Talk:Pontius Pilate

Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story (6th ed., 2006) This is my reference.Barbara Shack 11:40, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

The chances of that are virtually impossible. Statistically impossible.

A) The act of crucifixion is one of, if not the most sophisticated acts of torture on the planet ever made. The person stays alive by pushing up with his legs for air; at some stage, after around 8 hours or so of this unspeakable agony, his legs are broken and he is then unable to push for air, suffocating. Christ died before his legs were broken by the Roman guards. Instead, his body was pierced with a lance. There is no evidence to suggest that he survived.

B) There were a lot of Guards and others there jeering him as he died. It would have been impossible.

C) Internet Infidels is a group of morons just as bad as CP in my eyes. MarcusCicero 11:52, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

That just the sort of thing I'd expect a Christian to write. Why do you say you're an atheist, MarcusCicero? The source for the guards jeering etc is one or more of the Gospels written 40 to 60 years later and unreliable. Barbara Shack 09:21, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Exactly, how do we know that he's not employing Christian deceit? --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Thanks for putting the ridiculous fringe loony tune story back in Human. Are we really going out of our way to appear like an inverse CP?MarcusCicero 17:48, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

"There is no evidence to suggest that he survived." There is also no evidence that he ever lived, or that he was crucified in the first place. If, however, he did and was, theories abound as to how he might have "survived" the crucifixion. As far as guards jeering him, etc., what is our source for that? The Palestinian Daily Reporter on microfilm? So you don't like Internet Infidels. That's a pity, I'll have to go there and see just what a bunch of "morons" they are, MC. human 17:54, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Human, there IS evidence that Jesus - a Jewish teacher - lived and was crucified. See the Wikipedia article on the historical Jesus for a primer. PFoster 17:57, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

(EC'd) Ah, sorry, I was rather responding to MC's rather detailed, exact knowledge of the exact happenings on the day of the crucifixion and those following. By the way, I went to the infidels website, it seemed fairly non-moronic to me. Unless one has a problem with a "materialistic" world view? And thanks for the correction and link, PFoster! human 18:12, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Yeah yeah, I know you think you've got some sort of high ground here. There is plenty of evidence to support his existence. No historian worth his salt would deny he existed; the Romans wrote about him, he influenced events even in his lifetime. And as for the guards jeering him we have to work on the evidence we have. The imaginary story some random guy made up that he doesn't happen to buy the ressurection is quaint, but unscholarly. What about the old idea that every argument should rest on the evidence that supports it? I mean, if I went ahead and wrote an article that Jesus was in fact a boomerang, would that then be fit for inclusion to this article. Ridiculous. MarcusCicero 18:00, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Marcus - I'm not sure if your comments are directed at me or not - just to be clear, I'm not arguing for anything other than the existence of Jesus as a historical figure, something that Human doesn't seem to accept. As for the rest of it, I'm not arguing for or against the Resurrection story that Barbara was trying to put across - not really my area of expertise, though I don't personally believe in the story of the Resurrection...PFoster 18:06, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

I was aiming it at Human, and no, I don't believe in the ressurection either but the idea that Jesus survived the Crucifixion is right out of leftfield. Its extremely surreal stuff to even claim that. MarcusCicero 18:08, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

At the very least, I must admit I have some reservations against someone who states his occupation simply as "author" and lists his religious background on his CV. Perhaps not the first source I'd have selected. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 18:12, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

(EC again) As far as surviving capital punishments, it happens. Sure, the cross is a nasty way to go, but if you have some friends in the audience and the guards look the other way... But anyway... since apparently I'm not the only one who doesn't think a true "resurrection" occurred, potential ways that Jesus might have been saved from death on the cross become an interesting part of the story. human 18:18, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Now I'll have to admit that saying Moronic when I'm so quick to criticise others for calling believers name is a little bit of a contradiction. In short, what I read at that forum (Or Dawkins Forum) and what I read at extreme Christians forums seems to me to be two cheeks of the same arse. In my eyes, an extremist is an extremist, be he secular, religious, communist or fascist. Yes, I had the cheek to throw you all in the same basket. MarcusCicero 18:18, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

How is "secular" a form of extremism? I can see how atheism can be, but what exactly is an "extreme secularist"? human 18:19, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Someone who really really really doesn't have anything to do with religion. Like someone who's extremely left-handed. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 18:30, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Could I just point out that there is no such thing as a "statistical impossibility". Genghis ^Marauding 19:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Took out the section

You know, absolutely no-one has actually argued that the thing should stay. It seems your only keeping there because your pissed at me (At least I hope thats all it is) We shouldn't entertain fringe scholarship on this site. MarcusCicero 07:32, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

I suggest some mention be made of the widespread gnostic belief that Jesus did not die on the cross. Whether this was a conspiracy by Pilate (who possibly had a guard give Jesus some knock-out drops in his cup of vinegar), or whether Jeus was taken down from the cross after he lost consiousness but before he died, we will never know. But the gnostics where just as numerous as the small sect whose beliefs won out in a process of Darwinian natural selection. Either way it comes down to a "he said, she said" debate with no counclusive evidence either way. Rational Ed^irrational 09:39, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, basing an argument around that would be fine. But the actual argument is that he survived all of that. I don't think how it would be workable. MarcusCicero 09:43, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

I've just suggested two ways he could have survived. People have survived worse. It only requires the possibility that he was taken down off the cross before he died (and was then nursed back to health). You might also consider the possibility that elements of the story were exaggerated in the course of being handed down to us through an oral tradition and then a written one over the course of centuries. If the time on the cross was shorter, he was not speared in the side by a soldier (or only slightly wounded), etc. Rational Ed^irrational 09:48, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

MC, if you are going to delete a section wholesale, it is common courtesy to at least copy it to the talk page for discussion. By the way, I find your blunt assertions that there is no way at all anyone could survive a crucifixion/attempt at same to be a bit over the top. Here is what was removed (without the section header):

Richard Carrier in his essay, “Why I don’t buy the Resurrection” suggests that Jesus may have survived the crucifixion. This would have been possible provided Jesus was taken down before he collapsed and suffocated. Alternatively, Jesus might have been taken down promptly after he collapsed, but before he suffocated. All this would be possible if the Romans, or some of the Romans, had decided to let him survive. Perhaps Pilate had not fully washed his hands of the matter?

Also, the assertion that internet infidels are a bunch of morons and should not ever be quoted or referenced is also a bit strong in the absence of supporting references. I went there and the site looks fairly sane and intelligent to me. Sure, they have an agenda, and if you disagree with the agenda they aren't going to appeal to you, but to make the point that they should never be used, mentioned, linked, reffed, etc. from RW you'll have to actually make a point, not just a claim. human 14:43, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

The restored section is already present in the Surviving crucifixion article. Dark Matter Glaucopis 14:48, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Has anyone really read Carrier's essay? He actually states:

"... I concluded that the odds of survival were about 1 in 4000.."

So this issue seems to have been blown up out of all proportion. Carrier does not suppose that Jesus survived; he has other reasons for not believing in the resurrection. So Marcus Cicero's removal of the passage is fair. However, his dismissal of Internet Infidels as a bunch of morons is unfair in that they do not say what he thinks they say and thereby aligns himself with the "Satanic Verses" school of book reviewing. Genghis ^Marauding 15:10, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Carrier's bogus probability statitistics aside, and taking into consideration gnostic accounts of the crucifixion, I think it is plausible that Jesus was taken of the cross before he died. If it weren't the cornerstone of one tiny religious sect that outmaneuvered all the others of the time to eventually become the Catholic Church, we would conclude, based on the evidence, that he probably survived, not that he had died and miraculously come to life again. Rational Ed^{5 or 6 edits} 15:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

What we actually know of the Gnostics, and the early Church and Christ himself is actually very weak. We simply cannot know for sure how it panned out 2,000 years ago on that day. All the evidence we do have suggests that he died on the cross however, hence my objection to this being included. MarcusCicero 15:31, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Which gnostics in particular are you referring to here, Ed? In my mind, this whole theory of Christ surviving the crucifixion is mostly connected with Ahmadi Islam, rather than any gnostic group - as far as I know, most of them believed the crucifixion was entirely an illusion, or that it was irrelevant because it was only his spiritual body that mattered. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 15:31, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Carrier does not present his figures as scientifically accurate, nor does he conclude that Jebus was resurrected. I agree that there are schools of thought that Jeb survived (or was not even really crucified), but my point is that Carrier's article should not be used as a reference. And "all the evidence we do have" is mainly anecdotal from vested interests. Tacitus' mention of the circumstances of his death are written well after the events and were probably influenced by what Christians said about themselves rather than derived from Roman archives. So basically MC is correct when he says we cannot know for sure what happened 2000 years ago. Genghis ^Marauding 15:41, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

By the way, any argument based on "but it is highly unlikely that it could have happened" does not mean that it did or did not happen. that argument is one of the principal arguments for anti-evoultion types. "well, the odds of life are one in a trillion, so therefore it didn't happen". The odds of your number comming up in the lottery is extremly unlikely... but if you win, you still win. unlikely or not. Not that it matters, but there is a point here of oxam's razor. (sp) The most likely scinero is not that Jesus didn't die, but that he did, and that his followers were simply told otherwise. Notice, once he "rose" he didn't say anything more in any texts. Mark, the earliest gosple really doesn't dwell on his resurrection - the narriative had not played out into oral tradition yet. Jesus was killed, and they religion went on, so to speak. Had he "faked" it, or survivied, he would have likely been teaching, even if in the underground of the caves lived in by the Essenes and other Gnostics. He didn't. the story ends the day he dies in Mark. --En attendant Godot_{"«Curiosity is insubordination in its purest form. V.Nabokov»} 00:08, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Where is the evidence?

. . . For the theory put forward in this article that Pilate's hesitancy to execute Jesus (as portrayed in the Gospels) was a story concocted centuries later to exonerate Pilate? weaseLOId~ 16:51, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

I can't cite any sources, but I remember reading that Pilate was so brutal a ruler that he incited one or two rebellions in Palestine, which prompted the Roman leadership to replace him with someone less oppressive. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:10, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

If so, that should certainly be included in the article. I'm not trying to say he was necessarily a great guy. But the fact that he 'washed his hands' of the matter of Christ's execution is supported by all the original sources (I.E. the Gospels & Apocrypha(sp?)) & I can find no evidence to support this conspiracy theory that the whole thing was cooked up later. weaseLOId~ 17:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

It's very difficult to say anything certain about the situation with so few sources, but I'd say that the way Pilate handled it would not be out of character for a Roman governor in an unstable province. Also, as always, one should remember that the Gospels and Apocrypha differ in their accounts and interpretations of the event. For instance, I think the hand-washing is only in one of the Gospels. (Matthew? Can't remember.) --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:37, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

You might be right. But we certainly shouldn't be putting a baseless theory out as fact. I'll try & research + write a proper article in the next few days. weaseLOId~ 20:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

If you read "who killed jesus" by D. Crossian (sp), or his scholary work about the same topic, he goes into depth regarding each of the 4 gosples in the context of when they were written, who wrote them, and what politics were likely at play. This is not argumentitve of "is/was" but "very likely" or "not likely at all" since all source material is slim at best. but he does suggest that the idea that pilot "washed his hands of it" was pretty likely "added" into the story in the later books as a way to make the jews look bad and teh romans look, at least "better". other editions along this line include a shift from the soldiers spitting on Jesus, to the soldiers offering him water and the JEWS spitting on jesus. great read.--En attendant Godot_{"«Curiosity is insubordination in its purest form. V.Nabokov»} 21:50, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Weren't the Gospels "cooked up later"? They weren't exactly contemporary accounts, although they are written as if they were. ħuman 23:36, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Yep. some to a greater extent than others. Mark which was probably the earliest of the gosples, was likely written between 40-50CE, so 10-20 years after the death of Jesus. (and please remember that for people with out medicine or good nutrition, being 35 (jesus' age at death, give or take) is *old*... 10-20 years after his death it remains unlikely too many of the actual diciples would be alive) Then Matthew & Luke, and lastly John (possibly written even up to 100 years after the death of Jesus). Each gospel was written for a different church, making different moral and social arguments about this man Jesus and what he did or did not do for people - and which people he was here *for*. Engles (mary, maybe...) writes about the same stuff, but focuses on the gnostic texts. Even open minded Christians tend to forget that religion is always about politics, and that much of what was said/done in the early churches was a war between 3 or 4 "surving power house churches" trying to get supremicy over this man Jesus. Catholicsm as we know it, is the winner, not cause of truth, but because of the numbers game. --En attendant Godot_{"«Curiosity is insubordination in its purest form. V.Nabokov»} 00:02, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, that's what I thought I said ;) Thanks. ħuman 00:13, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Never say in short, pointed pith what you can ramble on about for hours - joe biden and al gore. ;-)--En attendant Godot_{"«Curiosity is insubordination in its purest form. V.Nabokov»} 00:19, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Wait, Joe Blidendumadaddendum and Algoreonandonarithm? Sorry, it was the best I could do on short notice. ħuman 01:13, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

When dealing with this time period, you'll rarely find a source that was not "cooked up later". 20 years is practically contemporary compared to many other sources. For instance, the best source we have about Alexander the Great is the Campaigns of Alexander by Arrianus from the early 2nd century CE, some 500 years after Alexander lived. Older and less reliable sources exist, but none earlier than the 1st century BCE. All of these use various older sources that are now lost, but use the material in different ways, sometimes presenting "Alexanders" that are completely different from each other. In comparison, the source material available for Jesus is actually unusually good. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 04:47, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

I've expanded the article based on what i could find out from Wikipedia & the Gospels themselves. Since y'all obviously know more about the subject than me, & have a wider range of sources, please help to expand it further. weaseLOId~ 18:26, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I've used Josephus as Wikipedia has some serious bias problems when it comes to the NT and the canonal Gospels can be shown to be unreliable as far as actual history is concerned.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Just a thought

Should we have a "Talk like a Pilate" day? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)