Vivisector

Maybe interesting, maybe not, but I understand that the phrase in Luke 23:32 can just as easily be translated as "two other criminals."

Cheers,

V.

archibald

It's the most coherent, parsimonious explanation for the evidence.

Next question.

Got any tricky ones? :]

spin

That smug complacency is just the sound of hegemony.

The earliest information we have about the Jesus religion comes from Paul who never met Jesus, so the trail runs cold with Paul. You can't get back any earlier. All you get is interpretation of Paul. He means this or that, which again is probably hegemony speaking, especially when we have to face the notion of orthodox corruption of scripture: Paul is made to say what is orthodox. One could read J.C. O'Neill on Pauline interpolation (eg in The Pauline Canon, Vol.1, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Brill 2004). He argues that 2nd c. writers didn't know Paul well at all. The first notable person to deal with Paul is Marcion and then Paul is already collected, so individual letters may have long stopped circulating, allowing for the control of the corpus.

As the trail runs cold with Paul, we should be left with the most parsimonious explanation being that he dreamed it up or had a revelation, though if Paul has been edited as our DCHindley suggests, the story might be even further clouded.

aa5874

You have ZERO credible evidence from antiquity for an historical Jesus who was born in Nazareth.

You are ENGAGED in Rhetoric or logical fallacies.

What is the evidence from antiquity that explains that Jesus was an ordinary man?

Please. We don't need any TRICK answers.

Virtually Every single EXTANT source of antiquity that has been examined so far has FAILED to show a historical character of Nazareth who was ORDINARILY baptized by John.

aupmanyav

Or perhaps he managed to evade arrest, scooted (in the melee).

aupmanyav

Of course, the Romans were in charge. So, even in a story, the act had to have the acceptance of the Romans. And as many people say, Romans had the least interest in internal squabbles of jews. So, when the majority party said 'hang him', they said OK. A rebel posing as King of Jews was a nuisance for Romans also.

aa5874

Even in the NT itself, Jesus did NOT tell the Jews he was King of the Jews and Jesus did NOT want the Jews to know about him.

What is the credible source of antiquity that state a character from Nazareth told people he was King of the Jews?

Even in the NT, Jesus did NOT even tell his disciples he was the Messiah. It was PETER who TOLD Jesus he was the Messiah.

It was ONLY AFTER Peter told Jesus he was the Messiah that Jesus repeated the claims of Peter but ONLY in PRIVATE conversations with the disciples.

But, BEFORE the Jesus stories were finished, Peter would BLATANTLY and PUBLICLY DENY knowing or associated with Jesus.

We know what the Jews called Jesus in the NT and it was NOT King of the Jews.

In the NT, the Jews thought Herod killed the King of the Jews when he killed all the children in Judea from 2 years and below.

EmmaZunz

According to Gospels - accused of blasphemy by Sanhedrin.

For Romans - for rebellion as "King" of the Jews?