outhouse

oxy, hell no.


zealots were one of 4 major groups of jews in the first century.

not all were dagger men. and not all took to violence


zealots were not some small sect of violent tax rebels


its almost safe to say that much of the population of Galilee were Zealots, they were not Saducees, but you might have a few Pharisees and Essenes but for the most part the common jew fell into the Zealot influence in that area.


what 2000 men were killed in the tax war in Galilee and what? another 6000 sent to slavery. Romans were brutal to Galileans and Pilate had a perticular hatred towards them. it wouldnt suprise me if jesus had lost family members or friends during the tax war. it was definatly fresh in his memory




please learn history if you want to debate it because now your lack of knowledge is wearing thin with your pitifull insults to opposing views

gurugeorge

How do you know?

Who cares? It's not as if biblical scholarship is a science, whose consensus would be automatically respectable (because based on empirically testable hypotheses).

outhouse

because many people and places and events in the epistles and gospels have complete historicity


So now the real arguement isnt complete mythology, but cherry picking by amateurs, and careful study by scholars to determine, what is and isnt mythology.



no determining history does not follow the scientific method, but if you knew about science, its not sciences job to prove anything. Its not what they do.

they study carefully, test and report findings.



history is not science, its based more on probablilities. The sad thing is people have a tendency to not apply even standards to critical examination of scripture and expect more out of it. Amateurs are very guilty of this, and some scholars to.


with that said, many scientific methods are used to help determine historical events

outhouse

here's a excellent book if you want to learn, instead of thinking you know everything


http://books.google.com/books?id=Xra...page&q&f=false

spin

You're mistaken. You're not a messenger. You're here selling yourself.

You've already shown you've got no message. You've got nothing up your sleeve.

That's the thing. There's nothing to cut. You've been belting away at the same contentlessness since I first noticed your crap. I would love for you to get beyond assertions and naysaying. But any hope for you is forlorn.

Sheshbazzar

You repeat this phrase often. You apparently have someone else in mind than that individual that is described within The NT Gospels, He whom upon multiple occasions proved capable of providing food and entertainment for upwards of 6000 people at a single setting.

And whom traveled about with a retinue of followers with a communal money bag from which they were able, in addition to the supplying all of their own needs, from their surplus, donate alms to the poor.

That one whom at the Pashka Festival, his credit worthiness so renowned that he could order up transportation and provisions simply upon his word, and whom during the busiest night of the year, was able to reserve one of the most desirable dining halls in the entire city in which to hold his private party.

The one that allegedly stated; "For you have the poor with you always, and whenever you wish you may do them good; but Me you do not have always."

And whom when he died, was laid to rest in a brand-new garden tomb prepared for a very wealthy man.

Is that the 'poverty stricken' individual you are talking about?

outhouse

hey Shesh


yes I know, and Caesar was a "son of god"

and Daniel Boone killed a bear with his hands I know.


Ah yes, the mythical 12 we know he never had follwing him.

he most likely had just his inner circle with him as he traveled and healed so he could eat, that is plain as day in scripture.

and of course scripture speeks of how he is proud of the poor and the rich can bite it! lol

he traveles with poor fishermen at that time also like jesus lived a life below a peasant.


They had no money, nor did he want it, remember he learned his methods from john who ate locust and wild honey clothed in a camel hair tunic.


my guess is they had nothing to be taxed for at that point, thus not feeding the roman machine! the enemy.



did I ever say romans didnt deify him and pit him against Caesar? yes he spoke to thousands just like Caesar. but we know thats mythology


no one ever stated there is no mythology. please put up a better fight


he was said to be placed in Josephs tomb, reality is he very well could have been fed to the dogs



No kidding!!! they used mythology in creating their theology LOL wow !!!

Sheshbazzar

So, You don't like or accept what the texts actually say. Do tell. Just how does that give you license to fabricate your own line of horse-shit?

You know nothing.
But ....you have already discredited and rejected the claims of scripture. Which doesn't place you in a position to be arguing anything backed by scripture.
You still have the same problem. You admittedly do not trust or agree with the content of the scriptural accounts, so your allegations are now without support or substance.
You weren't there. You don't believe the Bible. So you wouldn't know. Stop making up shit.

The texts clearly state otherwise.
But then you reject what the texts actually state, so that you can make up your own line of horse-shit.


Good guess. ....but you could have done a lot better, if your presuppositions and arrogance had not blinded you.

Non-sequitur. What does his credit worthiness and the ability to secure a banquet room on a busy night in Jerusalem have to do with Romans deifying him or pitting him against Caesar?
As far as the story reports, he did not go out on a balcony that night to make any public Urbi et Orbi speeches.
You've got some other horse-shit version of The Last Supper that you'd like to present?

I believe that I'm doing well enough here, and whether you are aware of it or not, you are being used.

Care to add that particular scenario to your particular horse-shit version of 'history'? Might as well, it being that you are inventing your 'historical' horse-shit jeSUS on the fly anyway.

Yup.
So that don't leave you one hell of a lot to be claiming as any 'historical' jeSUS.
Really all you are left with is nothing more than the shadow of an invisable grin, around which you attempt to construct a 'historical' Jebus from the horse-shit of your own imaginings.

Thank you so very much, for providing me with this excellent opportunity to call horse-shit, horse-shit yet once again.
I look forward to further such opportunities to be able to call horse-shit on your horse-shit.

יהי־דן נחש עלי־דרך שפיפן עלי־ארח הנשך עקבי־סוס ויפל רכבו אחור׃
שקר הסוס לתשועה וברב חילו לא ימלט׃

".......'salvation' is of the Jews".
I am reciting an ancient Jewish joke. But you simply do not 'get' it. :hysterical:
And when you don't 'get it', you cannot help but become the butt of it.
Sorry...but not really.:Cheeky:
That old YHWH certainly has one hell of a sense of humor. I can hardly wait to see the day when you do finally'get it', till then :hysterical:

Sheshbazzar The Hebrew

outhouse

you should study this atleast a little if it interest you.



its common knowledge historical jesus is not biblical jesus.

Sheshbazzar

You should study this at least a little bit;

יהי־דן נחש עלי־דרך שפיפן עלי־ארח הנשך עקבי־סוס ויפל רכבו אחור׃

שקר הסוס לתשועה וברב חילו לא ימלט׃

And perhaps, if you are a bit perceptive, get a glimmer of something of which you are presently entirely unaware.
I didn't make up, or add to, or subtract a single י yod of it.
Can you read it? If you can, can you interpret its significance?
Only you can say whether you actually know the meaning, the interpretation, and the present application of these ancient words.

No shit Dick Tracy. Whatever gave you a clue? :hysterical:


Sheshbazzar, your friendly Hebrew
(and sometimes comic/tragic comedian)


.