The Historical Jesus II

[maximara]

I just got my copy of Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus and he makes an interesting comment on page 260 regarding the dates given to the New Testament material.

He agrees that there is plenty wrong with the current dates but it would take a minimum of seven years of full time research to sort through the material and even at the end of that odds would be there wouldn't be any clear resolution.

So he goes with the majority consensus if for no other reason that he hasn't anything better to work with. But even given Paul a c50s CE and the not based on fact dates of c70 for Mark, c80 for Matthew, c90 for Luke, and John at c100 doesn't reduce the issues these works have.

Interestingly Carrier addresses the New Testament in reverse chronological order ie first Acts, then the Gospels, and finally the Epistles with a full chapter devoted to each.

 

[dejudge]

Maximara,

It's actually worse than that, if the point that was trying to be made was that the texts are now in English.

This:
It is more like someone versed in Japanese and the poetic nuances of traditional Haiku writing in English but taking the care to preserve the Haiku format and poetics as it would appear in Japanese, but instead rendering it in English - thereby causing the English to appear awkward, uniformly poor in grammar and non-poetic.
...would bring us up to the Greek.

To simulate the Greek (mostly) compilation going into English:

Then we would take that English rendering of the Haiku and translate it into French.

That would then bring us into a simulation of what Mark has gone through in linguistic juggling.

Mark is a complicated text to approach critically.

It would appear to me that you have not read gMark. There is no real Hebraic tonality in gMark. The author gMark was most likely Not a Jew.

In gMark, there are just a few words in a total of four verses which appear in Aramaic for which the author provides an interpretation.

It is also clear that the author used the Psalms of the Septuagint or a similar source.



1. Mark 5:41

And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.

2. Mark 7:34(KJV)

34 And looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened.

3. Mark 14:36

And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

4.Mark 15:34

And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Psalm 22:1

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?...

 

[pakeha]

Which was JaysonR's whole point. I might add that English does NOT have a uniform "poetic structure". As Moviebob correctly points out in his review of Disney's A Christmas Carol Late Victorian Century English is vastly different not only in words but grammar, syntax, and rhythm then any form of English spoken today...nearly to the point it is alien. And then there is the difference between British and US English. [ . . . ]

We're lucky to have someone posting here who can convey some of those same subtleties in the languages of the NT.

The answer is documented in the recovered NT Codices. The authors of the Myth Fables called Gospels wanted to show that the Romans found NO fault with Jesus the Son of God and that the crucifixion of the Son of God was caused by the Jews. [ . . . ]

Precisely.
Why bring in the Romans at all?

 

[dejudge]

dejudge

The answer is documented in the recovered NT Codices. The authors of the Myth Fables called Gospels wanted to show that the Romans found NO fault with Jesus the Son of God and that the crucifixion of the Son of God was caused by the Jews. [ . . . ]

Precisely.
Why bring in the Romans at all?

Again, the authors specifically showed that the Romans found no fault with Jesus the Son of God in order to dispel any claim that the Romans were responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus.

Do you not realize that people today claim Jesus in the NT was crucified by the Romans because he caused a disturbance at the Temple?

There is no such claim in the NT.

In the NT, the Romans are exonerated and the Jews are blamed for the crucifixion of Jesus.


Matthew 27:24 KJV---When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made , he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying , I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.


Matthew 27:25 KJV---Then answered all the people, and said , His blood be on us, and on our children.[/quote]

Because the authors brought the Romans into the story we know that it was claimed the Jews were held responsible for the crucifixion of the Son of God and that Pilate "bent over backwards" and attempted to release the Son of God after finding no fault with him.

 

[maximara]

Precisely.
Why bring in the Romans at all?

I think it has to do with the idea that Jesus was crucified. Crucifixion was associated with the Romans so they had to be brought in to explain the whole crucifixion thing.

 

[Brainache]

I think it has to do with the idea that Jesus was crucified. Crucifixion was associated with the Romans so they had to be brought in to explain the whole crucifixion thing.

The problem is that in dejudge's scenario, the whole thing was invented in the second to fourth centuries - The epistles, the early church historians with all their factionalism and in-fighting were all the product of some unnamed "Hoax Forgers".

If that is the case, they wouldn't have needed to include the Romans at all in the death of Jesus. They could just as well have him strangled by the High Priest on the Temple steps, if they really invented it all from scratch to blame "The Jews".

 

[metacristi]

I just got my copy of Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

The good thing about the book is that Carrier acknowledges openly that the same methodology he employs to defend mythicism (Bayesianism) could very well give the opposite result* The bad thing is that he is not yet prepared to accept that Bayesianism may just not be applicable in the case of Jesus studies where "probabilities are small, data is low quality, possible reference classes abound, and statements are vague".

Finally it's not a rocket science to see that if one agrees that Paul talks about an earthly Jesus and that there is a weak connection with other mythical heroes (it's common sense I'd say, no need of tortuous, ad hoc, auxiliary hypotheses to explain away) then Bayesianism gives the obvious conclusion that Jesus actually existed. But then people arrive at opposite conclusions based on the same set of data, no improvement over the criterions of authenticity. Either Bayesianism cannot make a difference or if it does then one of the approaches is wrong.

Let me believe that if the latter is the case then Carrier is on the 'wrong branch' (given the numerous 'epicycles' one needs to add to explain away some crucial direct evidence for an earthly Jesus). Overall I really doubt he can tilt the balance toward mythicism in secular Academia (completely unpersuasive for me his lectures, see youtube).


*

Though I shall argue it’s likely… that Jesus did not in fact exist, I cannot assume it has been conclusively proved here. In fact, it may yet be proved false in future work, using the very methods I employ (which were proposed and defended in my previous volume, Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus).

Hence the point of this book is not to end the debate but to demonstrate that scholars need to take this hypothesis more seriously before dismissing it out of hand, and they need much better arguments against it than they’ve heretofore deployed. A better refutation is needed, and a better theory of historicity, which, actually, credibly explains all the oddities in the evidence. If this book inspires nothing else, I’ll be happy if it’s that. But this book may do more. It might inspire more experts to agree with the possibility at least that Jesus Christ was born in myth, not history. And their continuing examination of the case may yet result in a growing consensus against the grain of current assumptions.

Either outcome would satisfy me. For my biases are such as to make no difference what the result should be. I only want the truth to be settled… because this volume can’t address every single item of evidence (it merely addresses the best evidence there is), its conclusion may yet be brought down, even with its own method, simply by introducing something it omits. If so, I welcome it.

 

[Brainache]

The good thing about the book is that Carrier acknowledges openly that the same methodology he employs to defend mythicism (Bayesianism) could very well give the opposite result* The bad thing is that he is not yet prepared to accept that Bayesianism may just not be applicable in the case of Jesus studies where "probabilities are small, data is low quality, possible reference classes abound, and statements are vague".

Finally it's not a rocket science to see that if one agrees that Paul talks about an earthly Jesus and that there is a weak connection with other mythical heroes (it's common sense I'd say, no need of tortuous, ad hoc, auxiliary hypotheses to explain away) then Bayesianism gives the obvious conclusion that Jesus actually existed. But then people arrive at opposite conclusions based on the same set of data, no improvement over the criterions of authenticity. Either Bayesianism cannot make a difference or if it does then one of the approaches is wrong.

Let me believe that if the latter is the case then Carrier is on the 'wrong branch' (given the numerous 'epicycles' one needs to add to explain away some crucial direct evidence for an earthly Jesus). Overall I really doubt he can tilt the balance toward mythicism in secular Academia (completely unpersuasive for me his lectures, see youtube).


*

Carrier has released his book and the world remains unshattered. Why am I not surprised?

His Bayesian approach amounts to: Myth in, Myth out, I suppose...

 

[dejudge]

The problem is that in dejudge's scenario, the whole thing was invented in the second to fourth centuries - The epistles, the early church historians with all their factionalism and in-fighting were all the product of some unnamed "Hoax Forgers".

The problem with your scenario is that you have no idea that Scholars have deduced the books of the NT are riddled with forgeries and false attribution.

Please, get familiar with Scholarship.

Bart Ehrman in "Did Jesus Exist?" at page 181-182 admitted the Gospels were NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and all the 27 books of NT except 8 are forgeries or false attribution.

The NT is riddled with Fake authors, false attribution, discrepancies, historical problems, contradictions and events that most likely did not happen.

If that is the case, they wouldn't have needed to include the Romans at all in the death of Jesus. They could just as well have him strangled by the High Priest on the Temple steps, if they really invented it all from scratch to blame "The Jews".

Your statement is very low on logic. We are NOT dealing with what they could have written but what is actually found in the recovered Codices and manuscripts.

Your "coulda--woulda--shoulda" argument is of no real value.

There is no requirement for Myth Fables to be historically accurate.

The authors of gMatthew and gLuke could have said the father of Jesus was Joseph instead of claiming he was born of a Ghost.

The author of gJohn could have said Jesus was a man instead of claiming he was God Creator.

The author of Acts could have said Jesus survived the crucifixion instead of claiming he physically ascended to heaven in a cloud after he was raised from the dead.

Joseph Smith could have said that he found the Mormon Bible in Spain instead of claiming he copied it from Golden Plates.

The very Gospels with its Fake or Falsely attributed authors did include the fables of Jesus the Son of God with the Sanhedrin and with Pilate specifically to show that the Romans believed Jesus was the Son of God--NOT the Jews.

At the trial with the Sanhedrin when Jesus admitted he was the Son of God he was found to be guilty of death.

At the crucifixion of Jesus it was a Roman centurion-[NOT a Jew] who admitted Jesus was TRULY the Son of God.


Matthew 27:54 KJV---Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done , they feared greatly, saying , Truly this was the Son of God.



Mark 15:39 KJV---And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out , and gave up the ghost , he said , Truly this man was the Son of God.

It is clear that the NT authors were writing Myth Fables.

People in antiquity who believed the Myth Fables of Jesus the Son of God were called Christians.

 

[dejudge]

Let me believe that if the latter is the case then Carrier is on the 'wrong branch' (given the numerous 'epicycles' one needs to add to explain away some crucial direct evidence for an earthly Jesus). Overall I really doubt he can tilt the balance toward mythicism in secular Academia (completely unpersuasive for me his lectures, see youtube).

Your claim that Carrier has "to explain away some crucial direct evidence for an earthly Jesus" is a well established fallacy.

There is no direct evidence for an earthly Jesus of Nazareth--ZERO.

Why are you repeating the very same debunked fallacies?

Please, you must realize that we have gone through virtually every single existing non-apologetic contemporary source of antiquity and NONE mentions a character called Jesus of Nazareth.

Please, all apologetic sources with the stories of Jesus of Nazareth are NOT eyewitness accounts.

It is HJers who have to explain away the massive amount of evidence of Myth Jesus.

The supposed earliest apologetic writers of the Jesus stories were ALL Fakes, including Paul.

 

[dejudge]

I just got my copy of Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus and he makes an interesting comment on page 260 regarding the dates given to the New Testament material.

He agrees that there is plenty wrong with the current dates but it would take a minimum of seven years of full time research to sort through the material and even at the end of that odds would be there wouldn't be any clear resolution.

So he goes with the majority consensus if for no other reason that he hasn't anything better to work with. But even given Paul a c50s CE and the not based on fact dates of c70 for Mark, c80 for Matthew, c90 for Luke, and John at c100 doesn't reduce the issues these works have.

Interestingly Carrier addresses the New Testament in reverse chronological order ie first Acts, then the Gospels, and finally the Epistles with a full chapter devoted to each.

A consensus without supporting evidence is worthless.

The Pauline material has already been examined by earlier Scholars and it was found the Entire Pauline Corpus was not authentic.

Modern Scholars have NOT been able to present any evidence to show that there was an historical Paul and that the Pauline Corpus was known by any figure of history in the 1st century pre 70 CE.

Not even the author of gLuke and Acts, a supposed close companion of Paul, knew of a single Pauline letter.

It would appear that Not a single author of the NT attended a Pauline Church.

The entire Pauline Corpus is historically bogus and cannot be used to support the HJ argument or the state of the Jesus cult of Christians up to at least 180 CE.

 

[Brainache]

The problem with your scenario is that you have no idea that Scholars have deduced the books of the NT are riddled with forgeries and false attribution.

Please, get familiar with Scholarship.

Bart Ehrman in "Did Jesus Exist?" at page 181-182 admitted the Gospels were NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and all the 27 books of NT except 8 are forgeries or false attribution.

The NT is riddled with Fake authors, false attribution, discrepancies, historical problems, contradictions and events that most likely did not happen.



Your statement is very low on logic. We are NOT dealing with what they could have written but what is actually found in the recovered Codices and manuscripts.

Your "coulda--woulda--shoulda" argument is of no real value.

There is no requirement for Myth Fables to be historically accurate.

The authors of gMatthew and gLuke could have said the father of Jesus was Joseph instead of claiming he was born of a Ghost.

The author of gJohn could have said Jesus was a man instead of claiming he was God Creator.

The author of Acts could have said Jesus survived the crucifixion instead of claiming he physically ascended to heaven in a cloud after he was raised from the dead.

Joseph Smith could have said that he found the Mormon Bible in Spain instead of claiming he copied it from Golden Plates.

The very Gospels with its Fake or Falsely attributed authors did include the fables of Jesus the Son of God with the Sanhedrin and with Pilate specifically to show that the Romans believed Jesus was the Son of God--NOT the Jews.

At the trial with the Sanhedrin when Jesus admitted he was the Son of God he was found to be guilty of death.

At the crucifixion of Jesus it was a Roman centurion-[NOT a Jew] who admitted Jesus was TRULY the Son of God.


Matthew 27:54 KJV---Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done , they feared greatly, saying , Truly this was the Son of God.



Mark 15:39 KJV---And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out , and gave up the ghost , he said , Truly this man was the Son of God.

It is clear that the NT authors were writing Myth Fables.

People in antiquity who believed the Myth Fables of Jesus the Son of God were called Christians.

Your claim that Carrier has "to explain away some crucial direct evidence for an earthly Jesus" is a well established fallacy.

There is no direct evidence for an earthly Jesus of Nazareth--ZERO.

Why are you repeating the very same debunked fallacies?

Please, you must realize that we have gone through virtually every single existing non-apologetic contemporary source of antiquity and NONE mentions a character called Jesus of Nazareth.

Please, all apologetic sources with the stories of Jesus of Nazareth are NOT eyewitness accounts.

It is HJers who have to explain away the massive amount of evidence of Myth Jesus.

The supposed earliest apologetic writers of the Jesus stories were ALL Fakes, including Paul.

A consensus without supporting evidence is worthless.

The Pauline material has already been examined by earlier Scholars and it was found the Entire Pauline Corpus was not authentic.

Modern Scholars have NOT been able to present any evidence to show that there was an historical Paul and that the Pauline Corpus was known by any figure of history in the 1st century pre 70 CE.

Not even the author of gLuke and Acts, a supposed close companion of Paul, knew of a single Pauline letter.

It would appear that Not a single author of the NT attended a Pauline Church.

The entire Pauline Corpus is historically bogus and cannot be used to support the HJ argument or the state of the Jesus cult of Christians up to at least 180 CE.

Re the above: Utter rot.

Please stop insulting our intelligence with this ridiculous nonsense.

 

[dejudge]

A consensus without supporting evidence is worthless.

The Pauline material has already been examined by earlier Scholars and it was found the Entire Pauline Corpus was not authentic.

Modern Scholars have NOT been able to present any evidence to show that there was an historical Paul and that the Pauline Corpus was known by any figure of history in the 1st century pre 70 CE.

Not even the author of gLuke and Acts, a supposed close companion of Paul, knew of a single Pauline letter.

It would appear that Not a single author of the NT attended a Pauline Church.

The entire Pauline Corpus is historically bogus and cannot be used to support the HJ argument or the state of the Jesus cult of Christians up to at least 180 CE.

Re the above: Utter rot.

Please stop insulting our intelligence with this ridiculous nonsense.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

A consensus without supporting evidence is worthless.

The Entire Pauline Corpus is of no historical value because it is without attestation in the NT itself, without attestation or contradicted by Multiple apologetic Christian writers.

Not a single Pauline writing has ever been found and dated to the supposed time of Jesus of Nazareth or before c 70 CE.

The authors of the Pauline Corpus are unknown.

Paul, the Pharisee of the Tribe of Benjamin never had any real existence.

 

[pakeha]

Again, the authors specifically showed that the Romans found no fault with Jesus the Son of God in order to dispel any claim that the Romans were responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus.

Do you not realize that people today claim Jesus in the NT was crucified by the Romans because he caused a disturbance at the Temple?

There is no such claim in the NT.

In the NT, the Romans are exonerated and the Jews are blamed for the crucifixion of Jesus.

Matthew 27:24 KJV---When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made , he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying , I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.


Matthew 27:25 KJV---Then answered all the people, and said , His blood be on us, and on our children.

Because the authors brought the Romans into the story we know that it was claimed the Jews were held responsible for the crucifixion of the Son of God and that Pilate "bent over backwards" and attempted to release the Son of God after finding no fault with him.

Wait.
Are you saying the inclucion of Roman involvement in the Jesus narrative is purely to highlight Jewish responsibility f0r Jesus' death?

I think it has to do with the idea that Jesus was crucified. Crucifixion was associated with the Romans so they had to be brought in to explain the whole crucifixion thing.

Possibly.
Then there is an antecedent to the Romans crucifying a Jewish king, Antigonus II Mattathias.

Cassius Dio's Roman History records: "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him.
Cassius Dio Cocceianus, Roman History, book xlix, c.22

I wonder if the crucifixion element wasn't a literary devise to link or associate the Jesus narrative to other Jewish royalty killed by Romans.

I puzzle over this because I've yet to read an explanation to the Roman element of the Jesus story which is convincing.

.[ . . . . ]
The very Gospels with its Fake or Falsely attributed authors did include the fables of Jesus the Son of God with the Sanhedrin and with Pilate specifically to show that the Romans believed Jesus was the Son of God--NOT the Jews.

At the trial with the Sanhedrin when Jesus admitted he was the Son of God he was found to be guilty of death.

At the crucifixion of Jesus it was a Roman centurion-[NOT a Jew] who admitted Jesus was TRULY the Son of God.


Matthew 27:54 KJV---Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done , they feared greatly, saying , Truly this was the Son of God.



Mark 15:39 KJV---And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out , and gave up the ghost , he said , Truly this man was the Son of God.

It is clear that the NT authors were writing Myth Fables.

People in antiquity who believed the Myth Fables of Jesus the Son of God were called Christians.

You may have a point there.
While I've often read the opinion that the crucifixion is one of the most historically probable events of the Jesus narrative, it can also be seen as the most obvious literary devise.

 

[dejudge]

Wait.
Are you saying the inclucion of Roman involvement in the Jesus narrative is purely to highlight Jewish responsibility f0r Jesus' death?

I am surprised that you would ask such a question. It is so basic

In the fables called Gospels Pilate claimed he found no fault with Jesus and the Jews accepted responsibility for his death then it must be obvious that the author of the Fable is showing that it was the Jews and NOT Pilate who caused Jesus to be crucified.

Matthew 27

When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.

Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

What you think the authors of the Fables called Gospels should have included or omitted is really irrelevant.

 

[pakeha]

I am surprised that you would ask such a question. It is so basic

In the fables called Gospels Pilate claimed he found no fault with Jesus and the Jews accepted responsibility for his death then it must be obvious that the author of the Fable is showing that it was the Jews and NOT Pilate who caused Jesus to be crucified. [ . . . ]

Basic?
Not really.
I've read proponents of an HJ claim the crucifixion is one of the more reliably historical events of the Jesus narrative.
I find it interesting you're saying it's pure fiction.

 

[dejudge]

Basic?
Not really.
I've read proponents of an HJ claim the crucifixion is one of the more reliably historical events of the Jesus narrative.
I find it interesting you're saying it's pure fiction.

Have you not read proponents of the MJ claim that Jesus of Nazareth was not a figure of history?

I find it extremely strange that you seem to have no idea that the crucifixion would be fiction if Jesus of Nazareth had no real existence.

The sources which claimed Jesus of Nazareth was crucified also claimed he was born of a Ghost, that he was God Creator, that he was with Satan the Devil on the pinnacle of the Jewish Temple, that he walked about 4 MILES on the sea, that he instantly transfigured, was raised from the dead on the THIRD day, after he was buried, that he ate food after the resurrection, that he cooked fish at a "beach party" and then ascended in a cloud.

The Fables called Gospels are basic Myth like Plutarch's Romulus.

I am afraid that I can only accept the NT as Myth Fables until new evidence surfaces.

Jesus of Nazareth is unknown outside the NT and apologetics.

 

[pakeha]

Have you not read proponents of the MJ claim that Jesus of Nazareth was not a figure of history?

I find it extremely strange that you seem to have no idea that the crucifixion would be fiction if Jesus of Nazareth had no real existence. [ . . . ]

Ah, dejudge, you're jesting at my expense, of course.
No worries.

 

[JaysonR]

Pakeha,

You are curious why the Romans even get involved if we are looking at a narrative construction.
The reasoning has to do with Law.

The Sanhedrin could not assemble in the absence of the Procurator of Judea, and a trial for the Death penalty could not be assigned without that gathering for conviction.

Josephus highlights this feature of legal knotting in accounting for the Ananus ben Ananus' removal from High Priest.

Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a Sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

So, if this is entirely fictional, the creators of the story would still have to bring in the Romans or else the narrative causes the question of how exactly this person was judged in a court of any kind as guilty if no one involved the Romans.

Which, at the least, means that if we are looking at a fictional tale, then the creators of the story were of close familiarity with an intricate component of Judean politics and expected their audience to be so familiar as well.

 

[dejudge]

Pakeha,

You are curious why the Romans even get involved if we are looking at a narrative construction.
The reasoning has to do with Law.

The Sanhedrin could not assemble in the absence of the Procurator of Judea, and a trial for the Death penalty could not be assigned without that gathering for conviction.

Well, examine Acts of the Apostles.

In Acts 7, a character called Stephen is STONED to death immediately after a trial with the Sanhedrin.

There is no Roman involvement with the killing of Stephen.


Acts 7:58-59 KJV

And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.

And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying , Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

In Acts 14, a character called Saul/Paul is STONED and left for dead. There is NO Roman involvement.

Acts 14:19 KJV

And there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people, and, having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead.

A Pauline writer claimed he was STONED. There is NO Roman involvement.

2 Corinthians 11:25 KJV

Thrice was I beaten with rods , once was I stoned , thrice I suffered shipwreck , a night and a day I have been in the deep.

It is clear that the Fables in the NT do not require adherence to the Law.

The mention of the trial of the SON of GOD under Pilate in the Myth Fables called Gospels is to show that the Jews were the ones who were responsible for Jesus' crucifixion NOT Pilate.

In the trial with the Sanhedrin the Son of God was found guilty of death as a Blasphemer.

Mark 14

Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62 And Jesus said , I am ......... 64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

It was the complete opposite under Pilate.

The Roman Governor declared to the Sanhedrin and the People he found NO Fault with Jesus.


Luke 23:4-14 KJV

Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.............................Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold , I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him