kcdad

aa5874;5911815]
From my imagination? Yes, I guess you could say that. Since Rome executed him (crucifixion was not a Hebrew practice) he must have committed a crime that required capital punishment against Rome.... let's see, what would that be? Blasphemy against a Hebrew God? I don't think so. Failure to pay taxes? Not a capital crime. Fomenting an insurrection? Hey that's sounds good... fits right in with the whole resurrection controversy, too.

It is really tough for people not used to critical thinking to try and understand why non-Jews might want to blame the Jews for Jesus' death.
It is difficult to see why Romans or subjects of Roman Imperial rule might not want to blame Rome for Jesus' death. Of course, The Roman Church wouldn't think about redacting documents or rewriting history, suppressing information or anything sordid like that. (Since you don't believe he existed in the first place, the whole point is rather moot, eh?)

I think you right to think that Pilate was frightened of the Sanhedrin and decided to murder an innocent man. That is fine solid good logic to think that the most powerful Empire in the world was afraid of a small group of pissant Jewish peasants... that is probably why they had so much difficulty about 40 years later wiping out Palestine.

I find no reason to defend The New Testament, why do you?

Read Mark 15. Here Pilate attempts to find out if Jesus is guilty of a capital offense. Are you KING? They say you are King? Are you? NO? Oh ok... he is not guilty. What? You people say he claims to be King? Ok... so Jesus, do you deny it? No? No denial? Fine. There is no presumption of innocence, so with no defense you are guilty. Buh Bye!

kcdad

Well, other than it is completely out of context and doesn't fit in to the flow of the letter at all...

It is clear, and I have never seen anyone (of any merit) argue that Paul was not aware of the Gospel. After his sunstroke episode, he spent quite a while being taught by Ananais.

What he wasn't aware of is the written Gospels According to _______. They were not written, yet. The stories that make up those Gospels were still being passed along orally.

aa5874

Why don't you just quote the passages from the writings of Justin Martyr where he mentioned Paul?

It is a compete waste of time to try to contradict my finding with some unsupported claim by apologetics.

Justin Martyr's writings have no post-ascension history with respect to Peter and the disciples receiving the gifts of the Holy Ghost, where thousands of Jews were converted and many were miraculously healed and raised from the dead.

Justin Matryr's writings have no post-ascension history of letter writers called Paul, Peter, James, John and Jude. And there are no churches named in his writings.

There is nothing about the gospel of circumcision of Peter and the gospel of uncircumcision of Paul.

Justin Martyr's writings have no Pauline influence or information from Acts of the Apostles with respect to Paul, Peter,the disciples, Mark or Luke.

Justin post-ascension history included Simon Magus, Menander a disciple of Magus, but no Paul or Peter.

Justin is influenced by the Jesus stories called memoirs, the Acts of Pilate, and the Revelation of John.

Justin Martyr "Dialogue with Trypho" Justin Martyr was aware of the stolen body story, a stolen body story is found in gMatthew, he did not mention that over 500 people saw Jesus as reported by Paul to churches all over the Roman Empire.

aa5874

It most amazing to me to see people try to fabricate another Jesus story already pre-fabricated by the authors of the NT.

The story has already been written, no amount of critical thinking can change the fact that the authors claimed Jesus was guilty of death for blasphemy.

You cannot guess your own Jesus story and then pretend that your story is likely to be true.

I made no claim whatsoever that the story was true, I just showed that your story did not reflect the information as found in the NT.

You must have forgotten that Jesus of the NT did not exist.

Why do imply that the NT story is false yet claim you believe you know what happened.

Why are you claiming to know how the story should have been written? The authors wrote their stories to fulfill out-of-context prophecies . Jesus did not exist.

Amaleq13

What I've provided is as specific as I've found.

I was hoping Andrew might know the specific basis of the claim.

Shouldn't one wait until after one has read the evidence before reaching one's conclusion?

kcdad

If you say it enough... someone will believe you believe it.

kcdad

Ha ha! What fun is there in that?

show_no_mercy

Not according to Paul's own words:

No mention of being taught by Ananias, or being blinded, falling off of a horse, or having scales fall from his eyes. The conversion story in Acts is a literary allegory ("I was blind [to Christ], but now I see") created by someone who was unaware of Galatians.

kcdad

So? You believe everything Paul wrote? Do you believe anything Paul wrote?

Of course, this says nothing about whether Paul was aware of any written gospel accounts.

Toto

Why believe Acts over Paul on this issue? If Paul had such a dramatic story about his conversion, why would he not tell it?

Here is a chance for you to demonstrate what sort of reasons and critical thinking that you use for accepting some parts of the Bible and not others.