I watched the first hour of it at work the other day. It is typical Frontline material, kind of interesting but nothing to get excited over.

Basically, it carries the assumption that there was a real person called Jesus who had a ministry and runs from there. With that assumption, what do we know about the time and place and from that, what can we conclude about the actual guy is the general drift. I tend to think that the rest of it is going to be pretty similar.

Of course there is no plaque.  They're referring to the internal, Gospel evidence.  Of course, they make this assumption only after making other assumptions.  There is no evidence here, only speculation.  And the thought behind it isn't that critical. 

I was expecting some story about a forgery or something, but I guess you're right, it makes sense that he means the internal evidence of the Gospels. The way they edited the segment of video I quoted made it seem like they were talking about an artifact of some sort. Having watched the rest of the first half of the series, they do rely on the Gospels as actual descriptions of events, or at least to 'paint a picture of what it might have been like'.

Thankfully, they quickly move on to Paul and the early Christian movement, which is much more interesting.

Christ on a pogo stick! What part of the words coming out of his mouth did you not understand? He made a claim of fact centered on the existence of the plaque.

Basically, that is about as reasonable as if I were to assert that my collection of vintage Bat Man comic books is proof that Thomas Wayne was murdered by Joe Chill on a contract from Lew Moxon.

I don't care what Tim Burton presented, Jack Napier did NOT kill Thomas Wayne.

Listen, using the Batman or Santa Claus arguments are unnecessary. One could just as easily use examples like Leonidas or Agamemnon or King Arthur to a more reasonable effect. Taking the argument to the absurd is not a reasonable rhetorical device if one is trying to actually discourse (as opposed to ridicule). The problem with using Leonidas or Agamemnon or King Arthur is clear, however: there might be elements within each that have some sort of connection with historical occurrence, even if the depictions themselves are almost assuredly fictional. That doesn't prove or disprove claims of an historical Jesus, though, but the examinations of those figures do give us a methodology for approaching the question of historicity.

Additionally, take a look at the bio-pic movies of the last few decades, particularly the last decade (Ali, Ray, Walk the Line, Ghandi, Alexander, etc.). They show how we (people) can romanticize others, sometimes to ridiculous degrees, even when presenting things that might make the stories seem more realistic (or critical). Could you imagine historical record being created from popular opinion and gossip? The way that the normal, the mediocre or the two-faced can get lionized (or demonized) through the inherent confirmation bias within gossip or urban legend is well-known-- does anyone think this didn't exist 2000 years ago?

What I'm getting at, however, isn't an argument of historicity or not. I'm just pointing out that the methods for finding out whether there's even any veracity to historicity claims aren't black-and-white. People have a tendancy to not only romanticize, they also rewrite certain aspects to self-identify with the romantic figure. It even happens today. We always know to some degree that this has happened to religious figures, including Jesus. Hell, people can't even agree on the historical accuracy about people like Joseph Smith, and his fantasy isn't even two centuries old. If you're going to expect any kind of certainty from two thousand years, you're going to be sorely disappointed.

Actually, in this case it is. Let's assume that it's accepted that Jesus was a historical person who was executed under Roman Rule, now we are trying to gather up data for the reasons he might have been executed. Let's say I believed that Jesus was executed for being an insurrectionist, can I use the beliefs of those living around that time in support of my case? 

All four gospels accounts containing a portrayal of the INRI plaque encrypted with "King of the Jews" which suggest that all four gospel writers believed Jesus was executed for being a political insurrectionist, can be used in support of my claim. 

Do you simply not understand what the word 'evidence' means? Maybe you don't understand 'historical'? Maybe it's the combination of the two, 'historical evidence'?

To call a reference in a story 'historical evidence' is to speak falsely. For a historian to do so is even worse.

It is not evidence of history. It is not evidence from history. It is not historical, and it's certainly not historical evidence. End of argument.

If you can't understand this, then your username suits you well.

Actually existing would be a good start.  Citing an object that nobody has ever found is just making shit up.

Now read my sig.

OK, that is a fair question. Intangible evidence is evidence of intangible things.

Before I continue, let me make my position clear on the matter of “the Jesus myth”. I do not ascribe to the idea that atheism is a religion. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. God does not exist but that does not mean that Jesus did not exist.

Jesus may well have been a real guy and he may well have said certain things.

Real verifiable evidence exists that tell us that the Roman Empire was not based on people being nice to each other. If some radical guy started preaching the message that people ought to be nice to each other, that would have caused a huge cluster fuck.

Just possibly, he would have been executed for that (among other things). Also, it is possible that the plaque was posted on the top of the cross as has been written in the gospels.

So let's say that a year from now, some archaeologist actually finds the plaque and does so in a modern secure manner. What does that tell us?

Well, it tells us that he was real. It tells us that he did as much as he did. However, consider that the four gospels also have four different versions of what was written on the plaque. Finding the thing would also tell us which, if any of them had that part of the story right. Possibly none of them have the exact text down and the real inscription is slightly different from any version.

If only the gospels hadn't been written 40 years after the alledged incident....

You have to make too many assumptions for the Christ story to work - assumptions that aren't supported by any evidence outside of the gospels..

wtf??

supernatural?? when the freak did "unprovable supernatural reasons" come in to the picture? 

And i seriously doubt that's what he was saying. I find it more likely that he was talking about my wife.