How surprising to see you enthusiastically wallowing in blood libel ... :clapI thought this was interesting, because ...
So, any comment?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How surprising to see you enthusiastically wallowing in blood libel ... :clapI thought this was interesting, because ...
So, any comment?
What!?!?There is more evidence for Jesus' existence than for virtually every person from antiquity.
.I thought this was interesting, because on another thread, Dan asserted that the Jews didn't cause Jesus to die and they have absolutely nothing to do with it.
Are you sure?
.
It's fiction and not at all relevant, but to answer the question,
What does Matthew say?
22"What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?" Pilate asked.
They all answered, "Crucify him!"
23"Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate.
But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!"
24When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!"
25All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"
Sounds like the Jews had something to do with it as far as Matthew is concerned.
As far as all the gospel writers were concerened it was important to make the Jews into the "bad" guys, not the Romans. As an emerging new religion it was important to not **** the Romans off. It makes sense their writings would be trying to keep the peace with the Romans. It also makes sense that they would blame the Sanhedrian sp? because they had rejected the new religion and their supposed Messiah. The gospels are a political piece of propoganda in a time when it was important to know who to side with!!.
It's fiction and not at all relevant, but to answer the question,
What does Matthew say?
22"What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?" Pilate asked.
They all answered, "Crucify him!"
23"Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate.
But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!"
24When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!"
25All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"
Sounds like the Jews had something to do with it as far as Matthew is concerned.
What!?!?
Josephus is worthless, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny mention the title "Christus;" meaning it could have been anybody, and the disciples' "fifty years after" testimony ain't flying... but I haven't actually done the research, so my second hand stuff may be fluff...
Let me mention the research I have done. Lucius Cornelius Sulla. Ever hear of that guy? After his death, the Roman elite despised this character so much that they undertook every effort - and these people were ****** - every effort to erase his life from the historical record. Yet, today; no one questions the existence of Sulla. How is this believable - that one of history's great villains is certain, yet this miraculous savior is uncertain? Is it a conspiracy?
Agreed.As far as all the gospel writers were concerened it was important to make the Jews into the "bad" guys, not the Romans. As an emerging new religion it was important to not **** the Romans off. It makes sense their writings would be trying to keep the peace with the Romans. It also makes sense that they would blame the Sanhedrian sp? because they had rejected the new religion and their supposed Messiah. The gospels are a political piece of propoganda in a time when it was important to know who to side with!!
It's just an old story, we don't have to do anything.So all we have to do is wash our hands and say " I am innocent of this mans blood" and hey presto! absolution!
What!?!?
Josephus is worthless,
one of history's great villains is certain, yet this miraculous savior is uncertain?
It's called an agenda. That agenda is to never pass up an opportunity to make Jewish people look bad, all the while maintaining that Muslims are not responsible for the terrorist acts of radical Muslims. I don't know about you, but I am sensing a double-standard.TahaN i am very surprised you are using new testament quotes as evidence here when you dont beleive them to be true anyway.
Given his past comments as "The_Truth", I don't see how anyone could be greatly surprised, Jay.How surprising to see you enthusiastically wallowing in blood libel ... :clap
"Behold the Lamb of God who comes to take away the sin of the world. Happy are we who are called to this sacred banquet."Dark Sun – We nailed a man to the cross, how is that a good thing?
If the lamb doesn't die, then the sin isn't taken away.
It's called an agenda. That agenda is to never pass up an opportunity to make Jewish people look bad, all the while maintaining that Muslims are not responsible for the terrorist acts of radical Muslims. I don't know about you, but I am sensing a double-standard.
Given his past comments as "The_Truth", I don't see how anyone could be greatly surprised, Jay.
Dark Sun – We nailed a man to the cross, how is that a good thing?
.
It's fiction and not at all relevant, but to answer the question,
What does Matthew say?
22"What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?" Pilate asked.
They all answered, "Crucify him!"
23"Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate.
But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!"
24When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!"
25All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"
Sounds like the Jews had something to do with it as far as Matthew is concerned.
The story is pure fiction. How does one base an agenda on fiction? Pilate was willing to free Jesus but the Jews called for his execution. Read the story.Firstly - anyone reading the story of Pilate should be struck by the weakness of his position - it's obvious that his handwashing was a cop-out and a futile gesture at washing away his guilt.
Secondly - just who was it that nailed Jesus to the cross? OH YEAH - Roman soldiers. Who whipped Him? OH YEAH - Roman soldiers. Who beat him and forced him to carry that cross down the Via Dolorosa? OH YEAH - Roman soldiers. Who gambled at the foot of the cross to win his robe? OH YEAH - Roman soldiers.
So - to me it's always been apparent that the guilt of Jesus' death is shared evenly between Jews and Gentiles - that's a pretty obvious truth in the gospel stories - unless of course, it fits your personal agenda to ignore the facts.
Guy was a Flavian, dude.the phrase "Josephus is worthless" demonstrates your utter lack of familiarity with historical methodology and content.
This is the thing, though. I'm familiar with the Jesus in a Christian's heart - and that Jesus is A-OK in my book. But I have an agenda... :devil:Yet this miraculous saviour is certain. The denial isn't so much a product of conspiracy but inconvenience. Just as the Romans and Jewish authorities put him to death originally, we are attempting the same thing, and for much the same reason. Jesus is a troublemaker.
...and you are a research monster. I'm gonna have to go and check this stuff out. Thanks.Wrong. Before we tread down this road again, see my threads on this subject here:
Groundwork in historical jesus research
Addressing Dogsgod and the mythic Jesus myth
It isn't.