Replies

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

"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")
Read all the Gospels and make a timeline for each one. There are inconsistencies. Not every event is mentioned by each disciple.

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")
Any filmed event.

"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?
Of course they do. However, if the mob was insane and making comments not backed up by the Law, then the blood-guilt has no meaning.
As I said, context matters. The average viewer will not know that such blood curses are not legitimate.

"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.
There are other recollections of the trial that do not match this one. Go read the other Gospels.

"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.
Exactly. It is "a report", not the only report.

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