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
FRiend, please think about this: if the plaque "King of the Jews" did not mean what it said, then what did it mean?
Or, to put it another way: if Pilate let Jesus be crucified for "blasphemy", then why didn't he write the word "blasphemy" on his plaque?
Kevmo from his 2008 link: "Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant, who certainly has no theological axe to grind, indicates that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for a large number of famous pagan personages - yet no one would dare to argue their non-existence. "
Michael Grant is my source for saying that the New Testament is rather well attested to.
But neither Michael Grant nor any other serious historian would interpret that to mean every jot & tittle of the New Testament can be considered as historically accurate, especially where one account differs from others.
Sorry, FRiend, but history is not all about trying to prove the Bible.
It is partly about using as much of the Bible as possible to help confirm other data.