• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Scriptural literacy

Radrook said:
Agreed, The claim that Pilate nevervexisted couldn't be backed up. It could only tossed about like all the other suspicions in this off topic thread are being tossed about and which constitute nothing more than personal biased speculations.
Click to expand...

And yet once more the claim is repeated, and not backed up. Instead, the person making the claim plays dumb.
 
excerpt
Skeptics long claimed Pontius Pilate never existed, so the Passion story is untrue. Until a plaque bearing Pilate's name dedicating an arena to the Roman procurate was uncovered near Ceasarea Phillipi in 1965.

http://www.omegaletter.com/articles/print.asp?ArticleID=6047
Click to expand...


excerpt
Pontius Pilate
Prior to 1961, some skeptics challenged whether Pontius Pilate ever existed. Although Pilate is mentioned in all four Gospels (plus in Acts and 1 Timothy), skeptics claimed that there was no independent, direct verification that Pilate lived.
All that changed in 1961 at Caesarea Maritima. An Italian expedition discovered a 2 foot by 3 foot stone with Pilate's name on it, in the Roman theater. The inscription read:
]S TIBERIEUM
PON]TIUS PILATUS
PRAEF]ECTUS IUDA[EA]E
...Tiberium
Pontius Pilate,
Prefect of Judea
(McRay, p. 204)
http://sundayschoolcourses.com/histjesu/histjesu.htm
Click to expand...

The following website provides secular evidence for Jesus's existence.

Did Jesus Really Exist?http://www.4truth.net/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=hiKXLbPNLrF&b=784399&ct=1740233

BTW

My recent post was truncated and I had to delete it. Now each time I try to research a subject I'm booted out of this website automatically and have to try and get back in in order to continue.
That restricts my ability to participate via frustration. Can anybody fix this?
 
Last edited:
Radrook said:
excerpt



excerpt


The following website provides secular evidence for Jesus's existence.


BTW

My recent post was truncated and I had to delete it. Now each time I try to research a subject I'm booted out of this website automatically and have to try and get back in in order to continue.
That restricts my ability to participate via frustration. Can anybody fix this?
Click to expand...

Radrook,

I hope you realize that the links you provided only provide the same vague accusations about 'some' skeptics not believing that Pilates excisted prior to 1961.

What I think is required is that you actually provide the names of a couple of those skeptics who doubted the existance of Pilates prior to 1961.

Surely this is not beyond the capabilities of someone like yourself?

Amazer
 
And a few more times, the claim (skeptics douted Pilate's existence) is made but not backed up. (And it never will be backed up, because it ain't true.)

Claims:
• "Biblical suspicionists once claimed Pontius Pilate never existed until it was proven otherwise. " (#579 - Radrook)
• "Funny, first they claimed Pilate never existed." (#589 - Radrook)
• "Some have doubted whether Pontius Pilate even lived" (#589 - some apologist webpage)
• "As Michael J. Howard remarks: "It was a fatal blow to the doubts about Pilate's existence. . . . "" (#589 - some apologist webpage quoting some guy)
• "The claim that Pilate nevervexisted couldn't be backed up." (#598 - Radrook)
• " Skeptics long claimed Pontius Pilate never existed, so the Passion story is untrue." (#604 - some apologist webpage)
• "Prior to 1961, some skeptics challenged whether Pontius Pilate ever existed." (#604 - some apologist webpage)

Back-ups:
-/-


For more on this topic, here is an (old) IIDB discussion:
Did any skeptic think Pilate a myth - split from Bishop of Durham denies we have a soul - IIDB

Synopsis: No skeptics who doubted the existence Pilate were found either ...



Radrook said:
My recent post was truncated and I had to delete it. Now each time I try to research a subject I'm booted out of this website automatically and have to try and get back in in order to continue.
That restricts my ability to participate via frustration. Can anybody fix this?
Click to expand...

I have no problems with being booted, and I am not sure why you have. Maybe you could try, when logging in, to check the option that reads something like "Automatically log me in each time I visit" (or whatever it says exactly)?
 
Yeah, just check the "remember me" box when logging in, and make sure your browser is accepting cookies, you should be fine. Otherwise, you'll get dropped after some period of inactivity (probably 30 minutes) and have to sign in again. This may be a recent change to try to squeeze some performance out of the creaky old server. Actually, I don't know that the server is creaky, this place may just be too popular for its service agreements.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
I think that's very likely. I would even go so far as to say that it is more likely that some person or group wrote this gospel entirely (not merely appending that bit on at the end) and not John (not even through Papius, who is sometimes suggested as a scribe of his).

It is very possible that there was an account that John left (we don't know that John is the beloved apostle anyway) and that this account may have served as background for what we have in our current gospel of John -- hence the, "and has written them" notation. But his possible writings are not what we have now, in my opinion.

Who would write himself into a gospel and refer to himself as 'the disciple that Jesus loved'? I think it is much more likely that someone else wrote this account based on earlier writings that may well go back to John, or one of the disciples. There seems to be some evidence of splintering of disciple groups -- Peter's camp, John's camp, Mary Magdalene's camp -- and this was probably written in John's group.

There is clear evidence of different folks following other leaders even in Paul's letters -- I follow Apollos, I follow Paul, etc.
Click to expand...


A thought occurred to me about the Gospel of John while I was re-reading recent posts. The author of John shows that the religious elite look down upon the blind/beggars (John 9:1-41), the uneducated (John 7:14-15), and the general public (John 7:40-52). John's Jesus welcomes all that are marginalized. Jesus justified this isolation because they did not "belong to the world".

"If the world hates you, be aware that it hated me before it hated you. If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own. Because you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world—therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, "Servants are not greater than their master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also. But they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father also. If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not have sin. But now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. It was to fulfill the word that is written in their law, "They hated me without a cause."(John 15:18-25)

Jesus' alienation was the same as the oppressed. These passages become even clearer if put with the idea of the disciples' followers splitting into camps. The followers of John's Gospel would be expected to be independent and set apart from society. The Gospel of John would appear to be the teachings of a very sectarian faith. A sectarian faith that had some growing pains separating from Judaism. This would also tie in to your idea of people "believing and then leaving". As the group split, some would have deserted. Also, John the Baptist is cast in a different light in John's Gospel.

"After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he spent some time there with them and baptized. John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim because water was abundant there; and people kept coming and were being baptized —John, of course, had not yet been thrown into prison. Now a discussion about purification arose between John's disciples and a Jew. They came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, the one who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you testified, here he is baptizing, and all are going to him." John answered, "No one can receive anything except what has been given from heaven. You yourselves are my witnesses that I said, "I am not the Messiah, but I have been sent ahead of him.' He who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom's voice. For this reason my joy has been fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease."(John 3:22-30)

Also this:

"Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard, "Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples than John" —although it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized— he left Judea and started back to Galilee."
(John 4:1-3)

This could show there was conflict between John's group and followers of John the Baptist....or it could just be used to show a growing separation between the new and the old.....??
 
Amazer said:
Radrook,

I hope you realize that the links you provided only provide the same vague accusations about 'some' skeptics not believing that Pilates excisted prior to 1961.

What I think is required is that you actually provide the names of a couple of those skeptics who doubted the existance of Pilates prior to 1961.

Surely this is not beyond the capabilities of someone like yourself?

Amazer
Click to expand...

First, my attempts were friustrated by a glitch. I am not the origiinator of those statements. However, I did assume that the ones making the statements had indisputable proof. I will try again to find the evidece you require. If indeed there is no evidence for those accusations then I will stand corrected and will admit I was wrong thank you for correcting me on that point.
 
Last edited:
Greediguts said:
A thought occurred to me about the Gospel of John while I was re-reading recent posts. The author of John shows that the religious elite look down upon the blind/beggars (John 9:1-41), the uneducated (John 7:14-15), and the general public (John 7:40-52). John's Jesus welcomes all that are marginalized. Jesus justified this isolation because they did not "belong to the world".

"If the world hates you, be aware that it hated me before it hated you. If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own. Because you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world—therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, "Servants are not greater than their master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also. But they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father also. If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not have sin. But now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. It was to fulfill the word that is written in their law, "They hated me without a cause."(John 15:18-25)

Jesus' alienation was the same as the oppressed. These passages become even clearer if put with the idea of the disciples' followers splitting into camps. The followers of John's Gospel would be expected to be independent and set apart from society. The Gospel of John would appear to be the teachings of a very sectarian faith. A sectarian faith that had some growing pains separating from Judaism. This would also tie in to your idea of people "believing and then leaving". As the group split, some would have deserted. Also, John the Baptist is cast in a different light in John's Gospel.

"After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he spent some time there with them and baptized. John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim because water was abundant there; and people kept coming and were being baptized —John, of course, had not yet been thrown into prison. Now a discussion about purification arose between John's disciples and a Jew. They came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, the one who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you testified, here he is baptizing, and all are going to him." John answered, "No one can receive anything except what has been given from heaven. You yourselves are my witnesses that I said, "I am not the Messiah, but I have been sent ahead of him.' He who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom's voice. For this reason my joy has been fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease."(John 3:22-30)

Also this:

"Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard, "Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples than John" —although it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized— he left Judea and started back to Galilee."
(John 4:1-3)

This could show there was conflict between John's group and followers of John the Baptist....or it could just be used to show a growing separation between the new and the old.....??
Click to expand...


Hmmmm, interesting.

I have not read Elaine Pagels' argument about John but understand that she thinks it might be an early Gnostic text or a response to gnosticism. From what I recall, some gnostics used John preferentially. The alienation theme would certainly argue for that since alienation was a central theme of gnosticism, as was secret teaching, which is primarily what John's gospel seems to be about. That might also fit with the idea of people accepting and rejecting certain types of teaching -- some folks just don't 'get' the real knowledge?
 
Referring to the post above, I don't mean that to suggest that John is a gnostic text, but that it seems to have some gnostic elements.


My real reason for posting now, though, is to ask a simple question -- is there any interest in pursuing the issue of John as author of his supposed gospel. I didn't want to pursue it because it was obviously causing Radrook some pain, but is anyone else intersted in the issue or should we let it drop?
 
As promised I have done research on the Pilate existence issue. I found no specific skeptic to quote. Which either proves my inability to find it or that it doesn't exist. If indeed it doesn't then perhaps the idea came about by extension. Once skeptics began questioning the existence of Jesus, and the gospel account historicity it was assumed that Pilate was included by default. At least that's the only explanation I can think of.

In any case, thanx for bringing it to my attention.
 
Last edited:
I feel pain because of your misunderstandings? That's hilarious my friend. Be my guest and tally hoe on. You won't have any further interference from me!
 
Radrook said:
Once skeptics began questioning the existence of Jesus, and the gospel account historicity it was assumed that Pilate was included by default.
Click to expand...

I don't see the logical connection. It's like saying "I assumed you thought that president Kennedy is a fictional character because you stated that Forest Gump is a fictional character".
 
Radrook said:
Questions For Bible Skeptics who Question Jesus Existed (snip)
Click to expand...
A position many atheists here disagree with, believe it or not. Where did you hear this claim made? A quote or link to the thread would be nice.

I agree, it's a weak argument and a red herring to argue that Jesus never existed. However, to say that the Biblical Jesus was a fictional character based on someone rather different from the popular Christian conception of Jesus is not quite the same stance.
Radrook said:
Now let's evaluate those assumptions:

God doesn't exist?

Really? And who the hell are we puny earth-bound-sensory crippled creatures to say?
Have we been to every nook and cranny of existence? Of course not. Since we haven't
then we can't prove such a statement and it remains a mere unsubstantiated convenient
assumption-and since it's just and assumption then our whole house of cards based on it as represented by our following claims from one to five aren't necessarily true.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, it's an argument from ignorance fallacy to claim that this proves God does exist. The God of the Bible has very specifically defined characteristics, one of which is that he interacts with his subjects in real time. Seriously, something hiding under a rock in a remote corner of the universe is certainly not the God anyone worships. Nobody, not even Christians, even really cares whether or not this creature exists. A Christian could pray to this alien lizard all his life and still end up in the same exact shape as any given atheist.



On a slightly different subject, let me turn this scriptural literacy argument around. One of the things I'm absolutely sick of hearing is when evangelists, apologists, and stupid kids possessing only two brain cells and a Bible dredge out that tired old quote from Psalm 14:1 as if it's actually a valid argument against atheism:
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for them, I can safely assert that anyone who uses the verse this way is scripturally illiterate. Here's some context to explain what I mean.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=14&version=31&context=chapter

First of all, this verse alone was never intended to be a definition of the "fool" and was meant to be read along with vv. 2 and 3 as a characterization of the wicked. Now that the empirical meaning is out of the way, consider who exactly this chapter is referring to. The part about "no God" here was meant to describe a practical atheism which is not the same as skeptical atheism no matter how one tries to distort it. Practical atheism refers to people who already believe in God but are angry with him and thus rebelling against him for whatever reason, whereas skeptical atheism refers to those who do not believe in God at all.

Remember that from the point of view of the psalmists, mankind in general is corrupt. Here, the reference is to those who take no account of God in their actions, and who show malice towards the righteous. This includes believers. To further, the psalmists later included themselves among those who are not righteous. See 130:3 and 143:2 for examples.
 
Last edited:
Silentknight said:
Unfortunately for them, I can safely assert that anyone who uses the verse this way is scripturally illiterate. Here's some context to explain what I mean.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=14&version=31&context=chapter

First of all, this verse alone was never intended to be a definition of the "fool" and was meant to be read along with vv. 2 and 3 as a characterization of the wicked. Now that the empirical meaning is out of the way, consider who exactly this chapter is referring to. The part about "no God" here was meant to describe a practical atheism which is not the same as skeptical atheism no matter how one tries to distort it. Practical atheism refers to people who already believe in God but are angry with him and thus rebelling against him for whatever reason, whereas skeptical atheism refers to those who do not believe in God at all.
Click to expand...

I agree. Psalm 10:4,11 support that idea quite well.
 
Are the following accusations against the Talmud true? Or are they twistings of scripture?

Excerpt

Moed Kattan 17a: If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there.

Erubin 21b. Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and will be punished by being boiled in hot excrement in hell.

Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed.

Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.

Baba Kamma 37b. "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite...the payment is to be in full."


Baba Mezia 24a . If a Jew finds an object lost by a gentile ("heathen") it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b). Sanhedrin 76a. God will not spare a Jew who "marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean..."

Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.

Baba Kamma 37b. The gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel."

Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile.

Yebamoth 98a. All gentile children are animals.

Abodah Zarah 36b. Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth.

Abodah Zarah 22a-22b . Gentiles prefer sex with cows.

http://www.revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html
Click to expand...

BTW
I was forced to post my question here since I click thread starter and nothing happens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom