Such a claim makes you a poser, FRiend.
***Notably, you did not even point out ONE such place in this thread. That makes you the poser.
In fact, you are here defending your own interpretations of biblical texts, to the exclusion of all other interpretations,
***Everyone does exactly that. Everyone. I’ve been posting about historicity, not items of faith, using proper historical arguments. You’ve been running off the steam generated by your idealogy.
let alone non-biblical texts.
***By all means, post some non-biblical texts and let’s see how they stack up. So far you’ve posted one minor reference about Pilate that doesn’t even contradict the biblical account.
That’s not history, that’s religious faith.
***In your view. But in my interactions with you I’m finding that you allow your idealogy to drive how you view history, and THAT is religious faith. For you to accept gospel accounts of “king of the jews” but then throw out gospel accounts that show Pilate finding Jesus innocent of rebellion is an exercise in religiosity, not history.
Mind you, I don’t for a minute object to your particular interpretations — I think they are reasonable and plausible, just not necessarily the best historical understandings possible.
***I object to your particular interpretations because they are unhistorical, and driven by your idealogy.
And I know for certain that religious faith is more satisfying, and indeed more useful in our lives than pure history.
***Pablum
So I’ll say again, if you wish to look at examples of the workings of pure history, you could check out books by John Dominic Crossan.
***I have read lots of apologetics and historical books. If your writing is an example of what I can expect from Crossan, I’m not all that interested. I like real history, not idealogically driven revisionism.
I promise, they won’t satisfy you religiously, but they may open your eyes in other areas.
***Did you even click over to the link of the article I wrote? It PROVES that I have strong historicity backup to what I say. It seems that perhaps you have read only one book.
Sorry, FRiend, but you are getting tired and forgetful.
In fact, I've posted chapter & verse where Pilate changes his mind about ordering Jesus' crucifixion after he learns of Jesus' claim to be "King of the Jews".
But your own mind is just too fixed in its religious beliefs to accept anything contrary, right?
In fact, FRiend, you've been defending your religious beliefs, using tactics you claim are "historical".
But they're not, because you've studied no contemporary history beyond the Bible itself, and take no serious account of any historical data outside your orthodox religious beliefs.
Nothing wrong with you defending your religion: good for you.
Just don't pretend it's "history".
Kevmo: "By all means, post some non-biblical texts and let’s see how they stack up.
So far you’ve posted one minor reference about Pilate that doesn’t even contradict the biblical account."
This comment again proves that your views have nothing to do with history and everything to do with defending your orthodox religious beliefs.
If you had any serious interest in history itself, you'd already know the major texts & arguments.
On the issue of Pilate, once again: I've mentioned this numerous times already, and each time you studiously ignore it, but here is one text which proves Pilate's motivations:
3 So Pilate asked Jesus, 'Are you the king of the Jews?' "
Of course, the story goes on from there, but in the end these verses -- and others similar -- prove that both Jews and Pilate well knew: rebellion is the only crime for which Pilate might order crucifixion.
FRiend, Kevmo, in no gospel account -- zero, zip, nada -- does Pilate question Jesus about his theological status as "Son of God", "Son of Man" "Messiah", etc.
Instead, Pilate is only concerned about Jesus' political status as "King of the Jews".
And that is the sign which all agree was posted on Jesus' cross.
Of course, Pilate's seeming reluctance to crucify Jesus is entirely possible, especially since, as Luke 23:12 reports:
For Pilate, it was a win-win situation.
Kevmo: "For you to accept gospel accounts of “king of the jews” but then throw out gospel accounts that show Pilate finding Jesus innocent of rebellion is an exercise in religiosity, not history."
No because: despite Pilate's protestations to the contrary, rebellion is exactly what is indicated by his sign, "King of the Jews".
Again, I can't imagine why you so wish to deny what is obviously true, from the texts.
Kevmo: "I object to your particular interpretations because they are unhistorical, and driven by your idealogy."
You mis-understand, doubtless because your religious beliefs won't allow you to consider broader historical data.
Kevmo: "I have read lots of apologetics and historical books.
If your writing is an example of what I can expect from Crossan, I’m not all that interested.
I like real history, not idealogically driven revisionism."
Sorry, but if you can't distinguish between apologetics and real history, then we know what your problem is, FRiend.
My familiarity with Crossan's work is now two decades old, so I can't tell you exactly what any of his ideas are, only that he breaks down the data according to strict historical standards.
He writes history, not religious apologetics.
Naturally, you claim it's "just another religion", since his history doesn't agree with your beliefs.
But I began this, ahem, discussion trying to distinguish between definitions of the words "science", "history" and "religious beliefs".
Those are my distinctions, and I'm sticking to them...
Kevmo: "Did you even click over to the link of the article I wrote?
It PROVES that I have strong historicity backup to what I say.
It seems that perhaps you have read only one book."
Sadly, there are many links on this thread that I've not had time to study.
Maybe someday.
But your efforts to prove historicity of the Bible, and only the Bible, shows us that you are not interested in history so much as "proving" your religious beliefs.
When you can bring yourself to objectively consider non-biblical data & non-traditional interpretations, that will begin your study of real history.