[Bohemund]

This does not constitute advice not to read what Matthew says. It is, in fact, my point, which you are having a hard time getting to, that you should read Matthew and see what it says, and recognize that it is a purposefully false account intended to blame jews for something romans did.

So like I said, you think we should ignore Matthew's account--because it's "false."

You are, of course, entitled to your unsubstantiated opinion that Matthew's account is "purposefully false" and intended to blame Jews for something Romans did. And I am entitled to my opinion that you are divorced from reality.

[donh]

You are, of course, entitled to your unsubstantiated opinion that Matthew's account is "purposefully false" and intended to blame Jews for something Romans did. And I am entitled to my opinion that you are divorced from reality.

Oh, well, mine, and the preponderance of catholic historical scholars, and every other kind of scholar. It is obvious that Matthew's account is purposefully false. It takes rocks in the head, or a lying agenda, to suggest that anything but roman political prudence killed jesus. That is, plain as day, NOT what matthew reports. He reports that ALL the jews said "HIS BLOOD BE UPON US...". All the jesuistic ways that have been thought of to try to turn this into something else other than what it says have, I am safe in saying, now been exhausted, except in the minds of catholicisms most zanily ardent defenders. Including the "oh, well, them jews were just mistaken" tact. If they were mistaken, there's little point in reporting it--it was just crowd noise. It is reported because Matthew wants to make a point. And what would that point be?