Clivedurdle

What would sufficient evidence of a specific Jesus crucified by Pilate for claiming to be the king of the Jews be? (BTW - did Jews exist?)

Where are we now?

Is it possible to get any further?

dog-on

Maybe there were many Jesus' crucified by Pilate.

Regarding the specific Jesus, of your question. Evidence for his post mortem recovery, as this is the central claim being made.

Julio

What was the name of that movie where the body of Jesus was found in Jerusalem? "The Body", that's right. More "proof" than that is impossible to find. In the end the tomb is blown up, after the bones had been taken away to another secret place [perhaps to make a sequel...]

DCHindley

You mean like an official report (I mean authentically official, such as those pulled from ancient trash dumps in Egypt)?

Even then, like the ones that have been dug up, it might contain perhaps his familiar name, his father's name or a name of a well known household, and a few known distinguishing marks (green eyes, scar on eyebrow, crooked index finger on right hand, etc, that were used by the authorities to distinguish him from the other Jesuses they might arrest in a raid or incident).

Or, say, archaeologists stumble upon an undisturbed grave in Galilee with a clearly marked ossuary labeled "Jesus, son of Joseph and Mary."

Unfortunately, since we really don't have a reliable description of the man, and only hearsay information about his family, and only a small sample of names to use to determine the odds of this particular Jesus son of Joseph and Mary being "our" Jesus son of Joseph and Mary, we can only tentatively identify him as the Jesus revered by Christians.

Like all historical inquiries based on relics, especially the further back in time one goes, any identification must fall short of absolute certainty. I think the best we can do is "read between the lines" of the literary remains (the books of the NT and perhaps a few pagan and a few other early Christian letters), like the way CIA analysts did with Soviet era public statements during the Cold War era. Unfortunately, hearsay accounts are not particularly trustworthy for a number of reasons.

But here is where we get talk of "criteria," such as "embarrassment." The fact is, we know from other non-Christian literature that in Roman controlled areas, crucifixion was the extreme form of capital punishment, reserved for crimes against the Roman state, and only imposed upon non-Romans. It was meant to be slow and painful and very public, in order to send a message to anyone who had like ideas: "This will be you, too, if you do what he did!"

On the face of it, it would be against one's self interest to voluntarily connect oneself with a parson so executed. This is what makes it so difficult for most to believe that someone would make up a myth that involves a crucified man, much less associate with it. So, unless there was a family relationship one cannot erase, or a group relationship that is difficult or impossible to distance oneself from, it is unlikely that people will say "Oh yeah, I idolize the guy," at least not publicly.

If he was a Jew, and so are you, you might say "Well, he does not represent all Jews," or "It was all a terrible mistake, he was not what you said he was!" Yet here are Christians openly identifying themselves with Jesus, who they just as openly admit was crucified by the Roman authorities as "King of the Jews." Certainly it is true that any one claiming to be "King of the Jews" without Roman endorsement (which Herod the Great unquestionably had) would be sought out and executed when caught, and this would be common knowledge. So it must be assumed that Christians could not distance themselves from Jesus or the circumstances of his death.

By the time we start hearing of Christians, most of them were gentiles, so it is not a matter of ethnicity or family relationship that keeps them from disowning him. However, there may be a group relationship, a community aspect that they were not willing to give up. From what was stated above, it is unlikely this myth was made up or at least one that most would associate themselves with or historicize, it must have been an existing group of folks who had some association with Jesus. It can be assumed that they were getting some sort of benefit, psychological or social, from that group relationship, that they were not willing to give up just because Jesus was crucified.

What these gentile Christians chose to do was "explain away" the crucifixion as a terrible mistake, a tragedy with an ironic benefit, in that his death ended up allowing every man, not just Jews, to have a direct relationship with the one true God. They turned that ignoble death into a myth, and they claim they are at most guilty of addiction to a lofty but essentially harmless mystery faith. How's that saying go? "They made a virtue out of a necessity."

DCH

aa5874

Why did you chose the crucifixion when it is not known if the character called Jesus was ever crucified and there is no extant list of all who were crucified by Pilate?

Only a mythical Jesus or a God/man can be recovered.

That is where we are right now.

mountainman

Rabbits or ducks?

A sworn oath from Constantine signed by Eusebius that
these events had actually happened almost 300 years
ago in their past history.

2009

1) Archaelogical and technological discoveries
2) Changing our own "Christian Glasses" attitude.
3) Examining the fourth century in terms of politics

This recovered mythical Jesus or a God/man was recovered from an expensive publication. Our earliest physical Greek NT sources are all fourth century manuscripts. The new testament was first widely and lavishly published and promoted for the first time in the Roman empire within the pages of the Constantine Codex. That is where we are right now. In terms of recovering integrous historical data we should be questioning the integrity of the publisher and his "Holy Historical Sources".

wordy

Is it not possible to learn from current time sect leaders?

Take the Falun Gong in China. Them too openly admit they see something great in their leader. To us who are not supporters of him he looks as flawed as any David Choresh or what name they have. Charismatic people who believe in their own truth and get supporters to follow them. Falun Gong believers also let themselves be caught and mistreated instead of giving it all up for something less dangerous like buddhism that doesn't challenge the authorities.

Is it not most likely that the Christians way back in time was same kind of people and that Jesus if he existed was a typical Falun Gong leader. A kind of sect or cult leader. They had numerous such at that time too. Simeon Bar Kochba or something and many others named by Josephus? hundreds of them?

mountainman

His name was Constantine.
He was the leader of the Roman Barbarian Army
He published the New Testament to the Greeks

Doug Shaver

If it actually happened, Pilate probably had someone on his staff make an official record of some sort. If that document had somehow managed to survive and were now discovered and authenticated, I'd be convinced.

dog-on

So would any Jew crucified for blasphemy do?

Did the Romans crucify Jews for blasphemy against YHWH? Do we have any evidence of this, besides the obvious, of course?

If so, perhaps we can look there.