Is this the most important archaeological discovery ever made...

I'd say Rosetta stone was more important.

>It blows my mind that people thought Pontius Pilate was apocryphal until this stone was discovered

Why? You expect people to just believe the Bible without any evidence?

I still would take the gospels with at least a grain of salt, as they're talking about a man who literally walked above water or that he was beared by a virgin etc. Just like you take the saga talking about Ragnar Loðbrok not too seriously.

I don't exclude the possibility of Jesus beeing a real person or is based on one, there are just many things attributed to his personality or his life that simply didn't or couldn't happen in the real world

Ere long the perfidious archaeologists' deception will be unveiled. Tis nothing more than a conjured artifact. For what is more likely to be the case? That these things which contradict all sensation - that the Roman nation had been far too noble for a weak and corrupt man as Pontius Pilate to have existed - be sensible; or, that the reporteur is guiding us astray?

This

We believe in the Historia Augusta without any evidence

>We

lol

Thanks for your honesty.
t. non-Christian appreciator of Christianty

In the time when historians were looked down upon as tall tellers except by reactionaries like Cicero you won’t believe the bible

The Bible is evidence though? I don't really understand why they're the only historical writings people demand 3rd party verification for to prove their historical veracity while we take every other historical account at face value.

>evidence
But how history used to work is if only one source existed we used that, thus Justinia has geese eat grain off her trap door

Because the Quaran was remembered orally and thus perfect until written down very late

>fairytales
I wish you brainlets would stop regurgitating the same buzzwords at every opportunity

So you question the validity of Anne Frank’s diary too, right?

Everyone knows Anne Frank was a myth and her book was simply an allegory.

Do you question the validity of Night by Elie Weisel, right?

>people thought Pontius Pilate was apocryphal
This was literally only something believed by atheist skeptics who want to deny absolutely everything in the NT because they still define their entire identity with reference to Christianity.

>Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,[g] although the quest for the historical Jesus has produced little agreement on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the historical Jesus.[21][h][i] Jesus was a Galilean Jew[12] who was baptized by John the Baptist and subsequently began his own ministry, preaching his message orally[24] and often being referred to as "rabbi".[25] Jesus debated fellow Jews on how to best follow God, engaged in healings, taught in parables and gathered followers.[26][27] He was arrested and tried by the Jewish authorities,[28] and turned over to the Roman government, and was subsequently crucified on the order of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect.[26]

>Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain[4][5][6][7][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4] although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.[nb 5][13][nb 6][15]:168–173 While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[nb 7] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.[17][nb 8][19][20][21]

>Prelate
kek

I can't believe the "mythical Jesus" theory was ever seriously considered at all. Really shows the desperation of nu-atheists these days.

>Pontius Pilate was apocryphal until this stone was discovered
But Philo's historical work mentioned him tho? It's not like there weren't historical sources for Pilate, even if there wasn't any archeological evidence.

And Jesus was mentioned by Tacitus, that hasn't stopped people claiming he's apocryphal, has it?

>>the most accurate historical documents from that time period
Now, I'm no Jesus myther, but this is pushing things just a bit.

What's a nu-atheist and why would they be desperate? There's less reason now to believe the supernatural claims of any given religious text then there ever has been.

>less reason now than ever before
Not really. It’s just easier to only be exposed to reasons for atheism, now.

FFS that guy referred to the bible as the "most accurate" hostorical source for that time. I thought that to be more wrong, but I'm always ready to be proven wrong :)

>Is this the most important archaeological discovery ever made? It blows my mind that people thought Pontius Pilate was apocryphal until this stone was discovered and proved he was indeed the Prelate in charge of Judea in the early first century. How many other people in history have gone from "Yeah he's probably just a myth" to "Oh shit, I guess he really existed" overnight?

What I have written I have written.

Jesus Christ

>Jesus was mentioned by Tacitus
But Tacitus mentioned Jesus in relation to christians, and you could argue he learned of him through them, as hearsay (tho in the light of much scholarship around Tacitus and his works it's indeed very unlikely that he would have reported their beliefs without checking).
Philo on the other hand talks of Pilate from the point of view of a complaining subject who personally had to deal with the guy, within the context of a review of roman administration of Judea under the reign of Tiberius and Caligola. It's pretty much unassailable outside of dismissing Philo outright as an author.

>What's a nu-atheist
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

>New Atheism is a term coined in 2006 by the agnostic journalist Gary Wolf to describe the positions promoted by some atheists of the twenty-first century. This modern-day atheism is advanced by a group of thinkers and writers who advocate the view that superstition, religion and irrationalism should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever their influence arises in government, education, and politics.
In short, they're cancer

Yeah I remember when a floating hand appeared and wrote shit on a fucking wall

You don't need to accept the supernatural elements of the Bible to analyse it's historicity any more than you need to accept Muhammad was actually a prophet to use the Qu'ran as a basis for what his life was like

>Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically, although the quest for the historical Jesus has produced little agreement on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the historical Jesus. Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was baptized by John the Baptist and subsequently began his own ministry, preaching his message orally and often being referred to as "rabbi". Jesus debated fellow Jews on how to best follow God, engaged in healings, taught in parables and gathered followers. He was arrested and tried by the Jewish authorities, and turned over to the Roman government, and was subsequently crucified on the order of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect.

>Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels. While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness, with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.

Sorry to disappoint you but I am only the author of Gospels
and Revelation (five published works). Nobody killed me.

Thank you for reading my Gospels and Revelation,
hope many future generations enjoy them also.

"Moses 5 books, Jesus 5 books."

Jesus Christ

>historians were looked down upon as tall tellers

Got any contemporary source that discredits all or even most historians from Hellenic and Roman eras of classicsl history?

>it's as historical as every other source that has other primary sources and archeological evidence which corroborate it. You just think that because it's the Bible it's wrong. Just like you took Hesiod's poems verbatim, and the Volsung Saga, and the Epic of Gilgamesh, and Beowulf poems, and etc.

Haha christians worship a dead kike

>it's as historical as every other source that has other primary sources and archeological evidence which corroborate it
Like...The Bible?

Dude, what? Who is talking about taking poems and sagas literally?

kys

>in that time
>contemporary

Yes that's exactly what contemporary means.

>this person the Bible mentions has evidence indicating his existence
>this is archeological corroboration of the entire of the Old Testament

Get back to me when you find some evidence about world-wide floods, prophets parting seas from divine intervention, humans originating from two normal humans several thousand years ago rather than through evolution over millions of years, and the other shit you take at face value.

I’m retarded. I forgot it had two definitions.

The bible
Says humanity went through two genetic bottlenecks of a single familial line.
It says
Jews were mass enslaved by egyptians
It says
At one point an entire city was gay and that city was obliterated with meteorites.
It says
God lost a wrestling match to a human
It says
At one point a mountain was raised on top of an entire people in order to black mail them into circumcision.
It says a
Lot of retarded shit that has no corroborative evidence is what Im saying.
What little evidence there is of similar events only highlights how insanely out of whack and misrepresented tge bible is.

You fell for the oldest and most often used trick in the book.

Not OP, but what trick? Bending facts?

>(((Old Testament)))

The thread is about the historicity of events as described by the books of the New Testament, why are you pulling up shit from the OT that has no relevance to the first century AD? Are you even aware that the Bible is a compilation of books or what?

For fuck’s sake stop shitposting.

He was replying to someone that just made a post saying "the bible".

Isn't it obvious from the context of the thread that we're solely discussing the NT? I didn't think it needed to be explicitly specified, I guess I forgot what type of autists post here.

Yes, you have forgotten what kind of people you share this board with. I was in a thread just yesterday with someone that said because Jesus was in "the bible" and is believed to be historical by historians it proves Moses was as well. These things do have to be spelt out to most Christians I am afraid even if you are a bit more clued up and nuanced.

I don't see it any better in the NT... For example: The NT says that Herodes killed every newborn boy in Palestinia after recieving the message that "a new king was born". No other historical records mentions a mass killing in Palestinia...
Or that Augustus conducted a census for which every citizen had to go back to their place of heritage. The census is somewhat real, but imagine everyone had to move back to where they were born? The economy would collapse without anyone working for several weeks...

Doubting the historicity of Jesus is a rather modern phenomenon, with few backing it.

Artifacts of such important events do make me rock hard. It doesn't even have to be Christian, just something tangible that points to a specific important event in time. I always want to believe they're real.

New Testament is a valid source of historical information on the time period but it needs to be approached with some skepticism.

>But they're definitely the most accurate historical documents from that time period. The fact that the Bible was the only source that Pilate existed until the Pilate stone was found is proof of that.

Pilate was an obscure bureaucrat from some irrelevant backwater. It's only because of Jesus that we're even talking about the guy. You can excuse Roman historians for not listing every minor administrator for every little area.

Pilate is referred to by several near-contemporary, non-Christian ancient writers.

>historical events
>and then the spaghetti monster flew by these proper nouns we plagarized from a reap text... And his red sauce was good. And it proves our degenerate lifestyle is blessed by the the Pasta Pontif.

That's where historical literacy pays off, it's actually quite easy to sift out the events which were a little bit of editors taking liberties. With regard to the census the historical Jesus was clearly from Nazareth, but had to be born in Bethlehem to fulfil the messiah prophecy. Thus the gospels make the specific point of Joseph having to travel there for a census.

>Wow you didn't just assume that when I said "the bible" that I actually meant only part of the bible which best favors my argument and which Christians don't see as any less valid than the New Testament.

Are you suggesting that historians don't think the non-supernatural events of the new testament actually occurred? The depiction of Jesus life as a preacher, his movements and his eventual crucifixion is more or less accepted as fact.

Herod ORDERED the newborns to be killed. Evidently that order was not all that successful, given the fact that newborn Jesus didn’t die.
>the economy would collapse without anyone working for several weeks
Ignoring the fact that many families were self-sufficient and survived off their own farms, many jobs in that time period could easily be filled by whoever was there at the time. One field worker leaves to return to hometown for census, other person who doesn’t have to leave, or moved back to the town the field work left, fills that role.

All sources of everything should be approached with skepticism.

>I actually meant only part of the bible which best favors my argument
Correction I meant only the part of the bible which is directly relevant to the thread, which is the NT. You're the one who saw a chance to go into turbo fedora tip mode and bring up a lot of irrelevant things from the OT to score points.

I'm not even Christian so I have no idea why you're going nuts trying to disprove the Bible to me.

His crucifixion and baptism are pretty much accepted as facts, the rest is argued over ad nauseum with multiple schools of thought on how much of the rest is true and what Jesus' teaching actually consisted of.

>Is more or less accepted as fact

No not really. There's a sizable portion who still don't think Jesus existed as there is no hard evidence for it and his only mention in non-Christian sources are after the fact and by historians that took liberties with verifying fact. There is another sizable portion who thinks he existed but only his baptism and crucifixion are what can be reliably corroborated by non-Christian sources. Beyond that, it's difficult to argue what further is reliably corroborated.

This thread is about Pontius Pilate and other people that were assumed to be myth but have since been proven. Then if you follow the quote chain you will see the posters REPEATEDLY discuss the historical value of "the Bible."

But see above for mostnof what he have historically corroborated by the gospels. (It's not much.)

>There's a sizable portion who still don't think Jesus existed
They're considered fruit-loops by the mainstream. No serious biblical scholar considers the idea that Jesus didn't exist as a serious theory. Bart Ehrman in particular is scathing of people who deny the historical Jesus and says they're more interested in attacking religion than uncover historical truth, an assessment I agree with. You can safely discount anyone who pushes the mythical Jesus theory because inevitably it comes with a whole bunch of anti-Christian polemic that really doesn't have any place in an objective historical examination

This

That's cool that that dude's opinion is people who disagree with him are wrong but I am just simply explaining the scholarly consensus in as unbias a manner as possible. A sizable portion think he has not been proven to exist because of the lack of mention in credible sources (of which Tacitus is not) and no hard evidence. I disagree with this opinion but it is not a discounted belief on the subject among scholars. Furthermore the group of scholars who think Jesus didn't exist far outweigh the group of scholars who think there is historical evidence for his preachings. I agree though that it appears to be the majority think he lived, was baptized, and was crucified which is my belief as well. It is, however, inaccurate to say Jesus's existence is more or less accepted as fact because it is not because it is still not accepted as such by a sizable group.

Virtually no new testament scholars support the Christ myth theory. The very first line about it from wikipedia is:

>The Christ myth theory is the proposition that Jesus never existed, or that if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels. This theory has very little support among current scholars.

It's not a serious theory and it's not supported by any mainstream academics.

ehrmanblog.org/bart-ehrman-robert-price-debate-did-jesus-exist/
>As many of you know, this past October I had a public debate with Robert Price on the question of whether Jesus actually existed. To my knowledge Robert is the only “mythicist” (one who thinks Jesus is a complete myth) who actually has a PhD in the relevant field of New Testament studies. For years I’ve been asked by people to debate a mythicist; I’ve always resisted, in part because I’ve thought that by doing so I would lend credibility to their view, which, in my judgment, is not credible.

So yes, Jesus existence IS actually accepted as fact by ALMOST ALL New Testament scholars. No there is NOT a "sizable portion" who think Jesus never existed and the ones who do push that theory are regarded as wingnuts who have a grudge against religion than an actual historical case.

Don't pull an uncited wiki quote to support your argument. It's worth bo more than citing a post on 4chab. More importantly though, don't pull an uncited blogpost from someone who has every motivation to not be unbias and also qualifies his statement by specifically citing someone with a PhD in New Testament Studies. You don't need a PhD in New Testament studies to be considered a scholar on the subject (i.e. someone qualified to peer review a paper on the matter).

>biblical scholar
there is your problem. biblical scholars are in no way historians you giant dolt.
The wikipedia "article" you quote is a messed up POS with poor references and sourcing, and presents no evidence of the historicity of jesus.

Maria and Joseph fled to Egypt, thats how Jesus survived. And what logic is behind ordering everyone to their place of birth for a census?

>Don't pull an uncited wiki quote to support your argument
You don't get to pick and choose what can be used when you've provided absolutely nothing to back up your own assertions. I've provided multiple quotes from one of the worlds leading New Testament scholars about how the mythical Jesus theory is not supported and you've provided nothing but shit pulled out of your ass about how there is a "sizable portion" who do.

Frankly you're being a bit of a cheeky cunt by saying anything about my sources when you've got absolutely fuck all backing you up but your own word.

No credible historians support the Jesus myth theory either

I don't get to say your sources are uncited when they're uncited? If you wanted sources from me about the support of "jesus myth theory" all you have to do is ask, friend.

You don't get to criticize my sources when you are not producing any of your own. Go ahead and find sources but you'll only be able to find wingnuts.

Thank, that explains it rather then "muh babli iz acurete"

Why?

I don't get it either, how is arguing against superstition in politics cancer?

>sizable
That’s such a nondescription. Majority? Minority? 10%? “Sizable” is so subjective

To get the most accurate census that can compare to past censuses?

>superstition

I know the reason! I'd like to know the logic

Is that reason illogical?

The reason is not, call me a fucking brainlet, but I don't get the logic behind it. How does the census become more accurate when everyone is in their hometown?

Then what about irrationalism?

My best guess would be that it would help determine the number of people that were born or died in any given hometown. From a numbers standpoint. This would help determine rate of population growth in specific areas.

What would atheism have to do with rationalism or irrationalism?

You could simply ask: where were you born?

Wasn't it more like suggest?

Okay, so those wankers think that this is actually the case? FFS, there really are some special kinds among us