Jump to content
Check your account email address ×

New evidence indicate that it wasn’t the joos that killed Christ.


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Momorider said:

 "Church" is a Christian thing you are a shitforbrains and this is just more proof and another example of you have ZERO clue about anything  :finger3:

Momo is correct 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold Member
4 minutes ago, Momorider said:

 "Church" is a Christian thing you are a shitforbrains and this is just more proof and another example of you have ZERO clue about anything  :finger3:

:meg:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold Member
Just now, Zambroski said:

:lol:

A FSCE historian.  Nice!  Some day, this place will be seen and remembered as the standard for how forums should work!

:lmao: 

 

 

I wanted the world to know you finally typed something worth reading!  :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

The theory that seems more realistic to me and what I’ve chosen to believe is that Jesus was eventually put to death for the continued mocking and ridicule of the Roman aristocrats and soldiers after being warned time and time and time again. They thought he was just an insane peasant with a small group of crazies following him.  

How could they have known?  :lol:

If you love Jesus, thank the Romans, without them, there is no martyr in which to write substantial stories about.

His interaction with the government was actually rather limited. The theory that makes the most sense to me was that Herod didn’t want any troublemakers in town over Passover. Passover was always a struggle for the government. Sluts, drunks, whores, kooks, and unknowns from all over the Middle East descended onto town. The romans were quite efficient at staying ahead of the curve and purging trouble before it sprang up. So they squashed him like a grape. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
17 hours ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

60-80 years after...  Some Roman documents are also understood to be Christian modified, if not outright forgeries.

Neal

 Maybe so but much of world history going that far back we have to take on scholar's or historian text.  Should we eliminate all history that doesn't have archaeological facts behind them?     

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol

×
×
  • Create New...