Quote:
Originally Posted by uh-oh
It would be fair to say that i've seen enough evidence of the existence of a man named pontius pilate who was prefect of judea between 26-36 AD, for me to logically think he existed.
I haven't seen enough to say the same for jesus of nazareth.
I have no vested interest in proving or disproving his existence. Im not a christian or an atheist. I dont have an agenda, simply an opinion. I dont think he existed. I think the idea of him is an amalgamation of jewish figures of the time sprinkled with middle eastern mysticism and grecoroman mystery religions. It sprang about during a time when peoples gods were failing them and they were being trampled under the military might of one of the greatest forces this world has ever known. But again its just my goofy opinion.
|
The point I was getting at with Pontius Pilate is that same objection would rule out just about anyone from ancient history. The reality is that most historical figures, whether ancient or modern, just don't write much about themselves.
That's the problem when it comes to discussions like these. People who question the historicity of Jesus apply criteria that are far more demanding that the criteria normally used in evaluating ancient history. "Where are the first-hand accounts?" they demand (of which I'd argue that there are some, but that's ultimately beside the point). "Why weren't any of these accounts written during his lifetime?" -- again, a criterion that historians do not require. "Why didn't he personally write about himself?" and so forth, and so on.
No, there's not very much evidence. But then, there's not very much evidence for any individual who lived that long ago.
You're willing to believe the narrative you want to believe while almost completely discounting the narrative you don't want to believe - when both of them lack in physical evidence.