LogFAQs > #878269020

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	How do you refute the historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus
ChromaticAngel 05/01/17 2:38:51 PM #193:	Saloonist posted... ChromaticAngel posted... Saloonist posted... Yet you assert that Jesus was a Zealot. Provide some evidence for this please. He was crucified. That's the evidence. And the evidence that this was for activities as a Zealot, despite his entire movement being disassociated from their fellow Jews, especially revolutionary ones...? Because a peaceful rabbi would not have been crucified. As I already said, crucifixion was an extremely rare punishment. It wasn't like the romans would hold daily crucifying ceremonies or anything. While they executed a bunch of people for various reasons, they did so usually through other means. Crucifying only happened in rare cases of an extremely heinous criminal or enemy of the state. So if he was crucified, then you admit that he was an enemy of the state or rebel leader. If you don't admit that, then you admit that Pilate and the romans bent the rules regarding who gets crucified, and when you go down that route, you now have a supporting logical argument that the romans can and do break rules which means all of Kreeft's arguments that "romans wouldn't do _____" are now refuted all at once simultaneously, and so you have arrived at the answer. If Romans are willing to break one rule, they're willing to break others. If they didn't break any rules, then the only logical path that follows is that Jesus was a violent rebel who had his history revised by his closest friends after his death. --- https://puu.sh/tcLsT/24f4611235.png <cite>ChromaticAngel posted [p:878269020] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ChromaticAngel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>Yet you assert that Jesus was a Zealot. Provide some evidence for this please.</quote> He was crucified. That's the evidence.</quote> And the evidence that this was for activities as a Zealot, despite his entire movement being disassociated from their fellow Jews, especially revolutionary ones...?</quote> Because a peaceful rabbi would not have been crucified. As I already said, crucifixion was an extremely rare punishment. It wasn't like the romans would hold daily crucifying ceremonies or anything. While they executed a bunch of people for various reasons, they did so usually through other means. Crucifying only happened in rare cases of an extremely heinous criminal or enemy of the state. So if he was crucified, then you admit that he was an enemy of the state or rebel leader. If you don't admit that, then you admit that Pilate and the romans bent the rules regarding who gets crucified, and when you go down that route, you now have a supporting logical argument that the romans can and do break rules which means all of Kreeft's arguments that "romans wouldn't do _____" are now refuted all at once simultaneously, and so you have arrived at the answer. If Romans are willing to break one rule, they're willing to break others. If they didn't break any rules, then the only logical path that follows is that Jesus was a violent rebel who had his history revised by his closest friends after his death. --- https://puu.sh/tcLsT/24f4611235.png</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1