Read John 29:15. The guy who wrote the gospel of John, falsely accuses the Jewish authorities as of saying that their king was Caesar and not Jesus. Obviously for him Caesar was king of the Jews
John 19:15. It has to be read in both a historical context as well as a textual context. The whole purpose of the text was to demonize the Jewish people (or a group of specific Jewish people). It should also be noticed in verse 16, the author of John implies that the Jews, not the Romans crucified Jesus ("Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified." Them has to be understood as Chief Priests (the Jews)). Obviously, there are some historical inaccuracies for the sole purpose of demonizing the Jewish people.
More so, we see that statement (in John 19:15) occurring in none of the other Gospels. So it is a single attestation, which is not the most credible. Especially when we see so much anti-semitism in this Gospel (which John 19:15) only supports.
Basically, the author of John is doing nothing more than mudslinging. It is very similar to when you call others idiots for having different beliefs.
Probably because Herod's sons were not as friendly to Caesar as Herod had been.
Herod Antipas was quite friendly to Caesar. He built a new capital in Galilee in honor of Caesar. He did much of the same things that his father did (just on a smaller scale as he only had a fraction of the land that Herod the Great did).
Wrong! The term "Palestine" started with the Romans and finished in 1948. As Land of Israel, it was for over 4000 years. Since Joshua got in Canaan with the Israelites and until today, except for that break.
You didn't even look at my source did you? I am assuming not as it explained what I've been saying.
Really though, if the term Palestine started with the Romans, my initial statement was correct anyway.
More so, if we read Herodotus (the 5th century B.C.E.), we see the term Palestine being used for that general area. Either way though, Palestine was the correct term.
I never said that Paul wrote the book of Acts. Luke did it. And if it contradicts Paul, too bad! Luke was a disciple of his. One more reason that the book was not Divinely inspired.
Luke never wrote the book of Acts. In fact, the book of Acts, as well as Luke, were written anonymously. It wasn't until around the middle of the second century that titles were given to the books (as well as the other Gospels). In addition, the books themselves never state who wrote them, or even clues as to who did so.
As to the figure of Luke, he is assumed to be a follower of Paul because of the book of Colossians, which is actually a book forged in the name of Paul, states such. So it really isn't a good match. As for Paul, he only mentions Luke once, in a list of various people. So Luke even being a follower of Paul is iffy.
To sum up, Luke did not write Acts of Luke. It was a later day attribution really based on nothing. The writer was not a follower of Paul (which should be obvious as they get so much wrong about Paul, and do not even seem to be aware that Paul ever wrote letters).
Since Luke is not the author, and the author was not a follower of Paul, it means that we should take Paul to be more accurate when in contrast to Acts. Paul was there, the author of Acts wasn't.
Again, Paul should be trusted over Acts. Paul was there, the author of Acts was not.
In that case, he was a psychopatic liar because, according to Acts 22:25-28 he declared to be a free born Roman citizen.
See above. I've explained multiple times why Acts is not accurate. Why Acts contradicts what Paul himself stated. What Acts should not be trusted over Paul.
Paul preached about Jesus as son of God. This is Greek Mythology. Therefore, he was a Hellenistic Jews. And about his being a Pharisee, I am Jewish and I have a course in Judaica for the period between 200 years BCE and 200 ACE, the time for the Gemara. The Pharisees constituted a Jewish Sect of the elite. It was absolutely forbidden for them to accept a Hellenized Jew into their ranks.
Lets start with the idea of Jesus as son of God. Paul states that Jesus was born of the flesh (Galatians 4:4; Romans 9:3-5).
For Paul, Jesus was not considered the son of God until after his death. And this is much like the adoption theology found in Psalms 2:7. Not that Jesus was the literal son of God, but was adopted. It was the same idea that was used when naming an anointed one of God (Messiah), or king.
Greek mythology was quite different. It was the idea that the father was a god. Not so with Jesus. And if that is your defense for Paul being a Hellenistic Jew, then you really have nothing to stand on. Especially since there isn't really a clear line between Hellenistic Judaism and Judaism as a whole (I would call it Palestinian Judaism, but I know you object to the term Palestine). One can even find hellenistic influences in the current Hebrew scripture as well as other books considered scripture in the first century (such as I Enoch). Daniel and Proverbs are good examples.
As for Paul being a Pharisee, all we have to go on is what he states. Both Acts and Paul state the same thing, that he was a Pharisee. If we are to accept Acts, as you are inclined to do so, Acts 22:3 states that Paul studied under Gamaliel (who we both should be able to agree was a Pharisee). That would mean that Paul would have grown up wherever Gamaliel was (in Judea). Now, I don't count this to be factual; however, I point at it because Acts, a book you rely on quite a bit, states such.
More so, it is important to note that during this time, that of Paul, we only have to sources written by Pharisees. That of Paul, and that of Josephus. So the information we have is quite sparse.