"Any filmed event." Gosh, that you feel driven to say this is sad. Can you name many "filed events" from two millennia ago?
Perhaps an account from another perspective would have been useful. The closest we get here is from Flavius Joseph, who said nothing about "blood guilt".
No basis in law for blood-guilt for that crowd? Have you read the Torah, recently? Can you recall anything in it about bearing false witness, condemning the innocent, and joining hands to do evil? (Hint: I have, and I can — and I'm a Gentile!)
There are sins, but men cannot declare blood guilt. It was done by God on the Amalekites, that is all. Men have no such right.
...you consider the overlapping areas to be fact, while the accounts not supported by others to be in dispute.
Not at all. One stands here, says the crowd says this. Another stands there, hears that. And on and on — and they all may be right.
They were there. We weren't. I take their word over yours.
Perhaps an account from another perspective would have been useful. The closest we get here is from Flavius Joseph, who said nothing about "blood guilt".
He wasn't there. Matthew was. I go with Matthew.
...men cannot declare blood guilt. It was done by God on the Amalekites, that is all. Men have no such right.
Two different statements. Men can say anything... whether they have a right or not. I agree: they had no right.
But they said it.
Now, still left unanswered from the previous post:
Now the issue is, what do you do with their statement, and with their treatment of Jesus the Messiah? Agree, or disagree?
Dan