Is there a cure for homophobia? Introducing Lovelace......

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You at least responded sentence by sentence,

You mean that when rogue breaks up a reply your comment does not apply? There is a word for that!

It's clear to everybody you've lost the debate when you are forced to break a post up into a series of sentence fragments just to respond.

[Mountain Man]

You mean that when rogue breaks up a reply your comment does not apply?

They still apply, and you would know that if you weren't in the habit of breaking up posts into sentence fragments in order to respond.

[rogue06]

That remark can only have been made by someone who has never consulted any of the relevant works within this extensive corpus of academic literature.

That remark can only have been made by someone trying to bluff and bluster sans any supporting evidence.

The reference to Jesus in respect to the comments on James is as an aside

And? How does that change anything?

We do not know what Josephus may have originally written about the man. It may have been somewhat unflattering considering Josephus' known views regarding prophets, alleged Messianic claimants, and wonder-workers.

I wouldn't be in the least surprised if it was unflattering. What is the point? Has anyone ever argued that he was a Christian or even neutral? The fact is that for someone that you previously argued made no impact during His lifetime garnered two mentions by Josephus.

Do you have any idea of the politico-religious and social implications of the Kingdom of God within the context of first century CE Jewish eschatology?

Do you have any idea of how being declared a great prophet and not preaching a message of insurrection has nothing to do with that?

That is total nonsense and is also contradicted by your next remark.

If "it is doubtful any reports would have made it all the way to Pilate" how can you now allege that Pilate would have known by using the term "Absolutely"?

I was agreeing that the Romans employed spies and paid informers to help keep track of potential troublemakers. Virtually every government in existence has done so. And with all the buzz circulating around Jesus they would naturally have investigated him. But given he was making no revolutionary claims, not preaching a message of insurrection, they would have found, as the saying goes, no there, there.

Intelligence agencies are constantly flooded with rumors and claims. If after investigating they don't find anything, they don't take any action. They simply can't act on every rumor. And given the Roman's reputation for ruthlessness, if they found anything, the odds that they would have let Him waltz on into Jerusalem where He could stir up serious trouble, are infinitesimally small.

The only way that would happen was if there was a major miscommunication foul-up. And if that were the case Pilate wouldn't have let Him go by sending Him to Herod.

Do you understand anything about popular political movements?

I dare say a great deal more than you since handling such groups was what I did many years ago.

While it remains within the bounds of probability that the man himself was non-violent, some of his associates, or those on the fringe of his movement, may not have been. This would have been a major cause of concern for both the Jewish authorities and the Roman administration who usually worked in tandem. I wonder if you actually know anything about this collaboration which was paralleled in other parts of the Roman empire.

I cannot discount the possibility that some of Jesus' followers were rather aggressive. He attracted folks from across the spectrum. Matthew had been a tax collector (working for the government) while Simon was a zealot (someone working against the government). There did seem to be some effort in getting Him to be more political and He had to warn those in His inner circle not to tell anyone He was the Messiah.

Scripture Verse: Matthew 16:20

"Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ."

© Copyright Original Source

Considering a man arriving in Jerusalem from Galilee at the head of a popular throng on the eve of a major Jewish religious festival, with all its inherent implications, and when Jerusalem's population was at least doubled by an influx of Jewish pilgrims, your credulous modern comparison is rather inappropriate.

Given that as you say "holy men" were rampant during this time, it is highly doubtful that Jesus was the only one entering "at the head of a popular throng on the eve of a major Jewish religious festival." It might have been anything but uncommon. But as long as they weren't preaching insurrection the Romans wouldn't be all that interested.

On the contrary he was the military governor of the province whose remit was to maintain law and order. He also only had a relatively small force of troops to support him.

As ever you exhibit your profound lack of comprehension regarding contemporary situations in early first century CE Judaea.

None of which means that Pilate was an overly excessive micromanager personally reading every single report filed. Reports get screened, with only those deemed important making it all the way to the top. Do you think that the Director of the CIA, or the head of Britain's MI6 pores over every report and every rumor? There was nothing in Christ's behavior that would have warranted reports on Him being brought to Pilate's attention.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

They still apply, and you would know that if you weren't in the habit of breaking up posts into sentence fragments in order to respond.

Yet you did not offer the same reply to him as you did to me. You noted to rogue that "You at least responded sentence by sentence"

Whereas you accused me of being "forced to break a post up into a series of sentence fragments just to respond."

As I noted, there is word for behaviour like that!

[rogue06]

His importance developed posthumously. His life was lived out as an insignificant figure in a minor eastern Roman province.



He only gained the attention of the contemporary local Roman authorities because they regarded him and his followers as potential Jewish dissidents. Not as the originator of some prospective new religious cult.

They appear to have only reached that conclusion after the Sanhedrin brought Him to them making that claim. Otherwise, as I noted He would have never been allowed into Jerusalem in the first place.

[Mountain Man]

Yet you did not offer the same reply to him as you did to me.

You are referencing my reply to him.

[rogue06]

Yet you did not offer the same reply to him as you did to me. You noted to rogue that "You at least responded sentence by sentence"

Whereas you accused me of being "forced to break a post up into a series of sentence fragments just to respond."

As I noted, there is word for behaviour like that!

We can now add being incapable of distinguishing between a point by point rebuttal which deals with whole sentences and paragraphs, and inserting wise-cracks between virtually every phrase, to the long list of things beyond H_A's ability.

[rogue06]

I should note that I'm not saying that I never indulge in inserting wise cracks in a similar manner. But I can distinguish between that and a point-by-point rebuttal

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You are referencing my reply to him.

I forgive you your duplicitous behaviour.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

We can now add being incapable of distinguishing between a point by point rebuttal which deals with whole sentences and paragraphs, and inserting wise-cracks between virtually every phrase, to the long list of things beyond H_A's ability.

Oh I am not the one that so often resorts to silly emoticons and gifs in replies. I leave that to you.

[rogue06]

Oh I am not the one that so often resorts to silly emoticons and gifs in replies. I leave that to you.

Iron E.jpg

8e892807-d6af-4be2-9fb2-8892c3231d5d.jpg

And you still cannot distinguish between a point-by-point rebuttal and simply inserting wise cracks after every phrase

[tabibito]

Iron E.jpg

8e892807-d6af-4be2-9fb2-8892c3231d5d.jpg

And you still cannot distinguish between a point-by-point rebuttal and simply inserting wise cracks after every phrase

Perhaps they're only silly when other people use them?

[Sparko]

Always been curious why liberals insist on calling anyone who is against homosexuality "homophobic?" Thinking homosexuality is wrong and a sin is not being afraid of homosexuals. Nor is it hating homosexuals.

I think murder is a sin and wrong. I am not murderphobic. I also think Adultery is a sin. I am not adulteryphobic.

Nor do I hate homosexuals. I get along fine with the ones I know. I don't approve of their lifestyles but that is their business. I know it sounds trite, but I have had some gay friends IRL and online.

[Mountain Man]

Always been curious why liberals insist on calling anyone who is against homosexuality "homophobic?

It's a slur, nothing more.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

They appear to have only reached that conclusion after the Sanhedrin brought Him to them making that claim.

Unfortunately the four gospel accounts are contradictory.

Mark and Matthew inform us that the entire body of the Sanhedrin all seventy one members according to the Mishnah was already assembled in the house of the high priest, at night, and on Passover night of all nights. Not only is the council is present but a collection of witnesses are there ready to testify against Jesus. However, Luke makes no mention of any nocturnal session of the Sanhedrin. The writer of John has Jesus him being taken to Annas and then being questioned by Caiaphas, with no mention of any council members or witnesses being present.

During the night the alleged messianic claims of Jesus are treated as a religious offence and then suddenly in the morning blasphemy conveniently metamorphoses into a political offence and anti-Roman revolutionary activity. No justification or explanation is offered for this sudden change of tactic.

Otherwise, as I noted He would have never been allowed into Jerusalem in the first place.

Do you imagine that auxiliary Roman soldiers were posted at the city gates?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Perhaps they're only silly when other people use them?

Oh I was thinking more of this - which he likes to use

And his tendency to post gifs. We all post gifs now and again of course but rogue does it more than some.