.
Whatever way you wish to look at it: the end result is that I am not describing the real person Obama in non-fictional ways.
To the point where I could just call him some other made up name and it wouldn't make a difference.

Here we also, land on my particular opinion about a historical jesus.
I do think it's rather plausible / probable that there was a historical character that this was based on.
I also think that if we would meet that person and learn about his life, we wouldn't be able to match that with what the bible says about him.


Much like how if you would only know Obama through my novel of him being an avenger, and then learning about the real obama.

 

[firedragon]

Disagree.
Obama as an avenger with superpowers, is not at all a "description" of the actual person Obama.
It's rather a description of a fictional person that I just happened to call Obama.

Or I took the actual person Obama and then expanded his real character with fictional descriptions.
Whatever way you wish to look at it: the end result is that I am not describing the real person Obama in non-fictional ways.
To the point where I could just call him some other made up name and it wouldn't make a difference.

Here we also, land on my particular opinion about a historical jesus.
I do think it's rather plausible / probable that there was a historical character that this was based on.
I also think that if we would meet that person and learn about his life, we wouldn't be able to match that with what the bible says about him.


Much like how if you would only know Obama through my novel of him being an avenger, and then learning about the real obama.

i think you’re looking for a debate where there is none.

 

[night912]

The portrayal of Pilate in the NT is obviously not in line with the historical narrative of pilate. This is well known and well established.

So it might as wel be describing someone else then....

It's kind of like writing a novel about New York and depicting Obama as one of the avengers with superpowers.
Might as well make up a name then, no?

Its the same person, different description.

A character that is different in descriptions from another means they are not the same character. The only similarity is that they share the same name. It's irrational to conclude that they are one in the same.

Here's a scenario that is use as an example.

Suppose we found sufficient amounts evidence to confirm that Jesus was not the son of god. He was just a normal mortal man like anyone else. Although this jesus did travel around spreading his teachings but there are no evidence supporting him doing miracles or being divine, and the son of god. With that being said, we can conclude that Jesus Christ from the gospels is not the historical preacher Jesus.

It's irrational to conclude that a character from a story is the historical figure if the description of the character is different from the historical figure was described. There are no evidence to make that determination.

 

[firedragon]

A character that is different in descriptions from another means they are not the same character. The only similarity is that they share the same name. It's irrational to conclude that they are one in the same.

Here's a scenario that is use as an example.

Suppose we found sufficient amounts evidence to confirm that Jesus was not the son of god. He was just a normal mortal man like anyone else. Although this jesus did travel around spreading his teachings but there are no evidence supporting him doing miracles or being divine, and the son of god. With that being said, we can conclude that Jesus Christ from the gospels is not the historical preacher Jesus.

It's irrational to conclude that a character from a story is the historical figure if the description of the character is different from the historical figure was described. There are no evidence to make that determination.

Thus, you think there were two different pilates?

 

[night912]

Thus, you think there were two different pilates?

How did you come to that conclusion?

 

[firedragon]

How did you come to that conclusion?

Thats a question to someone else who had that conclusion.

 

[night912]

Thats a question to someone else who had that conclusion.

Nobody else had that conclusion except for you. That why I asked immediately after you. I'll rephrase the question and ask again.

How did you come to the conclusion that I think there's two different pilates? What's your reason behind that assumption?

 

[firedragon]

Nobody else had that conclusion except for you. That why I asked immediately after you. I'll rephrase the question and ask again.

How did you come to the conclusion that I think there's two different pilates? What's your reason behind that assumption?

I did not say "I think there's two different pilates".

 

[night912]

I did not say "I think there's two different pilates".

I never said you did.

Now why did you assumed that I think there's two different pilates?

 

[firedragon]

I never said you did.

Now why did you assumed that I think there's two different pilates?

Nope. I didn't assume that either. I asked you a question, that doesn't mean I read your mind and made an assumption. I am clarifying.

Just be simple bro, there is no need to look for hypocrisy or pointing out others. When you intend that you won't even understand a question as a simple question.

 

[night912]

Nope. I didn't assume that either. I asked you a question, that doesn't mean I read your mind and made an assumption. I am clarifying.

See, you did assumed, if you had read my mind, there wouldn't be a need for clarification.

Just be simple bro, there is no need to look for hypocrisy or pointing out others. When you intend that you won't even understand a question as a simple question.

Look whose talking. You're assuming again. And I explained it to you earlier. I'll explain again as to why I immediately asked the question. Obviously, I asked which part of what I said in my response that led you to assume that I was talking about there being two different pilates because clearly that wasn't what I said. If you would've told me that, I could've clarified your misunderstanding. Or told me what you didn't understand what I said, it would've been clarified.

A story from the mythology of christianity doesn't have enough sufficient evidence to support it, snd we cannot treat it as being historical facts. So until there are such evidence, it remains , as being "untruth" with that being said, a character from the gospels share the same name, but they have different descriptions, so we cannot assume that the character is the historical figure.

 

[firedragon]

See, you did assumed, if you had read my mind, there wouldn't be a need for clarification.


Look whose talking. You're assuming again. And I explained it to you earlier. I'll explain again as to why I immediately asked the question. Obviously, I asked which part of what I said in my response that led you to assume that I was talking about there being two different pilates because clearly that wasn't what I said. If you would've told me that, I could've clarified your misunderstanding. Or told me what you didn't understand what I said, it would've been clarified.

A story from the mythology of christianity doesn't have enough sufficient evidence to support it, snd we cannot treat it as being historical facts. So until there are such evidence, it remains , as being "untruth" with that being said, a character from the gospels share the same name, but they have different descriptions, so we cannot assume that the character is the historical figure.

Ciao

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thus, you think there were two different pilates?

If the description given by the bible doesn't match the actual historical character: Yes.

A historical one and a biblical one.

The first actually existed. The second is a fiction / caricature / ... Whatever you wish to call it.
The point is that it is not describing the actual historical pilate.

A more common term these days for such things is "fake news".

 

[firedragon]

If the description given by the bible doesn't match the actual historical character: Yes.

A historical one and a biblical one.

The first actually existed. The second is a fiction / caricature / ... Whatever you wish to call it.
The point is that it is not describing the actual historical pilate.

A more common term these days for such things is "fake news".

Exactly.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

i think you’re looking for a debate where there is none.

No. I'm responding to your objections to points I made.
You asked / commented about this point and I'm merely replying.

Not my fault that you insist on misunderstand / misrepresenting this point, which requires me to come back to it and clarify once more.

 

[Vouthon]

The portrayal of Pilate in the NT is obviously not in line with the historical narrative of pilate. This is well known and well established.

His vacillation over the decision of whether or not to crucify Jesus on the charge of sedition isn't exactly congruent with the thuggish brutality attributed to him in Josephus and Philo, I agree.

With that being said, the gospel accounts of him are more nuanced than this - some of his characteristics, as relayed, match fairly closely with the independent accounts i.e.

"At that very time there were some present who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices." (Luke 13:1).

Now that is a very Pilate thing to do (slaughtering Galilean Jews and sprinking their blood in with their Temple sacrifices, which exhibits unusual cruelty even for a Roman prefect), cohering with his ruthless treatment of the colonial subjects he governed in Philo, Leg. Gai. 37–38; Josephus, J.W. 2.9.2–4; Ant. 18.2.2; 18.3.1–2; 18.4.1–2.