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.
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.
***About what FReepers would expect from someone pushing heresy.
But your efforts to prove historicity of the Bible, and only the Bible, shows us that you are not interested in history
***Wow, dude. Look at what you wrote. It is incredible to debate with a heretic.
so much as “proving” your religious beliefs.
***Standard BroJoeK projection, as previously noted by other freepers on this thread.
When you can bring yourself to objectively consider non-biblical data & non-traditional interpretations, that will begin your study of real history.
***Perhaps if you took the 5 seconds it takes to click on the link, you would see just how ridiculous your claim is. Because the article contains non biblical sources. But you wouldn’t know that, would you, since you’re here to push your own religious beliefs, and those beliefs are heretical.
5 seconds that would change BroJoke’s life:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2056400/posts
Kevmo: “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.”
In fact, FRiend, you’ve been defending your religious beliefs,
***In fact, HERETIC, you’ve been doing that. You can’t claim that for the thread I posted before
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2056400/posts
nor for this thread.
using tactics you claim are “historical”.
***You don’t know scrap about historical argumentation. I’m grateful, because it makes your heresy less effective.
But they’re not, because you’ve studied no contemporary history beyond the Bible itself,
***Wow, dude. You KNOW you couldn’t say that if you spent the 3 seconds it took to write that and instead click on the article I wrote. You’re a real, genuine, damnable heretic.
and take no serious account of any historical data outside your orthodox religious beliefs.
***I’m far more serious than you, having already posted an article to FR that included this stuff you so loudly proclaim that I don’t consider. Geez, your heresy is particularly ugly.
Nothing wrong with you defending your religion: good for you.
Just don’t pretend it’s “history”.
Nothing wrong with you defending your religion: good for you. Just don’t pretend it’s “history”.
***That’s precisely what you’ve been doing, heretic.
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.
***Um, no, the comment shows that you only posted one other account and it doesn’t do half of what you think it does for your efforts towards pushing your heresy.
If you had any serious interest in history itself, you’d already know the major texts & arguments.
***Go ahead and keep posting garbage rather than actual sources, heretic.
On the issue of Pilate, once again:
***Before I even read it, I’m guessing you won’t be posting any more sources.
I’ve mentioned this numerous times already, and each time you studiously ignore it, but here is one text which proves Pilate’s motivations:
***Well, whooptedoo. I was right. You didn’t post any more sources, just further conjecture from the gospels which you promptly proceed to discard as reliable sources. Only heretics would dare to do such a thing.
Luke 23:1-3 “Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate.
2 And they began to accuse him, saying, ‘We have found this man subverting our nation.
He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Messiah, a king.’
3 So Pilate asked Jesus, ‘Are you the king of the Jews?’ “
Of course, the story goes on from there,
***Hah HAH HAH HAH HAH. The full story completely shoots down your wishful viewpoint of Pilate and shows him to have found Jesus innocent of rebellion.
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.
***I see your game. You keep repeating your assertions. But with no historical backup, the only thing to do is to reaffirm that your assertions have been proven flat wrong. Repetitive assertions is a troll thing, something I would probably have to expect from heretics with an idealogical axe to grind.
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.
***Heretic BroJoke, you are showing your selective reading skills. Pilate asked Jesus if he was king of the jews and Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world. Of course, such selective reading of the gospels as you have demonstrated is what we can expect of a heretic.
Instead, Pilate is only concerned about Jesus’ political status as “King of the Jews”.
***Got any sources for that? It is JUST A CONJECTURE. And a crappy one at that. But at least it doesn’t fall to the point of heresy, like most of what else you write.
And that is the sign which all agree was posted on Jesus’ cross.
***Yup. The gospels are really good reliable sources of information, right? That is, until they don’t support your pet theory about Pilate and they directly contradict it, saying that Jesus was found innocent of rebellion by Pilate. But since you’re a troll and a heretic, I expect you to keep repeating your assertion for quite some time. It’s the nature of the beast.
Of course, Pilate’s seeming reluctance to crucify Jesus is entirely possible,
***Dude, here you are arguing against your own pet theory.
especially since, as Luke 23:12 reports: “That day Herod and Pilate became friends—before this they had been enemies.”
***It seems like you read one book about Pontius Pilate and can’t get off this subject. I suppose I shouldn’t expect more from a heretic.
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”.
***The gospels record directly that Pilate held Jesus innocent of rebellion. In your heretical viewpoint, the gospels are reliable sources for the placque but not the other thing. You’re a loon.
Again, I can’t imagine why you so wish to deny what is obviously true, from the texts.
***Oh, look, the heretic repeats what he wrote before. In the heretic’s viewpoint the gospels are reliable, but no they’re not because they don’t support his pet theory. And OF COURSE, he CAN’T IMAGINE why anyone can’t see it his way.
Kevmo: “I object to your particular interpretations because they are unhistorical, and driven by your idealogy.”
You mis-understand,
***No. I’ve seen what you’ve been writing and my understanding is clear. You are a heretic.
doubtless because your religious beliefs won’t allow you to consider broader historical data.
***And if you clicked on the link for 3 seconds rather than writing that ridiculous tripe for 3 seconds, you’d see your position was long ago utterly disproven. But you won’t do that, you’re just a heretic here pushing an idealogy.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2056400/posts
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.
***I can. You can’t. here’s proof. Post #1864 where you confuse a historical observation with a religious belief. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3069049/posts?page=1864#1864
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.
***Maybe you should read someone else besides this guy. But you won’t, because you’ve drifted into that dark territory of heresy.
He writes history, not religious apologetics.
***I would suggest to FReepers that they’d have to take your word for it, but judging from your writings on this thread that is a spiritually unwise thing to do.
Naturally, you claim it’s “just another religion”, since his history doesn’t agree with your beliefs.
***Where did I claim that? I didn’t. You projected it. Again with the projection thing, you’re worse than the average libtard troll on these threads.
But I began this, ahem, discussion trying to distinguish between definitions of the words “science”, “history” and “religious beliefs”.
***And you utterly, COMPLETELY FAILED to do so in post #1864. Proof that you’re here on idealogical grounds and now you’re just trolling and pushing a heresy. A damnable heresy, as the title suggests.
Those are my distinctions, and I’m sticking to them...
***About what one would expect from a troll who’s been proving wrong — and in this case, worse than a troll because you are pushing a HERESY.