Johann_Kaspar

Only because you are stubbornly refusing to consider the evidence pointing in the other direction.

Johann_Kaspar

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

You could start to learn Hebrew and start reading some Hebrew literature... then... perhaps... But I reckon it is difficult to get rid of so strong a prejudice.

Johann_Kaspar

Only for you and your kind. Why do you think one man would be crucified by the Romans
"Paul", contrary to Yeshua, never existed. Literature.
I see that you are using, like the xians, late misunderstanding of the gospel. :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Steven Avery

Nope, Matthew testifies with Mark, you have to read with more depth.
When Matthew gets to the actually crafty attempt to trick Jesus
he shows the Herodian-Pharisee alignment.

Matthew 22:15-18
Then went the Pharisees,
and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians,
saying, Master, we know that thou art true,
and teachest the way of God in truth,
neither carest thou for any man:
for thou regardest not the person of men.
Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou?
Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said,
Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

The whole argument of incredulity is very flimsy.
Folks make alliances every day with their political opponents
.. that is the nature of .. politics.

I even gave an example on this forum the other day. The
largely conservative folks battling for the life of Theresa Schindler
were pleased to see a cogent supporting article by a fellow
often considered leftist, Nat Hentoff, writing in the Village Voice.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

sharrock

Just something I read, and am throwing into the melting pot, my level of expertise is such that I couldn't argue either way...

"When Plinius Caecilius was sent to Bithynia-Pontus in 110 or 111 AD, he came into contact with the early Christians, and the letters to emperor Traianus in which he speaks of these encounters and his subsequent actions are regarded as the first airtight mention of early Christianity, the one that all scholars can agree on."

aa5874

Is that your input? I am looking for credible information to support the historicity of Jesus the Christ. Can you explain whether or not the virgin birth, the baptism, the temptation, the miraculous acts, the transfiguration, the resurrection or the ascension supports non-historicity?

I am immune to innuendoes.

aa5874

The Romans crucified thosands of people in the 1st century.

Chris Weimer

Why? You're the one who is arguing that.

mountainman

Not all scholars agree that this fragment of the literary tradition
has the utmost integrity with respect to history. AFAIK this is
first reported by Tertullian, along with many other documents
which are also now known to be totally fraudulent and bogus,
such as the Report of Pilate to Caesar, and for Pilate's conversion
to Christianity.

Like the other Fathers, Tertullian is also in the ranks of patristic
forgers of holy fables, being either the author or the publisher
of "The Passion of the Holy Martyrs Perpetua and Felicitas",
the fabulous Martyrdom of two of the Church's most celebrated
bogus Saints, annexed to his accredited works. (ANF. iii, 699-706.)

--- Joseph Wheless

mountainman

In the first century BCE one million Gauls were killed by the Roman
army, and a further million Gauls taken away as slaves. (Plutarch?)

2000 jews from the town of Emmaus were crucified by Trajan
early in the second century, according to the Roman historian
Florus Quintilius Varus. Trajan is also described as having been
guily of genocide, in the obliteration of the Dacians.

An inscription (Trajan) in “Temple of Augustus, Ankara,
Turkey” reads:

“Three times I gave gladiatorial shows in my own name,
and five times in the name of my sons or grandsons, in
which shows about 10,000 men fought to the death”

-- These are ROMAN QUALITIES: - Not Barbarian.