Historical evidence of Pontius Pilate and Jesus...

No credible historian discounts the existance of Jesus as a man. No not one. While there may be no contemporary evidence that means nothing. Lack of evidence does not equate to lack of existance Red. You say that all the time.

I will point to two sources that have not been mentioned in this thread.

The osuary of James. James was St. Joseph's son from a previous marraige. He is mentioned all throughout the cannonical Gospels as the brother to Jesus. "The Proto Evangelium of James," which is an late first/early second century infancy gospel attributed to the other Biblical James or one of his discples, explains that Joseph had three sons from a previous marriage. The osuary was found last year in Jerusalem with the inscription "James son of Joseph brother to Jesus." It was carbon dated to the late first century. There was also evidence that the box's occupant was beheaded, the traditional fate of James.

The second piece of evidence is the martyrdom's of the first and second century. The apostles were all martyred. Would they readily and willingly accept that fate for a guy thet made up. There are thousands of accounts of early Christians being martyred. We know with absolute certainty that St. Peter was martyred in Rome. His grave was discovered in the 1940s. Catholics believe St. Paul was martyred on the same day. Peter obviously knew if Jesus was real guy or not. Would he allow himself to be nailed to a cross for a guy he and some other Jews made up. doesn't make much sense does it?

 

No credible historian discounts the existance of Jesus as a man. No not one. While there may be no contemporary evidence that means nothing. Lack of evidence does not equate to lack of existance Red. You say that all the time.

I will point to two sources that have not been mentioned in this thread.

The osuary of James. James was St. Joseph's son from a previous marraige. He is mentioned all throughout the cannonical Gospels as the brother to Jesus. "The Proto Evangelium of James," which is an late first/early second century infancy gospel attributed to the other Biblical James or one of his discples, explains that Joseph had three sons from a previous marriage. The osuary was found last year in Jerusalem with the inscription "James son of Joseph brother to Jesus." It was carbon dated to the late first century. There was also evidence that the box's occupant was beheaded, the traditional fate of James.

The second piece of evidence is the martyrdoms of the first and second century. The apostles were all martyred. Would they readily and willingly accept that fate for a guy thet made up. There are thousands of accounts of early Christians being martyred. We know with absolute certainty that St. Peter was martyred in Rome. His grave was discovered in the 1940s. Catholics believe St. Paul was martyred on the same day. Peter obviously knew if Jesus was real guy or not. Would he allow himself to be nailed to a cross for a guy he and some other Jews made up. doesn't make much sense does it?

 

Ummmmmm...the ossuary was determined to be a fake.

Check this out from USA Today from 11/25/03:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-11-25-ossuary-usat_x.htm

"First reports last year of the ossuary in Biblical Archaeology Review created a frenzy over the relic that bears the Aramaic inscription "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." Throngs visited the Royal Ontario Museum to see the empty stone box.

Scholars, however, questioned not only its authenticity but also whether it was an illegally excavated item, a growing problem in archaeology.

In June, the Israeli authority declared the ossuary's inscription a fake. Chemical analysis revealed the reference to Jesus had been chiseled in modern times and covered with an ancient-looking coating, dubbed the "James bond" by archaeologist Yuval Goren of Tel Aviv University."

(I must confess I love the James bond reference....)

 

I find it hard pressed to argue that the country is in a worse state than the 60's and 70's, when free love reigned and morality took a back seat.

 

A couple of points:

Yes, I was the one who said that and I stand by it. If you look back at some of the debates, say 50-75 years ago the scholars were questioning the historical evidence for Jesus. This line of questioning has largely ceased. The reason is, to my understanding, because of the increased accuracy of archaelogy and verification of other parts of New Testament and Old Testaments texts. I have to confess I am not an expert in the entire area and cannot reference anything that would convince any of the sceptics here. I am also fairly sure it would be a waste of my time as it would be "researched" by a self-confessed non-expert. However, I still am quite sure that among historians and scholars today the debate is larely settled and the vast majority would agree that the case for Jesus's existence is quite strong.

I would be interested to know if there is department head at LSU who could be e-mailed and asked to settle the matter. I would be more than willing to accept, for the purposes of this argument, whatever verdict a credible source from the most esteemed louisiana state university renders. I am completely unfamiliar with the faculty and operation of the university so I don't think I would make any quick progress. Is there a student or faculty member on the forum who could pose the question for us? Just a thought.

Originally posted by Red:

Also, I'd have to say you've misrepresented my point. I don't think you can find anywhere that I said there is physical and archaelogical evidence for Jesus....I'm sure I made that point in regard to Pontius Pilate. I used the phrase "strong circumstantial evidence" in regard to Jesus. If I'm not mistaken that is the same type of evidence used to convict Scott Peterson. I could be wrong about the Peterson case, though. To be honest I didn't follow the case closely because it seemed clear to me he was guilty so I lost interest in anything outside the verdict.

Back to my original point in this post.....please post a reply if any student or faculty member thinks they can follow up with a credible source at LSU. Thank you in advance if you do.

 

Be damned i had not heard that.

 

Originally posted by Red:

Well, all I can say is I'm of the opinion that most credible, respected historians do not question whether the man existed or not. I will admit that I am suprised these books you refer to are up to date, and I will be more than willing to concede your point that the historians have not come to a general consensus after deferring the question to a LSU Professor or department head, etc. The reason I'm unwilling to accept the books you cited in your previous post is that there are so many crack-pots out there that can get published. By the way, in one of my much earlier posts I stated my reluctance to go through the process of finding sources as back up for my position for this very reason. You can always find an "expert" to argue the other side and they end up cancelling one another out.

Also, a lot of this discussion evolved from the topic of evolution/creationism that was touched on in a different thread. Why is it that I can cite creationist books that are published but those aren't credible sources? For the very reason you dismiss the creationist books I would tend to dismiss the books that question the "historicity" of Jesus. Anybody can write a book and argue a point. I would be willing to concede your point that the majority of scientist believe in evolution. I also think the majority of historians accept the existence of Jesus. My entire contention is that the "momentum" for evolution is less than it was, although still ingrained in most academic circles and that the "momentum" for questioning the historicity of Jesus has really declined to the point that the majority of historians accept his existence.

I apologize for the long-windednes. Someone please get an anwer from LSU faculty on whether or not the majority of historians dispute the existence of Jesus or not. Doesn't anyone here know someone that works for the school?

 

Red I said credible. There are also tons of Historians that wrote volumes on the Holocausts being faked by the allies. I stand by my statement. Not one credible historian discounts the existance of Jesus as a man.

The dead sea scrolls were not entirely written in the times of Christ. Many parts were several hundred years older. Why would they mention Christ specifically? That arguement doesnt make much sense. The scrolls mention the coming of two Messiahs a priestly one and a Kingly one. The mainstream Jews never believed this. The scrolls were likely written by a fringe sect of Jadaism completely unrelated to Chritianity.