Jesus Crucified For Blasphemy Or Treason?

I don't believe that Jesus was a real person. The same story was told about a man named Joseph, and men of all kind's of religion's. Truth is only truth, if you believe in it. That's what makes thing's real. So for the believer's in Jesus, more power to you. If that's what it takes to get that good feeling on the inside and live a good life, I think you should stick with it. But, on the same token. You have to go by historian's and philosopher's and such. For instance, there were no record's of a man named Jesus, in that time period, according to all historian's. Nobody noted of this great man that could, indeed, walk on water, make water into wine, make food. That's all fable and folk-lore as far as modern day historian's are concerned. But, again, it's all belief, and what YOU believe, IS the truth, regardless of what anybody else say's, that's the beauty of life. And there is nobody that can take that from you. Who 'invented', heaven and hell? Are these physical places in some far away galaxy? How come there are only two option's, not heaven, hell and another placed referred to as whatever you would like to call it. Heaven and hell is just a way to seperate good from bad. Evil and good. Heaven and Hell. Whatever it is that you would like to call these places. Regardless, we are all living being's and live to feel good and satisfied and full on the inside. I don't need the bible, the dallah llama or anyone else spiritual to figure out, that our mind's are what control this world that we're in. So we all need to think for the best, for ourselves and other's. Show appreciation for life. Give gratitude. Be Patient and love life, regardless of who think's you are right or wrong about your belief's. Just believe and it will become your reality, guarenteed!!!!!!! thank's if you read this whole thing and sorry to anybody that might of taken offense to this, I was not meaning to offend anybody...take care

BradyBoe said:

I don't believe that Jesus was a real person. The same story was told about a man named Joseph, and men of all kind's of religion's. Truth is only truth, if you believe in it. That's what makes thing's real. So for the believer's in Jesus, more power to you. If that's what it takes to get that good feeling on the inside and live a good life, I think you should stick with it. But, on the same token. You have to go by historian's and philosopher's and such. For instance, there were no record's of a man named Jesus, in that time period, according to all historian's. Nobody noted of this great man that could, indeed, walk on water, make water into wine, make food. That's all fable and folk-lore as far as modern day historian's are concerned. But, again, it's all belief, and what YOU believe, IS the truth, regardless of what anybody else say's, that's the beauty of life. And there is nobody that can take that from you. Who 'invented', heaven and hell? Are these physical places in some far away galaxy? How come there are only two option's, not heaven, hell and another placed referred to as whatever you would like to call it. Heaven and hell is just a way to seperate good from bad. Evil and good. Heaven and Hell. Whatever it is that you would like to call these places. Regardless, we are all living being's and live to feel good and satisfied and full on the inside. I don't need the bible, the dallah llama or anyone else spiritual to figure out, that our mind's are what control this world that we're in. So we all need to think for the best, for ourselves and other's. Show appreciation for life. Give gratitude. Be Patient and love life, regardless of who think's you are right or wrong about your belief's. Just believe and it will become your reality, guarenteed!!!!!!! thank's if you read this whole thing and sorry to anybody that might of taken offense to this, I was not meaning to offend anybody...take care

Click to expand...

There are lots of historical documents about jesus

fish601 said:

Josephus really thought Jesus had been 'the Christ' surely he would have added more about him than one paragraph.

i think jesus is the christ i havent written much on him does that mean i dont believe?

*they mention Christ*

*Thallus (c. 50-75AD)

*Phlegon (First century)

* Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, c.93)

* Tacitus (Annals, c.115-120)

* Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c. 125)

* Galen (various writings, c.150)

* Celsus (True Discourse, c.170).


* Mara Bar Serapion (pre-200?)

* Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses)

*Lucian (Second century)

*Numenius (Second cent.)

*Galerius (Second Cent.)


we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources





.

Click to expand...

You are ridiculous.

You could write a bible about Jesus' life but it would be based 100% anecdotal evidence (just like ALL of the "sources" that you cited).

EVERY SINGLE WRITING THAT YOU HAVE CITED WAS WRITTEN POSTHUMOUSLY. The closest of which you have cited 20 - 45 years AFTER Jesus' death and the furthest is 200 years AFTER his death.

You are talking about someone that was parading around as the son of GOD, doing miracles, healing people; yet we have not one painting of him, not one sculpture, not one written first-hand account from someone who was alive during Jesus' time on earth (you would think witnessing the son of GOD would inspire A LOT of people). It is just ludicrous that 1979 years after his "death" you can parade around and trumpet the life of a man (and the religion that is based on his "life") that we know nothing about. There is only but one reasonable explanation for this. Jesus never existed.

The Story of Jesus is an Astrological Allegory for the Sun passing through the Zodiac each year

http://members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/bibleastrology.html

tnrtinr said:

You are ridiculous.

You could write a bible about Jesus' life but it would be based 100% anecdotal evidence (just like ALL of the "sources" that you cited).

EVERY SINGLE WRITING THAT YOU HAVE CITED WAS WRITTEN POSTHUMOUSLY. The closest of which you have cited 20 - 45 years AFTER Jesus' death and the furthest is 200 years AFTER his death.

You are talking about someone that was parading around as the son of GOD, doing miracles, healing people; yet we have not one painting of him, not one sculpture, not one written first-hand account from someone who was alive during Jesus' time on earth (you would think witnessing the son of GOD would inspire A LOT of people). It is just ludicrous that 1979 years after his "death" you can parade around and trumpet the life of a man (and the religion that is based on his "life") that we know nothing about. There is only but one reasonable explanation for this. Jesus never existed.

The Story of Jesus is an Astrological Allegory for the Sun passing through the Zodiac each year

http://members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/bibleastrology.html

In a brief 5 minute skimming; that link accurately and concisely flips your whole belief system upside-down.​

Please save yourself from your Google and Yahoo fact finding missions. Repetitions of the same lies do not make them truth. Ironically, Yahoo makes you look like a yahoo.​

Click to expand...

one thing for sure is Jesus was a real person.


if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." M. Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review,

A Roman historian who lived through the reign of over a half-dozen Roman emperors1, Tacitus has been called "the greatest historian of ancient Rome. His most famous works are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals covers from 14 A.D. to approximately 68 A.D. (the death of Augustus up to the time of Nero), while Histories proceeds from 68 A.D. (Nero's death) to 96 A.D. (the time of Domitian).
Here is what Tacitus wrote concerning the history of Jesus, and the existence of Christians in Rome:

fish601 said:

one thing for sure is Jesus was a real person.


if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." M. Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review,

A Roman historian who lived through the reign of over a half-dozen Roman emperors1, Tacitus has been called "the greatest historian of ancient Rome. His most famous works are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals covers from 14 A.D. to approximately 68 A.D. (the death of Augustus up to the time of Nero), while Histories proceeds from 68 A.D. (Nero's death) to 96 A.D. (the time of Domitian).
Here is what Tacitus wrote concerning the history of Jesus, and the existence of Christians in Rome:

"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the price could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also." (Annals XV, 44)1.
​

Click to expand...

Greatest fraud in history. Again you cite a source that was written posthumously.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Cornelius Tacitus (c.55-117 AD) [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Christianity has no part in Tacitus's history of the Caesars. Except for one questionable reference in the Annals he records nothing of a cult marginal even in his own day.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sometime before 117 AD, the Roman historian apparently wrote: [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
As we have seen, the term 'Christian' was not in use during the reign of Nero and there would not have been 'a great crowd' unless we are speaking of Jews, not Christians. 'Jewish/Christians' – being perceived by Roman authorities (and the populace at large) simply as Jews meant that early Christ-followers also got caught up in general attacks upon the Jews. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
One consequence of the fire which destroyed much of Rome in 64 AD was a capitation tax levied on the Jews and it was the Jews – throughout the empire – who were required to pay for the city’s rebuilding – a factor which helped to radicalise many Jews in the late 60s AD.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Not for the first time would Christian scribes expropriated the real suffering of a whole people to create an heroic 'origins' fable...[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]No Christian apologist for centuries ever quoted the passage of Tacitus – not in fact, until it had appeared almost word-for-word in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, in the early fifth century, where it is mixed in with other myths. Sulpicius's contemporaries credited him with a skill in the 'antique' hand. He put it to good use and fantasy was his forte: his Life of St. Martin is replete with numerous 'miracles', including raising of the dead and personal appearances by Jesus and Satan.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]His dastardly story of Nero was embellished during the Renaissance into a fantastic fable with Nero 'fiddling while Rome burned'. Nero took advantage of the destruction to build his 'Golden House' though no serious scholar believes anymore that he started the fire (we now know Nero was in his hometown of Antium – Anzio – when the blaze started.) Indeed, Nero opened his palace garden for temporary shelter to those made homeless.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In short, the passage in Tacitus is a fraud and adds no evidence for a historic Jesus. [/FONT]

tnrtinr said:

Greatest fraud in history. Again you cite a source that was written posthumously.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Cornelius Tacitus (c.55-117 AD) [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Christianity has no part in Tacitus's history of the Caesars. Except for one questionable reference in the Annals he records nothing of a cult marginal even in his own day.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sometime before 117 AD, the Roman historian apparently wrote: [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Their deaths were made farcical. Dressed in wild animals' skins , they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or made into torches to be ignited after dark as substitutes for daylight." [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]– Tacitus (Book 15, chapter 44): [/FONT]

​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As we have seen, the term 'Christian' was not in use during the reign of Nero and there would not have been 'a great crowd' unless we are speaking of Jews, not Christians. 'Jewish/Christians' – being perceived by Roman authorities (and the populace at large) simply as Jews meant that early Christ-followers also got caught up in general attacks upon the Jews. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Their effects to dissemble their Jewish origins were detected by the decisive test of circumcision; nor were the Roman magistrates at leisure to enquire into the difference of their religious tenets."[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]– Edward Gibbon (Decline and Fall)[/FONT]

​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]One consequence of the fire which destroyed much of Rome in 64 AD was a capitation tax levied on the Jews and it was the Jews – throughout the empire – who were required to pay for the city’s rebuilding – a factor which helped to radicalise many Jews in the late 60s AD.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Not for the first time would Christian scribes expropriated the real suffering of a whole people to create an heroic 'origins' fable...[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]No Christian apologist for centuries ever quoted the passage of Tacitus – not in fact, until it had appeared almost word-for-word in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, in the early fifth century, where it is mixed in with other myths. Sulpicius's contemporaries credited him with a skill in the 'antique' hand. He put it to good use and fantasy was his forte: his Life of St. Martin is replete with numerous 'miracles', including raising of the dead and personal appearances by Jesus and Satan.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]His dastardly story of Nero was embellished during the Renaissance into a fantastic fable with Nero 'fiddling while Rome burned'. Nero took advantage of the destruction to build his 'Golden House' though no serious scholar believes anymore that he started the fire (we now know Nero was in his hometown of Antium – Anzio – when the blaze started.) Indeed, Nero opened his palace garden for temporary shelter to those made homeless.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In short, the passage in Tacitus is a fraud and adds no evidence for a historic Jesus. [/FONT]

Click to expand...

He indicates that Christians in Rome were dying for their faith. probably one reason you dont have alot of people writing bout him.

that statement appears in every known copy of the just thought i would mention that.

ya think if someone forged it they would of put something that made jesus/christians look good?

fish601 said:

He indicates that Christians in Rome were dying for their faith. probably one reason you dont have alot of people writing bout him.

that statement appears in every known copy of the just thought i would mention that.

ya think if someone forged it they would of put something that made jesus/christians look good?

Click to expand...

It is a fraud.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

Authenticity and reliability

The passage contains an early non-Christian reference to the origin of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Bible's New Testament gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in first-century Rome. While a majority of scholars consider the passage authentic, some dispute it.[5] Some supporting authenticity argue it is too critical of Christians to have been added by later Christian scribes.[citation needed]
Some who argue against authenticity assert:[6][7]

• No early Christian writers refer to Tacitus even when discussing the subject of Nero and Christian persecution. Tertullian, Lactantius, Sulpicius Severus, Eusebius and Augustine of Hippo make no reference to Tacitus when discussing Christian persecution by Nero, however the Tacitus text itself demonstrates that it may be a good resource for Christians to refer to since the text derides Christians and Christianity thus proving it to be free of later tampering by Christians.[8] [9]

• Pontius Pilate's rank was prefect when he was in Judea.[10] The Tacitus passage mistakenly calls Pilate a procurator, an error also made in translations of a passage by Josephus.[11] (However, Josephus wrote in Greek and never used the Latin term.) It should be noted that after Herod Agrippa's death in AD 44, when Judea reverted to direct Roman rule, Claudius gave procurators control over Judea.[12][13] This was made possible when he augmented the role of procurators so that they had magisterial power.[14][15] Tacitus, who rose through the magisterial ranks[16][17] to become consul and then proconsul had a precise knowledge of significance of the terms involved and knew when Judea began to be administered by procurators. It is therefore problematical that he would use "procurator" instead of "prefect" to describe the governor of Judea prior to the changes that he tells us Claudius brought in.
• The passage implies that the Christians may have been guilty of setting fire to Rome, another argument against veracity, for Tacitus was attempting to lay the blame of the fire on Nero by aspersion.[18]
• Another ancient writer, Suetonius, mentions Christians being harmed during this period by Nero, but there is no connection made with the fire[19].[20]

Christians or Chrestians?


Detail of the Medicean manuscript showing the word 'Christianos'. The large gap between the 'i' and 's' has been highlighted; under ultraviolet light an 'e' is visible in the gap, replacing the 'i'


The surviving copies of Tacitus' works derive from two principal manuscripts, known as the Medicean manuscripts, which are held in the Laurentian Library, and written in Latin. It is the second Medicean manuscript which is the oldest surviving copy of the passage describing Christians. In this manuscript, the first 'i' of the Christianos is quite distinct in appearance from the second, looking somewhat smudged, and lacking the long tail of the second 'i'; additionally, there is a large gap between the first 'i' and the subsequent long s. Georg Andresen was one of the first to comment on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap, suggesting in 1902 that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'[21].
In 1950, at Harald Fuchs request, Dr. Teresa Lodi, the director of the Laurentian Library, examined the features of this item of the manuscript; she concluded that there are still signs of an 'e' being erased, by removal of the upper and lower horizontal portions, and distortion of the remainder into an 'i'.[22] In 2008, Dr. Ida Giovanna Rao, the new head of the Laurentian Library's manuscript office, repeated Lodi's study, and concluded that it is likely that the 'i' is a correction of some earlier character (like an e), the change being made an extremely subtle one. Later the same year, it was discovered that under ultraviolet light, an 'e' is clearly visible in the space, meaning that the passage must originally have referred to chrestianos, a Latin word which could be interpreted as the good, after the Greek word χρηστός (chrestos), meaning 'good, useful'. "I believe that in our passage of Tacitus the original reading Chrestianos is the true one" says Professor Robert Renehan, stating that it was "natural for a Roman to interpret the words [Christus and Christianus] as the similarly-sounding χρηστός".[23] The word Christian/s is in Codex Sinaiticus (in which Christ is abbreviated - see nomina sacra) spelled Chrestian/s in the three places the word is used. Also in Minuscule 81 this spelling is used in Acts of the Apostles 11:26.[24]

which word are we talking about< " his was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, "

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html

give it a read.

some people believe hitler didnt exist

fish601 said:

some people believe hitler didnt exist

Click to expand...

You're now comparing Hitler to Jesus? I'll continue to play along.

We have all the evidence that we do not have with Jesus - videos, photographs, first-hand written accounts, minutes of meetings, sculptures, paintings, prison records, manuscripts, letters, daily schedules, property owned, legal marriage, the list goes on and on. All of which were created during his lifetime.

I can see where there may be doubt that Hitler existed if all we had was a brief (single paragraph) second hand account from 30 years after his death that had since been proven adulterated and other stories written centuries later like your character.

tnrtinr said:

You're now comparing Hitler to Jesus? I'll continue to play along.

We have all the evidence that we do not have with Jesus - videos, photographs, first-hand written accounts, minutes of meetings, sculptures, paintings, prison records, manuscripts, letters, daily schedules, property owned, legal marriage, the list goes on and on. All of which were created during his lifetime.

I can see where there may be doubt that Hitler existed if all we had was a brief (single paragraph) second hand account from 30 years after his death that had since been proven adulterated and other stories written centuries later like your character.

Click to expand...

right with all that evidence we have on hitler some people still do not believe
get my point? bah i will tell you anyways
if we had the same info on jesus i am sure you would still deny him.

for the time period that jesus lived we have alot of info on him, what like 95% of the people couldnt read, noone doubted the miracls he did and who he claimed to be, so why would people feel the need to write about him, everyone knew.

also christians were being killed for their faith so you wouldnt see me writting about him

fish601 said:

right with all that evidence we have on hitler some people still do not believe
get my point? bah i will tell you anyways
if we had the same info on jesus i am sure you would still deny him.

for the time period that jesus lived we have alot of info on him, what like 95% of the people couldnt read, noone doubted the miracls he did and who he claimed to be, so why would people feel the need to write about him, everyone knew.

also christians were being killed for their faith so you wouldnt see me writting about him

Click to expand...

NO - If you had any of that evidence I would believe. The fact is there is NO evidence that the son of god EVER existed outside of the bible and other SHORT works that were ALL written posthumously.

The son of god comes (the most important / significant person EVER) and there is NO evidence of his 30 years on earth. If there was a guy roaming the earth making miracles - that 5% that could read and write would have followed him and cataloged EVERYTHING he did; just like any top journalist would do today.

If I truly believed that I witnessed the son of god and followed his message; I would be 100% CONTENT dying for my beliefs because I would KNOW that I would be going to a better place. Sounds like you don't have much faith after all.

TeaTreeOil said:

People believe in the Bible??? Wow. You realize it's a work of fiction, right?

Your post was tl;dr... why am I posting here?

Click to expand...

Bible is a book of symbols, and not history... most believers take it as history, but its not...
one must understand the symbols to be able to understand the message...

tnrtinr said:

NO - If you had any of that evidence I would believe. The fact is there is NO evidence that the son of god EVER existed outside of the bible and other SHORT works that were ALL written posthumously.

The son of god comes (the most important / significant person EVER) and there is NO evidence of his 30 years on earth. If there was a guy roaming the earth making miracles - that 5% that could read and write would have followed him and cataloged EVERYTHING he did; just like any top journalist would do today.

If I truly believed that I witnessed the son of god and followed his message; I would be 100% CONTENT dying for my beliefs because I would KNOW that I would be going to a better place. Sounds like you don't have much faith after all.

Click to expand...

There is alot of evidence, but if you have looked into it and still dont believe then i guess you can be wrong.

If they were shooting people in the head that confessed jesus would you run around confessing jesus? even if they were 100% sure that didnt make them forget about common sence

fish601 said:

There is alot of evidence, but if you have looked into it and still dont believe then i guess you can be wrong.

If they were shooting people in the head that confessed jesus would you run around confessing jesus? even if they were 100% sure that didnt make them forget about common sence

Click to expand...

No, don't mince words. THERE IS NO (ZERO, ZILTCH, NADDA, NIL) EVIDENCE.

If I met Jesus and believed everything he said and hence believed in God, I would have no problem being killed and spending the rest of eternity in heaven. Sounds like you do not have too much confidence in your faith. Hypocrisy is a very Christian thing (I believe in this, so should you; but actually I don't believe in it enough to die for it).

tnrtinr said:

No, don't mince words. THERE IS NO (ZERO, ZILTCH, NADDA, NIL) EVIDENCE.

If I met Jesus and believed everything he said and hence believed in God, I would have no problem being killed and spending the rest of eternity in heaven. Sounds like you do not have too much confidence in your faith. Hypocrisy is a very Christian thing (I believe in this, so should you; but actually I don't believe in it enough to die for it).

Click to expand...

lol, wow, no evidence ok sure and umm how do you know?

lol again, i believe in god but if they were killing people for it i would not go stand in the line. i would hide and secretly tell people the truth.

PVS said:

is that hypocrisy or just straight up idiocy?

you're an antagonist who needs to feel right and win on the internet, even if you claim is completely baseless. you have continuously behaved in an insulting manner and deny it. you claim to have refuted evidence yet you simply ignored it.

Click to expand...

I do not "need to feel right", I simply enjoy it when I am. You don't know me. I always concede when I am wrong. Happens quite a bit. I haven't ignored anything.

PVS said:

then the mother of all facepalms, you can't seem to grasp the difference between:

1 political motive for his execution

...AND...

2 pilate's charge. the charge for which roman law was carried out (roman law being represented directly through pilate's decision)

Click to expand...

I said reason. As in basis of cause. Your argument is, and has been, that the technicality which you presume was motivated for one reason over another with 0 evidence to support, is the REASON he was put to death. Not only is your position completely unsupportable, it is fundamentally flawed.

You do not know what being the son of the One TRUE God meant to Caesar or Pilate. If you stood before Caesar and said I am the living Son of the One TRUE God, and I will take my seat at the right hand of power when I die... he would put that to the test.

PVS said:

...and then go on to call your interpretation "the word of god". nice.

Click to expand...

It isn't an interpretation.

Mark 14:64 - Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

You are the one attempting to interpret the bible. I find it quite clear without need of interpretation. Every reference in the bible to his death supports this reason. NONE support yours... which is why you don't actually KNOW the charge of the Romans for which he was executed.

PVS said:

you did a wonderful job of dodging the factual point that jeruselum did NOT have the right of the sword and thus their own charges meant NOTHING to roman law. if a terrirory did not have the consent of rome to carry out capital trial and punishment, then those trials/punishments were a matter of state law and state protocol.

Click to expand...

Consent. Yes. Say it with me. Consent.

PVS said:

again, the jews had no right to charge jesus of a capital crime.
blasphemy to judaism was not a capital crime and christ was executed by rome (to keep the peace) under the charge of high treason

Click to expand...

They did bring him forward with charges. Several. Nowhere does any literature say high treason.

PVS said:

so come up with another worthless post to dissuade me. then you can give yourself another pat on the back and victory speech while declaring your intellectual superiority in front of an audience of...4.

Click to expand...

I don't want to come up with another one... I want to reiterate the same one.

Why do you assume his offense to Caesar was not that he was (supposedly) claiming to be the Son of the One true God? Why did Pilate ask so many questions about his blasphemy? About his being the Son of the Jewish God? Why did he ask these questions if blasphemy was not against Roman law? BECAUSE CAESAR IS THE ONLY GOD MAN ALLOWED.

Again... even if you ignore the bible... which Christians are want to do... the implication is that his faith was still the REASON the Romans put him to death.

fish601 said:

lol, wow, no evidence ok sure and umm how do you know?

Click to expand...

I have heard of blind faith; but you are just blind.