Replies

Please inform all historians of your notion of the vast superiority of millennia-later biased speculation over against written contemporary testimony.
1. The Gospels were not written during the events. They were written latter.
2. As any writter, Jesus's disciples wrote from a perspective of assumed knowledge. In their case, they were writting with a knowledge of Jewish law and custom, not held by the average Christian (or even Jew) today.

Also kindly let archeologists know that they can cease their exploration, as you have done away with the role of hard data.
Reread my comments. I have done no such thing. Calling a recollection 10% innacccurate, does not negate 90%.

And finally, as you consider yourself an authority on the thinking of all Jews who ever lived, and regard it as monolithic, could you please give us a detailed description of what all Jews believe on everything, and what no mob of Jews would ever say? I can think of three Jews I know fairly well; and their beliefs are quite diverse.
If Jews are not monolithic, then the mob had no right or reason to proclaim a blood curse.
My whole point is that Jews like all peoples are not monolithic, which is a reason why we never support blood-curses!

1. The Gospels were not written during the events. They were written latter [sic].

Show me a history of WWII that was written during the events. Your point is pointless.

2. As any writter [sic], Jesus's disciples wrote from a perspective of assumed knowledge.

Another pointless point. Name one person in the history of the world who did not have a perspective of assumed knowedge.

I wonder what you think you'd lose if you just admitted you were talking baselessly and out of your hat, and simply revised your position? You're just sounding sillier and sillier as you keep digging. Look:

1. The Gospels were not written during the events. They were written latter. [sic]

1. How do you know that? Was the art of note-taking only invented recently? (Hint: think "no")

2. Can you name any event, the history of which was not written later than the event itself? (Clue: 2 seconds later is still "later")

2. As any writter, Jesus's disciples wrote from a perspective of assumed knowledge. In their case, they were writting with a knowledge of Jewish law and custom, not held by the average Christian (or even Jew) today.

The relevance being...? They wrote what they heard people say. Are you saying mobs never say insane things?

Reread my comments. I have done no such thing. Calling a recollection 10% innacccurate, does not negate 90%.

Not quite apposite. You dismissed the record, for which you have as of yet not provided one rational reason that will stand up to examination.

If Jews are not monolithic, then the mob had no right or reason to proclaim a blood curse. My whole point is that Jews like all peoples are not monolithic, which is a reason why we never support blood-curses!

The whole point is that they said what they said. The report is a report.

Now, if you're looking for someone to defend the rationality of their screams and chants, or to assign current guilt to anyone on the basis of what that particular mob said, you'll have to find someone else.

My point (or one of them) is simply that no one has the right to change history because he doesn't like it.

Dan

The Gospels were not written during the events. They were written latter.

It is now believed by the best scholars and evidence (various papyri) that the gospels were ALL written by 70 AD - within one generation of the Resurrection.

In addition, the gospel account is given by Paul in 1Cor 15 - and no one disputes that 1 Cor. was written in the early 50s A.D.

As any writter, Jesus's disciples wrote from a perspective of assumed knowledge. In their case, they were writting with a knowledge of Jewish law and custom, not held by the average Christian (or even Jew) today.

. The writers - Matthew, Mark and John - were eyewitnesses to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. It was not assumed knowledge but FIRST-HAND knowledge.