[BibChr]

Your arguments aren't getting better. It isn't you, though; it's the position you're trying to prop up.

...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

[rmlew]

Now the issue is, what do you do with their statement, and with their treatment of Jesus the Messiah? Agree, or disagree?
1.Whose statement?
2.Jesus may be your Messiah and your son of God. I do not see him as anything more than a leader of a radical sect who confronted the collaborators and was put to death.

[Dataman]

This thread could be a good springboard for the next Twilight Zone. Would the complainers be appeased if the truth were denied and their fantasy embraced? No! I have learned that those who deny reality cannot ever be appeased because appeasement is never the goal.