Broadway, you're not even capable of defending your own history so the Jewish kid is going to have to do it for you. Quoting the Christian Bible might work for you and the other sheep, but the real refutation of Skep's post lies in much older and more meaningful diatribe. Jesus was not The Messiah, but he existed and is documented in The Talmud which predates the Roman nonsense mentioned in Skep's article link.
Sorry Skep, The "Roman aristocrats" were out to destroy not just the soon to be Christians but the Jews as well.
The Romans destroyed the Second Temple http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Temple which had been re built on The Temple Mount in Jerusalem made possible by the accession of Cyrus the Great of Persia in 538 BCE. The Romans destroyed the second temple in 70 AD. The Jewish scholars, who up to that point had relied on spoken history started writing stuff down.
You know I'm not here to defend the Bible Thumpers but there does exist an equally old source from those times (1st and 2nd centuries) that recognizes Jesus as the mortal man, son of Mary, teacher, rabbi and in possession of supernatural powers. But not The Messiah. That document(s) is known as The Talmud. It was written in the second and fifth century, but had been carried forward from hundreds of years earlier by word of mouth amongst the priests and elders.
So, just saying that your article is insufficient proof of anything other than what we already know about the Roman aristocrats of the first centuries, and their attempts at rewriting history to suit their own agenda.
Posted on October 10, 2013 - 11:41 AM