And God Said "let there be arguments".

[DerAuslander]

My name is a killing word.

[Vieux Normand]

Okay, so the religious side of the Pilate story wasn't stressed where I went to school, but Roman-empire history got somewhat more attention. From what I recall--and wrong-as-hell it may be, Pilate was a procurator and then a prefect.

Both were basically administrative jobs. Badass-warrior he may or may not have been previously, but in jc's time, he had a desk job. Field commanders would do what they did and--unless he really had a reason to stir the pot, or one of the field officers was planning something really out-of-line--he'd basically rubber-stamp things.

This area of the roman empire would not have been much of a plumb assignment. More of a "Russian-front" assignment for a nazi officer who'd done something to piss off his superiors, but was well-connected enough that disappearing him outright was not a palatable option. Can't kill 'em, get 'em out of the way.

During the trial, Pilate askes jc "King of the Jews, are you then?"...to which jc answers "So you say".

Bit cheeky, but not much of a 'challenge'--especially from a 'messiah' also known for having advised people to 'render unto caesar his due, and render unto the lord his due'.

Pilate was in a bit of a pickle. There was a howling mob of Sanhedrin-incited fundies wanting jc's head on a platter. According to what I was taught (again, could be dead wrong), Pilate was described as reluctant to simply execute someone whom he just couldn't take as a serious threat--until he saw the howling mob.

Did Pilate judge jc? It seems that the mullahs of Jerusalem had already judged him as some kind of heretic/imposter/blasphemer whatever term they used. Given the nature of middle-eastern religions--even today in some areas--that would be enough to start the imams/inquisitors/whatever and their happy mobs a-howling for blood.

So...Pilate, to placate the screaming crowd, finally did their bidding and then washed his hands of the matter. Doesn't really seem to be much more to it than that. Pilate's job must have sucked, and he'd have tried, by keeping a lid on things where he was, to last long enough for transfer to a better one...

[PDA]

I dont believe in Plato or Shakespeare.

[erezb]

Why the need to reduce the highest authority at the time in Jerusalem responsibility of this alleged event? 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 ****. 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? it was a time of slaves.....and high up roman citizens had a god like status.. If we are playing this theory game, and lets say all this power did not corrupt him to the core, and he wasn't a racist etc. 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.

[goodlun]

You do see the massive assumptions you're making here, right? The beautiful strawman you're creating, right?

The Two assumptions here are
1. No contemporary accounts currently exist.
2. With out them its hard for either side to "prove" it did or didn't happen.
Neither of these are a set up a strawman, as they are based on my argument and not me trying to define someone else position.

The irony here is that you demanding we apply a standard of proof to Christ & Pilate that is much greater than is applied to many other historically accepted events & persons.

Really? What exactly do we accept as historical fact with out contemporary accounts or physical evidence to back it up?

Exactly, so shut the **** up. There are no serious historians who agree with your position on either of these subjects.

Nice both an appeal to authority and a no true Scotsman at the same time.

[crappler]

Yes. Strobel demonstrated not the least sliver of logic in his analysis, and Mahr is not funny,

Strobel is a liar. I don't believe for even one second he was ever really an atheist and yes, his idiotic tract is insulting to anyone even remotely interested in rudimentary logic. I don't know where this thread is going, but if you guys could return to insulting each other, describing your crappling, streetfighting skillz or athletic training techniques it would probably be more entertaining, as much as I like to read posts written by people who are hopelessly befuddled by history.

[DerAuslander]

The Two assumptions here are
1. No contemporary accounts currently exist.
2. With out them its hard for either side to "prove" it did or didn't happen.
Neither of these are a set up a strawman, as they are based on my argument and not me trying to define someone else position.

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.

There's skepticism & then there's pseudo-skepticism.

Which one do you want to think you are?

Really? What exactly do we accept as historical fact with out contemporary accounts or physical evidence to back it up?

Socrates' existence is generally not questioned, even if accounts have been embellished or used to prove a given point.

Diogenes Laërtius
Pythagoras

Do I need to go on?

Seriously, what are your credentials as a historian to be stating what is commonly accepted as proof?

Nice both an appeal to authority and a no true Scotsman at the same time.

Nope, I'm just ridiculing you for making a big deal questioning the existence of a person who scholars in the field of history really don't feel the need to question. This combined with your citation of Bill Maher makes me think you're a fucking idiot.

[W. Rabbit]

The gods set forth their energies
The world shook and the seas trembled
In the battle to destroy me
The most arrogant beast of all.

-Slymenstra

[DerAuslander]

The gods set forth their energies
The world shook and the seas trembled
In the battle to destroy me
The most arrogant beast of all.

-Slymenstra

There's very little proof she ever existed.

[Mr. Machette]

First Goliath wasn't a Palestinian, there was no such creature back than, he was a plishty, or what have you, an ancient nation that settled the coast line and thought to come from Sicily. Second, David is specifically said to worn off bears and lions with his sling shot (not a hunter but a sheep herder), i guess as a preparation for the Goliath story.

Exactly what part of my post are you trying to contradict here?

I at no point name Goliath as a Palestinian.

Also, weather or not David ate the lions or the bears, he still used the damn sling for survival as lions and bears would have done a great deal of damage to his flock and or personal health and put his livelyhood into jepardy.

IE, he used the tool on a daily basis and developed great proficiency with it.

So where is it exactly you think we are splitting hairs? Or do you just need to interject an opinion to feel superior on the internets?