Falling Stars, Damnable Heresy, and the Spirit of Evolution

“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22).

“And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet, and I saw a star fall from heaven upon the earth, and there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit." (Rev. 9:1)

In his Concise Commentary Matthew Henry identifies falling stars as tepid, indecisive, weak or apostate clergy who,

"Having ceased to be a minister of Christ, he who is represented by this star becomes the minister of the devil; and lets loose the powers of hell against the churches of Christ."

John identifies antichrists, in this case clergy who serve the devil rather than Christ, sequentially. First, like Bultmann, Teilhard de Chardin, Robert Funk, Paul Tillich, and John Shelby Spong, they specifically deny the living, personal Holy Trinity in favor of Gnostic pagan, immanent or Eastern pantheist conceptions. Though God the Father Almighty in three Persons upholds the souls of men and maintains life and creation, His substance is not within nature (space-time dimension) as pantheism maintains, but outside of it. Sinful men live within nature and are burdened by time and mortality; God is not.

Second, the specific denial of the Father logically negates Jesus the Christ, the Word who was in the beginning (John 1), was with God, and is God from the creation of all things (1 John 1). In a pre-incarnate theophany, Jesus is the Angel who spoke “mouth to mouth” to Moses (Num. 12:6-9; John 9:20) and at sundry times and in many ways “spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all…” (Hebrews 1:1) Jesus the Christ is the incarnate Son of God who is the life and light of men, who by His shed blood on the Cross died for the remission of all sins and bestowed the privilege of adoption on all who put their faith in Him.

Therefore, to deny the Holy Father is to logically deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, hence,

“…every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist . . . and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:3).

According to Peter (2 Peter 2:1), falling stars will work among the faithful, teaching damnable heresies that deny the Lord, cause the fall of men into unbelief, and bring destruction upon themselves:

“The natural parents of modern unbelief turn out to have been the guardians of belief.” Many thinking people came at last “to realize that it was religion, not science or social change that gave birth to unbelief. Having made God more and more like man---intellectually, morally, emotionally---the shapers of religion made it feasible to abandon God, to believe simply in man.” (James Turner of the University of Michigan in “American Babylon,” Richard John Neuhaus, p. 95)

Almost thirty years ago, two well-respected social science scholars, William Sims Bainbridge and Rodney Stark found themselves alarmed by what they saw as a rising tide of irrationalism, superstition and occultism---channeling cults, spirit familiars, necromancers, Wiccans, Satanists, Luciferians, goddess worshippers, 'gay' shamans, Hermetic magicians and other occult madness at every level of society, particularly within the most influential--- Hollywood, academia and the highest corridors of political power.

Like many scientists, they were equally concerned by Christian opposition to naturalistic evolution. As is common in the science community, they assumed the cause of these social pathologies was somehow due to fundamentalism, their term for authentic Christian theism as opposed to liberalized Christianity. Yet to their credit, the research they undertook to discover the cause was conducted both scientifically and with great integrity. What they found was so startling it caused them to re-evaluate their attitude toward authentic Christian theism. Their findings led them to say:

"It would be a mistake to conclude that fundamentalists oppose all science (when in reality they but oppose) a single theory (that) directly contradicts the bible. But it would be an equally great mistake to conclude that religious liberals and the irreligious possess superior minds of great rationality, to see them as modern personalities who have no need of the supernatural or any propensity to believe unscientific superstitions. On the contrary...they are much more likely to accept the new superstitions. It is the fundamentalists who appear most virtuous according to scientific standards when we examine the cults and pseudo-sciences proliferating in our society today." ("Superstitions, Old and New," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. IV, No. 4; summer, 1980)

In more detail they observed that authentic ‘born again’ Christians are far less likely to accept cults and pseudoscientific beliefs while the irreligious and liberalized Christians (i.e., progressive Catholics, Protestant emergent, NAR, word faith, prosperity gospel) are open to unscientific notions. In fact, these two groups are most disposed toward occultism.

As Bainbridge and Stark admitted, evolution directly contradicts the Bible, beginning with the Genesis account of creation ex nihilo. This means that evolution is the antithesis of the Genesis account. For this reason, discerning Christians refuse to submit to the evolutionary thinking that has swept Western and American society. Nor do they accept the evolutionary theism brought into the whole body of the Church by weak, tepid, indecisive, or apostate clergy.

Over eighty years ago, Rev. C. Leopold Clarke wrote that priests who embrace evolution (evolutionary theists) are apostates from the ‘Truth as it is in Jesus.’ (1 John2:2) Rev. Clarke, a lecturer at a London Bible college, discerned that evolution is the antithesis to the Revelation of God in the Deity of Jesus Christ, thus it is the greatest and most active agent of moral and spiritual disintegration:

“It is a battering-ram of unbelief---a sapping and mining operation that intends to blow Religion sky-high. The one thing which the human mind demands in its conception of God, is that, being Almighty, He works sovereignly and miraculously---and this is the thing with which Evolution dispenses….Already a tremendous effect, on a wide scale has been produced by the impact of this teaching---an effect which can only be likened to the…collapse of foundations…” (Evolution and the Break-Up of Christendom, Philip Bell, creation.com, Nov. 27, 2012)

The faith of the Christian Church and of the average Christian has had, and still has, its foundation as much in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis, the book of beginnings revealed ‘mouth to mouth’ by the Angel to Moses, as in that of the person and deity of Jesus Christ. But how horrible a travesty of the sacred office of the Christian Ministry to see church leaders more eager to be abreast of the times, than earnestly contending for the Faith once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). It is high time, said Rev. Clarke, that the Church,

“…. separated herself from the humiliating entanglement attending her desire to be thought up to date…What, after all, have custodians of Divine Revelation to do making terms with speculative Biology, which has….no message of comfort or help to the soul?” (ibid)

The primary tactic employed by priests eager to accommodate themselves and the Church to modern science and evolutionary thinking is predictable. It is the argument that evolution is entirely compatible with the Bible when we see Genesis, especially the first three chapters, in a non-literal, non-historical context. This is the argument embraced and advanced by mega-church pastor Timothy J. Keller.

With a position paper Keller published with the theistic evolutionary organization Bio Logos he joined the ranks of falling stars (Catholic and Protestant priests) stretching back to the Renaissance. Their slippery-slide into apostasy began when they gave into the temptation to embrace a non-literal, non-historical view of Genesis. (A response to Timothy Keller’s ‘Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople,” Lita Cosner, Sept. 9, 2010, creation.com)

This is not a heresy unique to modern times. The early Church Fathers dealt with this damnable heresy as well, counting it among the heretical tendencies of the Origenists. Fourth-century Fathers such as John Chrysostom, Basil the Great and Ephraim the Syrian, all of whom wrote commentaries on Genesis, specifically warned against treating Genesis as an unhistorical myth or allegory. John Chrysostom strongly warned against paying heed to these heretics,

“…let us stop up our hearing against them, and let us believe the Divine Scripture, and following what is written in it, let us strive to preserve in our souls sound dogmas.” (Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 31)

As St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote, higher theological, spiritual meaning is founded upon humble, simple faith in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis and one cannot apprehend rightly the Scriptures without believing in the historical reality of the events and people they describe. (ibid, Seraphim Rose, p. 40)

In the integral worldview teachings of the Fathers, neither the literal nor historical meaning of the Revelations of the pre-incarnate Jesus, the Angel who spoke to Moses, can be regarded as expendable. There are at least four critically important reasons why. First, to reduce the Revelation of God to allegory and myth is to contradict and usurp the authority of God, ultimately deny the deity of Jesus Christ; twist, distort, add to and subtract from the entire Bible and finally, to imperil the salvation of believers.

Scenarios commonly proposed by modern Origenists posit a cleverly disguised pantheist/immanent nature deity subject to the space-time dimension and forces of evolution. But as noted previously, it is sinful man who carries the burden of time, not God. This is a crucial point, for when evolutionary theists add millions and billions of zeros (time) to God they have transferred their own limitations onto Him. They have ‘limited’ God and made Him over in their own image. This is not only idolatrous but satanic.

Additionally, evolution inverts creation. In place of God’s good creation from which men fell there is an evolutionary escalator starting at the bottom with matter, then progressing upward toward life, then up and through the life and death of millions of evolved creatures that preceded humans by millions of years until at long last an apish humanoid emerges into which a deity that is always in a state of becoming (evolving) places a soul.

Evolution amputates the entire historical precedent from the Gospel and makes Jesus Christ unnecessary as the atheist Frank Zindler enthusiastically points out:

“The most devastating thing that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus…into the ranks of the unemployed. I think evolution absolutely is the death knell of Christianity.” (“Atheism vs. Christianity,” 1996, Lita Cosner, creation.com, June 13, 2013)

None of this was lost on Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1985). Huxley was thoroughly familiar with the Bible, thus he understood that if Genesis is not the authoritative Word of God, is not historical and literal despite its’ symbolic and poetic elements, then the entirety of Scripture becomes a collection of fairytales resulting in tragic downward spiraling consequences as the Catholic Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation makes clear in part:

“By denying the historical truth of the first chapters of Genesis, theistic evolutionism has fostered a preoccupation with natural causes almost to the exclusion of supernatural ones. By denying the several supernatural creative acts of God in Genesis, and by downplaying the importance of the supernatural activity of Satan, theistic evolutionists slip into a naturalistic mentality which seeks to explain everything in terms of natural causes. Once this mentality takes hold, it is easy for men to regard the concept of spiritual warfare as a holdover from the days of primitive superstition. Diabolical activity is reduced to material or psychological causes. The devil and his demons come to be seen as irrelevant. Soon ‘hell’ joins the devil and his demons in the category of antiquated concepts. And the theistic evolutionist easily makes the fatal mistake of thinking that he has nothing more to fear from the devil and his angels. According to Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the chief exorcist of Rome, there is a tremendous increase in diabolical activity and influence in the formerly Christian world. And yet most of the bishops of Europe no longer believe in the existence of evil spirits….To the Fathers of the Church who believed in the truth of Genesis, this would be incredible. But in view of the almost universal acceptance of theistic evolution, it is hardly surprising.” (The Difference it makes: The Importance of the Traditional Doctrine of Creation, Hugh Owen, kolbecenter.org)

Huxley had ‘zero’ respect for modern Origenists and received enormous pleasure from heaping piles of hot coals and burning contempt upon them, thereby exposing their shallow-reasoning, hypocrisy, timidity, fear of non-acceptance, and unfaithfulness. With sarcasm dripping from his words he quipped,

“I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how any one, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the “ten words” were not written by God’s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated? And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?” (Darwin’s Bulldog---Thomas Huxley, Russell Grigg, creation.com, Oct. 14, 2008)

“When Jesus spoke, as of a matter of fact, that "the Flood came and destroyed them all," did he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems to me that, as the narrative mentions Noah’s wife, and his sons’ wives, there is good scriptural warranty for the statement that the antediluvians married and were given in marriage; and I should have thought that their eating and drinking might be assumed by the firmest believer in the literal truth of the story. Moreover, I venture to ask what sort of value, as an illustration of God’s methods of dealing with sin, has an account of an event that never happened? If no Flood swept the careless people away, how is the warning of more worth than the cry of “Wolf” when there is no wolf? If Jonah’s three days’ residence in the whale is not an “admitted reality,” how could it “warrant belief” in the “coming resurrection?” … Suppose that a Conservative orator warns his hearers to beware of great political and social changes, lest they end, as in France, in the domination of a Robespierre; what becomes, not only of his argument, but of his veracity, if he, personally, does not believe that Robespierre existed and did the deeds attributed to him?” (ibid)

“If divine authority is not here claimed for the twenty-fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis, what is the value of language? And again, I ask, if one may play fast and loose with the story of the Fall as a “type” or “allegory,” what becomes of the foundation of Pauline theology?” (ibid)

“If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive “type,” comparable to the profound Promethean mythus, what value has Paul’s dialectic?” (ibid)

After much thought, C.S. Lewis concluded that evolution is the central, most radical lie at the center of a vast network of lies within which modern Westerners are entangled while Rev. Clarke identifies the central lie as the Gospel of another Spirit. The fiendish aim of this Spirit is to help men lose God, not find Him, and by contradicting the Divine Redeemer, compromising Priests are serving this Spirit and its’ diabolical purposes. To contradict the Divine Redeemer is the very essence of unfaithfulness, and that it should be done while reverence is professed,

“…. is an illustration of the intellectual and moral topsy-turvydom of Modernism…’He whom God hath sent speaketh the Words of God,’ claimed Christ of Himself (John 3:34), and no assumption of error can hold water in the face of that declaration, without blasphemy.” Evolutionary theists are serving the devil, therefore “no considerations of Christian charity, of tolerance, of policy, can exonerate Christian leaders or Churches who fail to condemn and to sever themselves from compromising, cowardly, shilly-shallying priests”---the falling stars who “challenge the Divine Authority of Jesus Christ.” (ibid)

The rebuttals, warnings and counsels of the Fathers against listening to Origenists (and their modern evolutionary counterparts) indicates that the spirit of antichrist operating through modern rationalistic criticism of the Revelation of God is not a heresy unique to our times but was inveighed against by early Church Fathers.

From the scholarly writings of the Eastern Orthodox priest, Fr. Seraphim Rose, to the incisive analysis, rebuttals and warnings of the Catholic Kolbe Center, creation.com, Creation Research Institute, Rev. Clarke, and many other stalwart defenders of the faith once delivered, all are a clear, compelling call to the whole body of the Church to hold fast to the traditional doctrine of creation as it was handed down from the Apostles, for as God spoke and Jesus is the Living Word incarnate, it is incumbent upon the faithful to submit their wills to the Divine Will and Authority of God rather than to the damnable heresy proffered by falling stars eager to embrace naturalistic science and the devil's antithesis--- evolution. But if it seem evil to you to serve the Lord,

“…you have your choice: choose this day that which pleases you, whom you would rather serve….but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15

Kevmo: "My recommendation is to read the book “The New Testament Documents - Are They Reliable?” "

Just exactly how reliable New Testament accounts are depends on exactly what you use them for.
As guides to definitive Christian teachings, they are 100% reliable, 100% of the time, period.

But if you are a scholar, a historian or scientist who asks precise questions about data, such as: "does the account in document A confirm this other account in document B?" then you begin to notice that there are discrepancies not just among the Gospels & Epistles, but also between those and other ancient documents which have somehow survived.

When you begin to put all these documents together, and analyze them, then you start to see a somewhat different historical picture.

The example right here of our understandings about Pontius Pilate is illustrative.

It's the reason I draw distinctions between "facts" as defined by science versus history versus religious faith.

Have you read the book? Because your comment would steer one to think otherwise.

The example right here of our understandings about Pontius Pilate is illustrative.
***Oh, I totally agree. You’ve built up a whole conjecture just on the basis of something recorded in the gospels (and nowhere else as far as I can tell), and then turn around and throw out evidence from the gospels because it doesn’t fit your conjecture.

It’s the reason I draw distinctions between “facts” as defined by science versus history versus religious faith.
***It has been my experience that Freepers who point out such obvious generalities are running an agenda. There’s all kinds of 4D’s involved. It is a simple matter of history to examine the crucifixion, yet even you can’t seem to do it without trying to pull in extrabiblical sources that support your unbiblical opinion. Which is not to say (I know most freepers will not realize that I address this point, so I will be emphasizing here What I DID NOT SAY) that extrabiblical sources are worthless and scripture is the only thing worth looking at for historical validity (<—see here, I did NOT say that).

So look at our own correspondence. Have I brought ANY matters of faith? Have I proposed that history is science? NO. But plenty of freepers feel the need to comment on these side issues. We’ve been discussing HISTORY, plain and simple, but some freepers have real trouble focusing on simple history. It’s a form of distracting from the real issue to be discussed.

Kevmo: "Feel free to point out where I am supposedly confused on the subject.
BTW, The Jesus Seminar stuff is complete hogwash."

FRiend, you are deeply, deeply confused about the difference between "history" and "religious faith".
Your religious faith drives you to justify what the Bible says, and to ignore all other data.

Nothing wrong with that, it's what we practice in Church and in our lives.

But it's not history, which requires us to consider the reliability of every available source and to examine discrepancies for what they may mean.
If you pretend that your religious faith is "history", then you are obviously confused.

A good example of the kinds of work that historians do can be found in the books of Crossan.
As for the Jesus Seminar, again, I don't know enough about them to speak of it.

FRiend, you are deeply, deeply confused about the difference between “history” and “religious faith”.
***No, I am not. Point out ONE place in this thread where I brought up a matter of religious faith.

Your religious faith drives you to justify what the Bible says, and to ignore all other data.
***Bzzzt, wrong. You haven’t produced any “other data”. I used to be an atheist and then examined the historical evidence that Jesus claimed to be God Himself. There’s plenty of it. And since you’re (so wrongly) keying up on what drives me, it is obvious that you are driven idealogically as well.

Nothing wrong with that, it’s what we practice in Church and in our lives.
***Other than the fact that what you wrote as a premise to this statement is untrue, I have no problem with this.

But it’s not history, which requires us to consider the reliability of every available source and to examine discrepancies for what they may mean.
***By all means, show us your historical adeptness and produce those precious sources. I’ve said this more than once. Someone who’s supposedly driven by religious faith would not say such a thing. So, since you’re all keyed up, go and do it. You’re the one arguing from those sources, so present them.

If you pretend that your religious faith is “history”, then you are obviously confused.
***If such a pretense were taking place, then I would agree there would be confusion. But I do not pretend such a thing, so start producing your sources and debate like a historian rather than a libtard.

A good example of the kinds of work that historians do can be found in the books of Crossan.
***I’ve read those kinds of books. I’ve read the book by FF Bruce that’s available right here on FR. Have you read Bruce’s book? Any other apologetics?

Here’s a sampling. an article written by yours truly. Have you read these sources? Can you demonstrate that you’ve read something besides a book by Crossan?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2056400/posts

As for the Jesus Seminar, again, I don’t know enough about them to speak of it.
***I do. Hogwash.

YHAOS: "Who surrendered his judgment to the will of the Sanhedrin when he “took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying I am innocent of the blood of this just person; see ye to it.” "

FRiend, as we've now discussed at length with Kevmo, there are two matters at work here:

Even though the Gospel writers do everything possible to make it look as if Pilate did not order Jesus crucified, in historical fact, he did, period.
Jews themselves never crucified anybody.
Pilate's reasons are therefore important, and they certainly include the plaque on Jesus' cross: "King of the Jews".
Officially, Jesus was crucified for rebellion.
The contemporary non-biblical historical record on Pilate paints a very different picture from the Gospels.
According to that record, Pilate was callous, cruel and indifferent to the suffering of his Jewish subjects, so much so that he was eventually fired from his job for it.

Modern historians look at this data and conclude there were very different attitudes toward Romans by Christians & Jews, and this is reflected in their accounts of Pilate.

Regardless, the historical fact remains that only Pilate could order a crucifixion, and that only for a capital offense under Roman law, such as rebellion, or claiming to be "King of the Jews".

Even though the Gospel writers do everything possible to make it look as if Pilate did not order Jesus crucified, in historical fact, he did, period.
***Feel free to post evidence of this. So far you have produced none.

Pilate’s reasons are therefore important, and they certainly include the plaque on Jesus’ cross: “King of the Jews”.
***As far as I know, the record of that plaque comes ONLY from the gospels. To accept that as historical, and then throw out other aspects of the gospels (Pilate didn’t do this or that) is very poor, unscientific scholarship. It’s just plain flat wrong to do so.

Officially, Jesus was crucified for rebellion.
***If you’re so utterly convinced of this, then produce evidence of it.

Kevmo: "There is basically no evidence that Jesus was killed by the romans for rebellion.
There’s a lot of CONJECTURE, but no historical evidence."

In fact, there's no historical evidence to the contrary.

Regardless of the Gospels efforts to white-wash Pilate, the facts remain that by Roman law, only Pilate could order a crucifixion, and that only for a Roman capital crime, such as rebellion.

There is also non-biblical historical evidence that Pilate was a callous, cruel and uncaring ruler, for whom executions without trial were matters of routine.

That's why historically speaking, there's no evidence to suggest that Jews killed Jesus.

The contemporary non-biblical historical record on Pilate paints a very different picture from the Gospels.
According to that record, Pilate was callous, cruel and indifferent to the suffering of his Jewish subjects, so much so that he was eventually fired from his job for it.
***I would say that, on the basis of what I read in the gospels, Pilate was callous, cruel and indifferent to the suffering of his Jewish subjects. So how is this a “very different picture”????

Modern historians look at this data and conclude there were very different attitudes toward Romans by Christians & Jews, and this is reflected in their accounts of Pilate.
***I suppose some day you’ll get around to posting those sources as well... /s

Regardless, the historical fact remains that only Pilate could order a crucifixion,
***This much is probably true.

and that only for a capital offense under Roman law,
***This part has been proven wrong, using very reliable historical documents cited in this thread.

such as rebellion, or claiming to be “King of the Jews”.
***The most reliable historical documents show that Pilate cleared Jesus of the charge of rebellion.

Kevmo quoting Acts: "“Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” "

"It is one more piece of evidence that Jesus claimed equality with God and was condemned to death for it."

That is your interpretation of those words.
I disagree that "standing at the right hand" is necessarily the same thing as claiming "equality."

I don't disagree that whatever it was Jesus said, or whatever the Jewish officials thought they heard, they certainly did consider it blasphemous.

In short: blasphemous, certainly.
"Equality with God", not necessarily.

In fact, there’s no historical evidence to the contrary.
***Sure there is. The 4 gospels. They are only writing a historical account of the crucifixion, certainly not recording a despised miracle. On the basic mundane items of history, the gospels have proven to be very reliable historical documents. You’re trying to discount what historians know to be reliable and introduce some tertiary evidence that has no bearing on the case. That is not solid scholarship, it’s idealogical baloney.

Regardless of the Gospels efforts to white-wash Pilate,
***I don’t see this in the gospels, there’s simply an attempt to record the events as they were witnessed.

the facts remain that by Roman law, only Pilate could order a crucifixion,
***True.

and that only for a Roman capital crime, such as rebellion.
***Here you go off the rails. Produce your reliable source that says this is what happened. The existing reliable sources directly contradict your claim. Anyone who argues against historically reliable sources with nonexistent sources is practicing historical witchcraft.

There is also non-biblical historical evidence that Pilate was a callous, cruel and uncaring ruler, for whom executions without trial were matters of routine.
***Sure sounds like the Pilate I know from the gospels.

That’s why historically speaking, there’s no evidence to suggest that Jews killed Jesus.
***Dude. You don’t know squat about history if you claim such a thing. You’re just being driven by your idealogy. Produce your sources that back up your claim to historicity.

I disagree that “standing at the right hand” is necessarily the same thing as claiming “equality.”
***Historians agree that it is the same. Go, read the book “Jesus, God, Ghost or Guru” and come up to speed. That’s my source, among others such as Ethelbert Stauffer. But you’re too much of a historicity newbie to chase down stuff from Stauffer.

So at this point you’re lining up your own idealogically driven OPINION vs. historians’ scholarly deliberations. And your opinions appear to be based upon chimerical historical sources.

Kevmo quoting BJK: "Romans cared a lot about revolution, and therefore condemned Jesus not for any blasphemous claims, but rather for, in their eyes, pretending to be a “King of the Jews”."

Kevmo responding: "***Interesting theory.
From what historical source do you draw this?
At this point it is a fact in dispute."

The detail of the plaque saying Jesus was "King of the Jews" is certainly not in dispute, since it is one of the very few details which all four Gospel writers agreed on.

It is also not in dispute that Pontius Pilate, however callous & indifferent he certainly was, would not execute somebody for no real reason.
He needed an official reason, and that was certainly not "blasphemy", but rather as the plaque shows: rebellion.

So I don't "get" why that's so hard for you to understand.

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.