mata leao

as an aside, the Bible said KIngs would kneel before Jesus. Seems accurate to me!

Johnny Skeptic

Which kings have kneeled before Jesus? The historical accuracy of the New Testament doesn't make any differnece at all unless it can first be reasonably proven that the God of the Bible created the universe, which of course Christians cannot do. If the God of the Bible did not create the universe, then his enforcement of rules of his own choosing would not have any more legitimacy than any other powerful being enforcing rules of his own choosing. There might very well be thousands of alien races in the universe, possibly many more, and who knows what their abilities might be? Some of their abilities might include converting energy into matter. Why should anyone rule out such a possibility based solely upon what humans have achieved?

Steven Avery

Tis nice to see one of the skepics here willing to actively take off the table the most non-substantive claim (no Nazareth) and another that also has no wings (Pilate/Herod/Sanhedrin would not have done A/B/C) .

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

RUmike

Nothing is "impossible", but that doesn't mean that it's not INCREDIBLY unlikely. No serious historian regards the "trial" before Pilate as having any historical credibility, except like Mahlon wrote in his post that Pilate gave the order to crucify and flog Jesus.

Diogenes the Cynic

The Sanhedrin trial is the purest moonshine. It never happened.

Steven Avery

I'm not sure where your historian survey is. Share away. For now let's leave aside the historians that you might try to a priori eliminate because of a Christian viewpoint (many of course). Let's start with David Flusser and Lawrence Schiffman. Do they count as serious historians ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

mikem

That being the case, by the same reasoning you would have to deny the whole narrative of events leading up to and including the crucifixion, otherwise you lack a modus operandi for the execution of Jesus. No one other than Pilate could have ordered such an execution. So let's have it, either you accept the sequence of events roughly as described, i.e arrest, informal hearing before the Sanhedrin, handing over to Pilate, execution, or you deny the lot, but enough of the nitpicking already!

RUmike

I suppose I was using hyperbole. However, it appears that Flusser and Schiffman have "unreliable views".

Yes, I do accept the general outline: Jesus was handed over by the high priest to Pilate, who was then executed upon Pilate's order. But I DO NOT accept the ridiculous claims that Pilate insisted on Jesus' innocence and hesitated executing him, offered to free a prisoner due to the festival, and obediently gave in to the wishes of an angry Jewish mob. None of this has a plausible historical foundation. You call this "nitpicking"? The part about Pilate offering to release a prisoner is included for the sole purpose of further removing blame from the Romans and putting it on "the Jews". Believing in its entirety the Passion account as told by the gospels only further perpetuates the lie that Jesus' execution was the sole fault of the Jews, which has caused persecution for centuries.

Amaleq13

This is a false dichotomy. One can certainly conclude that the given account is unreliable while having no idea what, if anything, actually happened.

mikem

It seems highly unlikely that Pilate would have vacillated in his treatment of Jesus given what we know of him from other sources. My comment was primarily focused on your apparent earlier denial that Jesus had had any kind of hearing before Pilate at all. However you have made it clear now what you are prepared and not prepared to accept in the sequence.

I was not suggesting that every single detail of the gospels' account is historical, only that it happened roughly as described.

Returning to specifics - although there is no independent record that it was customary for a prisoner to be released at Passover, and that it would have been out of character for Pilate to behave in the ways depicted, these elements cannot be ruled out of court entirely. Thre may have been such a custom, and people do act out of character sometimes. The simple fact is we just don't know.

I agree that the accounts put the Jewish leaders in a bad light, and Matthew's verse about Jesus blood being on our heads and our children's makes my blood run cold. However, the High Priest and his immediate circle must share some of the responsibility for what happened afterwards, no matter how well intentioned their motives may have been for handing Jesus over to Pilate.

It is also clear from the New Testament that the death of Christ was part of God's plan, so ultimately God is responsible, which rather makes accusing the Jews of being Christkillers somewhat illogical really. My comment about nitpicking was meant to be tongue in cheek. Guess my brand of humour doesn't translate well. The serious point is that since the gospels are the only record we have for these events at all, we need to be clear about the criteria we apply in deciding what is historical, and what isn't. I think if we deny the High Priest any role at all, the sequence becomes incoherent, in my view any way.