And God Said "let there be arguments".

[goodlun]

1971 was not that long ago, the way these things move.

This is true - and thanks for the information on George Well's "The Jesus of the Early Christians", published in 1971
Any clue as to why would he cite the 1971 work and not the 1999?

[DerAuslander]

This is true - and thanks for the information on George Well's "The Jesus of the Early Christians", published in 1971
Any clue as to why would he cite the 1971 work and not the 1999?

He's citing the idea itself, not that Wells has done an about-face on his own thesis.

[Vieux Normand]

Why the need to reduce the highest authority at the time in Jerusalem responsibility of this alleged event?

The local taliban-du-jour would have seen PP as a foreign interloper...maybe useful in terms of getting rid of a blasphemer so they wouldn't have to do the dirty work themselves, but other than that, just a foreigner behind a desk. Their only 'highest authority' (other than themselves) would be their imaginary deity.

People were crucified for much less, and often, especially non roman citizens. you try to insinuate that a roman prefect will give a damn about some jew stirring up ****.

He didn't give a damn, other than trying to keep things quiet enough to avoid attracting the attention of his superiors in Rome. The smoother things would go, the sooner he'd get re-assigned somewhere better (AKA pretty much anywhere).

Or that he was a nice guy just trying to last in this sucky job of his...do you know how much ***** or mangina's this guy had?

Someone said he was 'nice'? Really? Where? Apathetic, sure. Weary, maybe. Who said anything about 'nice'?

it was a time of slaves

Indeed. Many non-'chosen' had been slaves of the 'chosen' in ersatz yisroel for centuries.

.....and high up roman citizens had a god like status.

Roman emperors were self-deifying in later times. Roman prefects during jc's time? Show me the proof.

If we are playing this theory game, and lets say all this power did not corrupt him to the core

Why say that? His decision to hand over a blasphemer in order to placate howling mobs of bearded monobrows could easily--and perhaps correctly--be construed as a form of corruption. Keep everything as smooth as possible...

...and he wasn't a racist etc.

Who suggested this? He may have thought of howling bearded monobrows as inferior (not a difficult opinion to defend), but would still have had the wisdom to try and placate them in order to get out of that place faster.

He wanted and needed peace and taxes to send Rome. When some guy started to stir-up the streets, well, he more than likely was just angry with the man, and that is why he decided to crucify the guy instead of just killing him. I would assume the practices "Yeshua" went against on the Holy Temple made for some good money for Pontius.

If one reads the Gospel (which I choked down on my disgust long enough to do just now), one will see that Pilate was more annoyed by the howling mob and their bloodthirsty demands than by jc. One doubts very much that one rabblerouser knocking over a few chicken-cages in a temple would get nearly as much attention from the appointed Roman lackey as the resulting blazing-eyed jihad-mob. Especially given that such flea-bearded 'prophets' were likely a dime a dozen in that flea-bitten town.

In the end, the whole who-killed-jc debate is best left to adherents of competing abrahamic religions. As far as outsiders (say fully-evolved humans, AKA anyone from just about anywhere else on Earth) are concerned, it's just one mediterranean monobrow getting offed by others of his species, and it matters little whether those others were jews or italians.

[W. Rabbit]

[doofaloofa]

I wash my hands of this thread

[battlefields]

The denial of there being a historical figure of Jesus has, in my experience, been perpetuated by slightly above average intelligence atheists in order to bolster their superior intellectual image in the eyes of average and below average intelligence atheists. They spout their claim based on their minimal research on the topic, those who hear it believe it because hey, he fucking did research on the topic. They don't have the critical thinking skills nor the inclination to do anything other than stand up and say "yeah" when they think it is appropriate. The slightly above average intelligence atheist has a following and thus concludes he is correct, the others conclude (maybe unconsciously) that his intellectual status, ability to seek information and confidence in his assertion means his opinion must have basis, thus conclude he is correct.

Case in point, I have a friend who said about Jesus that he was a "made up person" with no basis in fact. Knowing that this friend does not subscribe to religion and that he isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, I recognised his words were actually the words of another friend with whom he plays in a band (thus with he spends a lot of his time). Fortunately I posed the question, "why don't you do a little research and find the evidence that suggests there was at least a historical figure on which the mythos of Jesus is attributed?" This, due to my intellectual standing, made my friend of average to below average intelligence realise that he had not come to the conclusion himself, he had merely parroted this other friend. This other friend is above average intelligence, is a vehement atheist and will quote someone of a far superior intellect, often out of context, as a method of establishing his own intellectual superiority. My intelligence, however, trumped his as I did not tell him what to think, but requested he think for himself.

"Have you read the God Delusion?"

This question irks me. It's like an atheist's get out of critical thinking card. My return question:

"Did you understand the God Delusion?"

[erezb]

You may want to consider your defintion of "contemporary" for an age when the Interwebs & the printing press didn't exist.

Do you have any other records for anyone's crucifixion during those years in Jerusalem? Logically then, we must assume that no one was crucified in Jerusalem at the order of Pontius Pilate.
.

Well it's funny you mentioned the lack of evidence for crucifixions, because it is baffling. Apparently they did find one evidence in the late 60's here of a nail embedded in a heal bone. The experts think that the corpses weren't buried so they decomposed (eaten by dogs and jackals) and that the nails were expensive enough to be taken back.

[jdogg33]

Upon further delving, I am noticing to me a surprising use of Oral tradition amongst Jews in the Talmud. This may explain the use of an Oral Tradition as opposed to a written one in early Christianity till codified later. It is interesting to me that a highly literate group of people would carry on an Oral Tradition.

I think that when the Romans and the Jews were really into killing early Christians for their beliefs in Jesus, keeping a lot of notes laying around may not have been wise.

Although Jesus is only considered the Son of God and the true savior by Christians, he is mentioned, and considered a prophet or messenger by both Jewish and Muslim texts. His place in the scheme is highly disputed between each of these religions though.

He is even mentioned in the Qur'an. In that text he is considered to be only a messenger. He is not considered another embodiment of God or even close to his equal.

"Verily, the likeness of Jesus in God's Sight is the likeness of Adam. He (God) created him from dust, then (He) said to him: ‘Be!'-and he was" (Quran 3:59).

I find it hard to believe he never existed. The place he took in his time of life, and now, will probably be fought over until he returns, or the world comes to the point that the Old Gods die, like Zuess and Hades.

[erezb]

I was actually contemplating going IIF on your ass with bits and peaces of quotes and ****, than i read the last part "mediterranean monobrow getting offed by others of his species" exactly my fucking point...i wish your higher beings in europe (or anywhere else on earth...) could have seen it in the same way and leave us the **** alone. But who am i to talk being an inferior monobrow of Abrahamic dissent, i mean you guys are fucking perfect example of kindness fairness and logic.

[erezb]

I think that when the Romans and the Jews were really into killing early Christians for their beliefs in Jesus, keeping a lot of notes laying around may not have been wise.

Although Jesus is only considered the Son of God and the true savior by Christians, he is mentioned, and considered a prophet or messenger by both Jewish and Muslim texts. His place in the scheme is highly disputed between each of these religions though.

He is even mentioned in the Qur'an. In that text he is considered to be only a messenger. He is not considered another embodiment of God or even close to his equal.

"Verily, the likeness of Jesus in God's Sight is the likeness of Adam. He (God) created him from dust, then (He) said to him: ‘Be!'-and he was" (Quran 3:59).

I find it hard to believe he never existed. The place he took in his time of life, and now, will probably be fought over until he returns, or the world comes to the point that the Old Gods die, like Zuess and Hades.

Thank you for inventing a new blood tail about jews, i understand that after we murdered baby jesus we started killing Christians.. Have you any evidence to support such outrageous claim? Do you know the status of jews at the time? well not long after the Jesus period, when a lot of other massaihs came and went, there was a big rebellion against the Romans led by Judah the Maccabie (who was considered by some to be a massaih) that led to the near extinction of the jews and the deportation of them all over the old world. They were wondering refugees, they were too busy surviving to go about killing Christians..In fact after this rebellion a lot of those jews actually became slaves to be dispersed throughout the roman empire.