re In fact, this is one of the facts that some historians and theologians use when they wonder if Jesus existed at all--the fact that there is no record of him historically until later.
Actually, I did hear of a Roman court record which describes a defendent completely and correctly fitting Jesus of Nazareth. No, I don't know of any web site reciting this historical bit of evidence, but then I hope you won't dismiss it out of hand---> The last I heard, the web wasn't the source of all facts known to man.
The way the Bible portrays the crucifixion, it seems very newsworthy. But CNN was not there with its cameras running, and we really do not know a lot about what happened.
Huh? Are you saying that today's news reporters are the only humans on earth ever to have credibility, and that they have more credibility than Jesus's own blood brother James, Jesus's own blood mother Mary, Jesus' disciples and various followers who witnessed the execution? Incredible logic. Are you aware that there were NO newspapers then? [edit: Christine, keep in mind that writing in them days around Jerusalem was only done by a priviliged few, because only the religious people, ie the Jewish high priests and their scribes were taught to write. And then the writing was done on Paprus bark, and I don't even know what they used for an instrument, probably a quill of some sort -- the point is, writing was a complete profession in itself---and only the most important things were recorded -- you are correct that Jesus was executed in the same manner as the basest of criminals were executed. That was what happened, the Jewish high priests were satisfied at last to have gotten rid of him, or so they thought. Of course at the time, there would only be the sparsest of court records, and that's it for writing down events. Nobody has said that Jesus's crucifixion was a world-wide known event, and I'm not sure how that even came into the discussion. I believe the accounts of the four Gospel writers, and of Apostle Paul, ALL of whom were in and around Jerusalem at the time, and the Gospel writers were indeed very close followers of Christ. I believe their account. "Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe".]
It is highly unlikely that Pilate actually had any conversation at all with Jesus.
No sooner than I educated you as to the system of courts and governments in Jerusalem, and now you are making judgements about what is likely or unlikely to have happened. You aren't afraid of rushing to judgement, are you?
Crucifixion was the way lower class, common criminals were executed, at the entrance to town, as a warning to others.
True, but so what? What of it?
The fact that none of Jesus' followers were rounded up is an indication that he was not seen as any kind of big threat.
And? He wasn't a big threat, not physically anyway. Jesus's crime was this: He said his Father was God, and he was God's Son. He was the promised Messiah. But the problem is, the Jewish high priests rejected him, because they were looking for a savior who would become their actual physical ruler, their king. The Jews desperately wanted to rid themselves of Roman rule, and were hoping the promised Messiah would help them pull off a rebellion against the Romans. But Jesus didn't come to establish a worldly kingdom. His kingdom is a heavenly kingdom, and that is where He reigns, and will reign, forever and ever. Not here on earth. The other thing, and really the thing which really made the high priests hate Christ, was that Christ told them that they of themselves were not perfect, and fell far short of what the Heavenly Father expected. The high priests were pretty on the outside, but inside, in their hearts they were jealous and full of hatred.
Look, obviously we disagree on much, and I don't see that any fruitful discussions can come out of continuing this. All I see is more arguing and disagreements, and I really do not enjoy that. |
