Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
Sure, but you seem to forget that Romans were the masters, and Jews their subjects.
***No, I do not forget. The same accounts that put “King of the Jews” above Jesus’s head during the crucifixion are reliable when they describe why He was condemned. Especially when the Sanhedrin put out a circular letter saying the exact same thing.
There is no possible way — zero, zip, nada — that Romans would crucify anybody for the “crime” of blasphemy.
***And yet, they did. They just found some other reason to crucify the man.
Therefore, Romans had to be convinced, and were convinced that Jesus was a political threat to them — a threat such as represented by a new “King of the Jews”.
***Which historical document are you citing when you say this is the case? Because the reliable accounts do not say such a thing, they say that Pilate allowed the crucifixion because he was afraid of the crowd rioting. So when you discount what the reliable accounts ACTUALLY say and insert your own version without backup from reliable accounts, you are engaging in historical revisionism, showing disdain for the science behind the historicity of the event.
By standards of much of what we call “ancient history”, the Bible generally and Gospels specifically are rather well attested to.
***because of the science behind such historicity.
By standards of much of what we call “ancient history”, the Bible generally and Gospels specifically are rather well attested to. That doesn’t make them “scientific facts”,
***but it does make them historical facts.
but it can provide comfort for people of faith that their beliefs are grounded in something solid.
***And those who deny historical facts have pushed themselves over the edge of irrationality in their desire to idealogically proselytize. One may as well debate with someone who denies Christopher Columbus sailed the Pacific Ocean in 1492.
Did Christopher Columbus sail the Pacific Ocean in 1492? There is plenty of scientific evidence that puts this simple fact of history over the top in terms of reliability.
When you say “There is no science behind history for one to disdain”, you show yourself to be irrational. One might as well debate someone who denies Columbus’s journey. You deny the scientific evidence provided by archaeology, ancient text criticism, even carbon dating.
This would bring a rational person to start doubting your sanity, and certainly doubting the value of debating with someone so irrational.
I don't know what "belief" you're referring to. I do have a belief that you don't have the power to read minds despite you claims of knowing what they are thinking.
One does not deny scientific evidence merely by knowing, as a matter of classification, definition and methodology, that history is not a science.
History can however be supported as being more accurately recorded by actual science.
“Did Christopher Columbus sail the Pacific Ocean in 1492?”
And no, he didn’t.
Oops. Atlantic Ocean.
Did he?
One does not deny scientific evidence merely by knowing, as a matter of classification, definition and methodology, that history is not a science.
***That is different than saying
“There is no science behind history for one to disdain”
One is irrational. The other is a little bit better thought out, but quite frankly, is a side issue to this discussion. So by engaging on a side issue, you’re doing one of the 4D’s.
History can however be supported as being more accurately recorded by actual science.
***Now you’re just full-scale backtracking.
Your post 1693 is well stated on several levels.
It’s easy to see your belief system operating by your constant idealogically-driven blinders to simple facts of history. I don’t have to know the particulars of your belief system to see it operating.
And quite frankly, on an inductive level, your belief system lines up with a troll by maybe about 90%. You are not pro-God. I doubt you’re conservative.
Would you care to stack up your idealogy on a litmus matrix such as I propose? I doubt it, because then your trolling would come to light. How is it someone can be so accurate in predicting your actions on this forum just by simple glimpses of your belief system in action?
Well, then call up a mod and have me zotted. Or are you just some toothless attack dog who can't do anything but spew insipid agitprop?
Well, then call up a mod and have me zotted.
***Mods don’t zot long term trolls like you because you provide entertainment value. If the mods followed their own definition of “troll”, and zotted them, I’d be on it like white on rice.
Mods’ Definition:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2165967/posts
But in the absence of such consistency, we have yet another demonstration of your predictability as a simple troll. To add another prediction, I would suggest that your response will be one of YHAOS’s 4D’s.
Thus speaketh the noob.
One may as well debate with someone who denies Christopher Columbus sailed the Pacific Ocean in 1492.
***Atlantic Ocean. oops
You are correct. My sentence ““There is no science behind history for one to disdain” is imprecise. History is not a science is more clear.
No doubt it qualifies as one of the 4D’s. Thanks for Bumping the thread T4BTT
History is not a science is more clear.
***And it is at best a side note to this discussion.
To the best of my knowledge, yes, but it’s not something that can be tested scientifically and repeated.
Only a mod could say that with absolute certainty.
T4BTT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.