R K
Guest
Well, part of it is historically factual... The tear drop and beyond, yea, I agree...</p>
IHN and my time (Please read, everyone)
- Thread starter Ton
- Start date
Ton
New member
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,991
- Liked Posts:
- 124
- Location:
- Park Ridge, IL
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="R K" data-cid="212540" data-time="1382995550">
Well, part of it is historically factual... The tear drop and beyond, yea, I agree...</p></blockquote>
Technically, none of it is historically factual... but that is for another thread! Lol!
Well, part of it is historically factual... The tear drop and beyond, yea, I agree...</p></blockquote>
Technically, none of it is historically factual... but that is for another thread! Lol!
R K
Guest
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tony DeFrancesco" data-cid="212542" data-time="1382996806">
<div>
Technically, none of it is historically factual... but that is for another thread! Lol!</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
</p>
Depends on which way you look at it. The fact the Romans crucified him is 100% factual...</p>
<div>
Technically, none of it is historically factual... but that is for another thread! Lol!</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
</p>
Depends on which way you look at it. The fact the Romans crucified him is 100% factual...</p>
Ton
New member
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,991
- Liked Posts:
- 124
- Location:
- Park Ridge, IL
Another thread, another time my friend!</p>
R K
Guest
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tony DeFrancesco" data-cid="212546" data-time="1382998899">
<div>
Another thread, another time my friend!</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Would be a good discussion. That movie brought out a lot of controversy, but most schools would say there are parts very factual. Even though the Jews would disagree since it paints them in a not so good position.</p>
<div>
Another thread, another time my friend!</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Would be a good discussion. That movie brought out a lot of controversy, but most schools would say there are parts very factual. Even though the Jews would disagree since it paints them in a not so good position.</p>
- Joined:
- May 12, 2010
- Posts:
- 46,620
- Liked Posts:
- 22,310
Alright Tony lets just get this over with.</p>
</p>
Give me the site and I'll run it.</p>
</p>
Me, TCD and PMX will moderate. Variable will be in charge of all articles.</p>
</p>
Give me the site and I'll run it.</p>
</p>
Me, TCD and PMX will moderate. Variable will be in charge of all articles.</p>
- Joined:
- Jun 6, 2010
- Posts:
- 15,741
- Liked Posts:
- 7,153
- Location:
- NW Burbs
You want to read about mandatory visors and a permanent ban on fighting? :sad-suicidepills: </p>
supraman
New member
- Joined:
- May 16, 2010
- Posts:
- 8,024
- Liked Posts:
- 196
- Location:
- St.Pete, FL
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Grimson" data-cid="212555" data-time="1383003000">
<div>
Alright Tony lets just get this over with.</p>
</p>
Give me the site and I'll run it.</p>
</p>
Me, TCD and PMX will moderate. Variable will be in charge of all articles.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Can someone give me a link to CCS?</p>
<div>
Alright Tony lets just get this over with.</p>
</p>
Give me the site and I'll run it.</p>
</p>
Me, TCD and PMX will moderate. Variable will be in charge of all articles.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Can someone give me a link to CCS?</p>
- Joined:
- Oct 19, 2013
- Posts:
- 7,956
- Liked Posts:
- 829
- Location:
- Wish You Were Here
- Joined:
- May 12, 2010
- Posts:
- 46,620
- Liked Posts:
- 22,310
Their Hawks board is more dead than IHN right now.</p>
- Joined:
- Dec 10, 2014
- Posts:
- 7,876
- Liked Posts:
- 1,107
- Location:
- Anacortes, WA via Glenview, IL
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Grimson" data-cid="212562" data-time="1383004119">
<div>
Their Hawks board is more dead than IHN right now.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yeah but if you moved over there'd be bustlin activity. Adios!</p>
<div>
Their Hawks board is more dead than IHN right now.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yeah but if you moved over there'd be bustlin activity. Adios!</p>
CLWolf81
Fan Captain
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,107
- Liked Posts:
- 96
- Location:
- Chicago, Illinois
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="The Count Dante" data-cid="212507" data-time="1382988857">
<div>
And in Chicago fashion, vote early, vote often!</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Does this mean that even the dead voted? :icon-rolleyes:</p>
<div>
And in Chicago fashion, vote early, vote often!</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Does this mean that even the dead voted? :icon-rolleyes:</p>
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,014
- Liked Posts:
- 4
- Location:
- Plainfield, IL
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="R K" data-cid="212544" data-time="1382998362">
<div>
Depends on which way you look at it. The fact the Romans crucified him is 100% factual...</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
That isn't accurate. Did the Romans crucify a guy named jesus around the time?Who knows, there have been 71 tombs found for a "jesus" around the time period.</p>
</p>
Did the Romans actually crucify the person identified as jesus in the bible (ignoring supernatural feats)? That is a really bold claim to say that it is 100% factual. The only Roman to mention it was Tacitus, when writing about where Christians got their name (which he said the Romans crucified a guy named Christus), and even then, whether he was writing from the perspective of an actual historical document (he was writing over 80 years after the fact mind you) or just repeating contemporary christian claims is not known.</p>
</p>
My point there is no way you can say with a strait face, "the" Jesus(by that i mean, the man that inspired the character in the bible), was 100% in fact crucified by the Romans, there is simply no proof this is the case.</p>
</p>
I am not even arguing he (if the biblical inspiration for jesus even existed) didn't get crucified by the Romans. I am simply saying there is a severe lack of hard evidence to implicate he was, especially to argue it is 100% factual.</p>
<div>
Depends on which way you look at it. The fact the Romans crucified him is 100% factual...</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
That isn't accurate. Did the Romans crucify a guy named jesus around the time?Who knows, there have been 71 tombs found for a "jesus" around the time period.</p>
</p>
Did the Romans actually crucify the person identified as jesus in the bible (ignoring supernatural feats)? That is a really bold claim to say that it is 100% factual. The only Roman to mention it was Tacitus, when writing about where Christians got their name (which he said the Romans crucified a guy named Christus), and even then, whether he was writing from the perspective of an actual historical document (he was writing over 80 years after the fact mind you) or just repeating contemporary christian claims is not known.</p>
</p>
My point there is no way you can say with a strait face, "the" Jesus(by that i mean, the man that inspired the character in the bible), was 100% in fact crucified by the Romans, there is simply no proof this is the case.</p>
</p>
I am not even arguing he (if the biblical inspiration for jesus even existed) didn't get crucified by the Romans. I am simply saying there is a severe lack of hard evidence to implicate he was, especially to argue it is 100% factual.</p>
supraman
New member
- Joined:
- May 16, 2010
- Posts:
- 8,024
- Liked Posts:
- 196
- Location:
- St.Pete, FL
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="The Super Douchiev" data-cid="212606" data-time="1383061965">
<div>
That isn't accurate. Did the Romans crucify a guy named jesus around the time?Who knows, there have been 71 tombs found for a "jesus" around the time period.</p>
</p>
Did the Romans actually crucify the person identified as jesus in the bible (ignoring supernatural feats)? That is a really bold claim to say that it is 100% factual. The only Roman to mention it was Tacitus, when writing about where Christians got their name (which he said the Romans crucified a guy named Christus), and even then, whether he was writing from the perspective of an actual historical document (he was writing over 80 years after the fact mind you) or just repeating contemporary christian claims is not known.</p>
</p>
My point there is no way you can say with a strait face, "the" Jesus(by that i mean, the man that inspired the character in the bible), was 100% in fact crucified by the Romans, there is simply no proof this is the case.</p>
</p>
I am not even arguing he (if the biblical inspiration for jesus even existed) didn't get crucified by the Romans. I am simply saying there is a severe lack of hard evidence to implicate he was, especially to argue it is 100% factual.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
What about Josephus?</p>
<div>
That isn't accurate. Did the Romans crucify a guy named jesus around the time?Who knows, there have been 71 tombs found for a "jesus" around the time period.</p>
</p>
Did the Romans actually crucify the person identified as jesus in the bible (ignoring supernatural feats)? That is a really bold claim to say that it is 100% factual. The only Roman to mention it was Tacitus, when writing about where Christians got their name (which he said the Romans crucified a guy named Christus), and even then, whether he was writing from the perspective of an actual historical document (he was writing over 80 years after the fact mind you) or just repeating contemporary christian claims is not known.</p>
</p>
My point there is no way you can say with a strait face, "the" Jesus(by that i mean, the man that inspired the character in the bible), was 100% in fact crucified by the Romans, there is simply no proof this is the case.</p>
</p>
I am not even arguing he (if the biblical inspiration for jesus even existed) didn't get crucified by the Romans. I am simply saying there is a severe lack of hard evidence to implicate he was, especially to argue it is 100% factual.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
What about Josephus?</p>
- Joined:
- May 16, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,745
- Liked Posts:
- 0
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="CLWolf81" data-cid="212600" data-time="1383058996">
<div>
Does this mean that even the dead voted? :icon-rolleyes:</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
In Chicago? Of course! Death does not remove the importance of your vote!</p>
<div>
Does this mean that even the dead voted? :icon-rolleyes:</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
In Chicago? Of course! Death does not remove the importance of your vote!</p>
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,014
- Liked Posts:
- 4
- Location:
- Plainfield, IL
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Supra" data-cid="212611" data-time="1383063698">
<div>
What about Josephus?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
I excluded Josephus because he was a Jew(despite also being a roman citizen). Regardless, he like Tacitus, was writing about an event that allegedly occurred decades before his birth, and his writings are notorious for having been forged and modified following his death. Its pretty much consensus his writings on jesus death at the hands of the Romans are not entirely authentic.</p>
<div>
What about Josephus?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
I excluded Josephus because he was a Jew(despite also being a roman citizen). Regardless, he like Tacitus, was writing about an event that allegedly occurred decades before his birth, and his writings are notorious for having been forged and modified following his death. Its pretty much consensus his writings on jesus death at the hands of the Romans are not entirely authentic.</p>
BigPete
New member
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,010
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Belleville, IL
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="The Super Douchiev" data-cid="212616" data-time="1383066076">
<div>
I excluded Josephus because he was a Jew(despite also being a roman citizen). Regardless, he like Tacitus, was writing about an event that allegedly occurred decades before his birth, and his writings are notorious for having been forged and modified following his death. Its pretty much consensus his writings on jesus death at the hands of the Romans are not entirely authentic.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
</p>
</p>
Which brings us back to the point of this thread.</p>
</p>
"Take it on faith. Everything will be okay :angelic-flying: "</p>
<div>
I excluded Josephus because he was a Jew(despite also being a roman citizen). Regardless, he like Tacitus, was writing about an event that allegedly occurred decades before his birth, and his writings are notorious for having been forged and modified following his death. Its pretty much consensus his writings on jesus death at the hands of the Romans are not entirely authentic.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
</p>
</p>
Which brings us back to the point of this thread.</p>
</p>
"Take it on faith. Everything will be okay :angelic-flying: "</p>
R K
Guest
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="The Super Douchiev" data-cid="212616" data-time="1383066076">
<div>
I excluded Josephus because he was a Jew(despite also being a roman citizen). Regardless, he like Tacitus, was writing about an event that allegedly occurred decades before his birth, and his writings are notorious for having been forged and modified following his death. Its pretty much consensus his writings on jesus death at the hands of the Romans are not entirely authentic.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
</p>
Ok, more accurate than the tear drop? I'm not the biggest religious scholar so only know enough to be dangerous. I do believe many thought that to be as accurate as possible.</p>
</p>
Good thread to start though.</p>
</p>
I'm not sure anyone parted the Sea either.</p>
<div>
I excluded Josephus because he was a Jew(despite also being a roman citizen). Regardless, he like Tacitus, was writing about an event that allegedly occurred decades before his birth, and his writings are notorious for having been forged and modified following his death. Its pretty much consensus his writings on jesus death at the hands of the Romans are not entirely authentic.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
</p>
Ok, more accurate than the tear drop? I'm not the biggest religious scholar so only know enough to be dangerous. I do believe many thought that to be as accurate as possible.</p>
</p>
Good thread to start though.</p>
</p>
I'm not sure anyone parted the Sea either.</p>
R K
Guest
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="BigPete" data-cid="212624" data-time="1383068146">
<div>
Which brings us back to the point of this thread.</p>
</p>
"Take it on faith. Everything will be okay :angelic-flying: "</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Only when GOD WILLS IT! </p>
</p>
If this isn't a derail I don't know what is. Well done people!</p>
<div>
Which brings us back to the point of this thread.</p>
</p>
"Take it on faith. Everything will be okay :angelic-flying: "</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Only when GOD WILLS IT! </p>
</p>
If this isn't a derail I don't know what is. Well done people!</p>
R K
Guest
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="The Super Douchiev" data-cid="212606" data-time="1383061965">
<div>
That isn't accurate. Did the Romans crucify a guy named jesus around the time?Who knows, there have been 71 tombs found for a "jesus" around the time period.</p>
</p>
Did the Romans actually crucify the person identified as jesus in the bible (ignoring supernatural feats)? That is a really bold claim to say that it is 100% factual. The only Roman to mention it was Tacitus, when writing about where Christians got their name (which he said the Romans crucified a guy named Christus), and even then, whether he was writing from the perspective of an actual historical document (he was writing over 80 years after the fact mind you) or just repeating contemporary christian claims is not known.</p>
</p>
My point there is no way you can say with a strait face, "the" Jesus(by that i mean, the man that inspired the character in the bible), was 100% in fact crucified by the Romans, there is simply no proof this is the case.</p>
</p>
I am not even arguing he (if the biblical inspiration for jesus even existed) didn't get crucified by the Romans. I am simply saying there is a severe lack of hard evidence to implicate he was, especially to argue it is 100% factual.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
http://bible-truth.org/msg160.html</p>
</p>
</p>
I think at this time most of every thing is what you want to believe. I guess 100% accurate was a term I shouldn't have used, verses many scholars would point in that direction.</p>
<div>
That isn't accurate. Did the Romans crucify a guy named jesus around the time?Who knows, there have been 71 tombs found for a "jesus" around the time period.</p>
</p>
Did the Romans actually crucify the person identified as jesus in the bible (ignoring supernatural feats)? That is a really bold claim to say that it is 100% factual. The only Roman to mention it was Tacitus, when writing about where Christians got their name (which he said the Romans crucified a guy named Christus), and even then, whether he was writing from the perspective of an actual historical document (he was writing over 80 years after the fact mind you) or just repeating contemporary christian claims is not known.</p>
</p>
My point there is no way you can say with a strait face, "the" Jesus(by that i mean, the man that inspired the character in the bible), was 100% in fact crucified by the Romans, there is simply no proof this is the case.</p>
</p>
I am not even arguing he (if the biblical inspiration for jesus even existed) didn't get crucified by the Romans. I am simply saying there is a severe lack of hard evidence to implicate he was, especially to argue it is 100% factual.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
http://bible-truth.org/msg160.html</p>
</p>
</p>
I think at this time most of every thing is what you want to believe. I guess 100% accurate was a term I shouldn't have used, verses many scholars would point in that direction.</p>
