Amaleq13

It might help if you attempted to answer the questions put to you rather than avoid or ignore them.

For example:

"What other equally compelling reason might result in the same outcome?"

Thinking about the answer might help you to understand the problem.

Yes, though I have specifically identified an answer that appears to be a reasonable possibility.

That which motivated the authors to force a crucified messiah into Hebrew Scripture. Do you have any rational thoughts about what might have compelled them to do so?

It might help to avoid such an inherently logically problematic (not to mention gramatically incorrect) effort.

Have you established that the crucifixion was derived from Hebrew Scripture? No. Then you really can't make the claim, can you?

You will hold a conclusion you cannot establish until someone somehow convinces you otherwise? That is a faith-based position, amigo, that is really no different from that held by the most closed-minded fundamentalist.

I have seen no evidence that you have a genuine interest in seriously thinking about anything other than supporting the conclusion you already hold. That is a great way to keep a conclusion you prefer but a horrible way to determine if you are correct.

aa5874

I have no problems whatsoever with my position that Jesus appeared to have never been an actual human so could not have been on a literal cross.

In effect, my questions have been answered. I have no problems.

You have questions, you have your own problems.