Write Final for my classics class

>Write Final for my classics class
>one of the Multiple choice questions was:

>Which Roman emperor reigned during Christ's supposed crucifixion.
>"supposed"

it is funny, the Crucifixion is one of the few events in Jesus's life that a consensus of historians agree happened.

Probably just put that in so Muslims don't get offended

Bet he goes out of his way to say BCE, too.
Muslims still see him as a crucified prophet, just not the son of God.

Its a bit more complicated
Muslims believed that Allah took Jesus to the skies and replaced him with someone else on the cross
And Jesus will come back to fight the Dajjal during the end of days

Nope, Jesus wasn't crucified.

I thought it was more or less consensus that Jesus was tied to a stake rather than nailed to a cross?

This. That he was from Nazareth, had some association with John the Baptist, and was crucified by the Romans during the rule of Pilate are about the only things that every religious studies/history scholar agrees upon.

The "Jesus myther" position is just a fedora'd fringe with little or no actual academic backing.

t. Jehovah's witness

Are you implying that Jesus was not tied to a steak?

im implying he was nailed with three nails

for muslims he was raised to heaven when he was on the cross so he didn't technically dieded

No, consensus is that we just don't know. The word used could mean either "stake" or "cross".

T: Mohammedan sand gnostic

Yeah, but seeing how he shared his fate with some common criminals, it doesn't make much sense to give them a traitor's death.

He would have been thrown in a mass grave at the end of the day. Therefore, the crucifixion happened differently from the bible.

>it doesn't make much sense to give them a traitor's death.
But it does make sense if the gospels were preaching to Roman citizens who could have been convicted as traitors.

Yeah, but we're not talking Jesus alone. He was there with two common criminals, all got the same punishment.

what class is that? that question is easy as fuck. pontius pilate

>"supposed"
yes. when you lack specifick evidence for something it is perfectly fine to use "supposed"

>every religious studies/history scholar agrees upon.
most =/= every

>chrsitlerina triggered because a history professor isn't being nice to her desert cult

Well in the Bible, Jesus takes the place of barabbas, who was supposed to be a traitor or rebel-rouser I think

>Roman records saying a Jesus of Nazareth was crucified on that date are wrong because I don't like Christianity

>Roman records saying a Jesus of Nazareth was crucified on that date
You don't need to lie about something to argue for something most historian agree on anyway.

I lost brain cells from reading this post.

Which bible are you reading

Calling bullshit on OP.

You dont get crucified as a common criminal.

"Thieves" is a stupid mistranslation

>Calling bullshit on OP.

It happened. I don't know if there's any deeper meaning to it. There were like 10 New Testament and early Christian questions. Just basic New Testament knowledge.

This P calls an evangelical circle jerk when he sees one.
------------------
/ \
/ \
/______________\

*Every credible scholar

I'm sorry

S'posed to be an Egyptian hieroglyph. Next:
__
| |
|
|

This thread reports false information.

>Roman records saying a Jesus of Nazareth was crucified on that date are wrong
Oh boy. Who wants to tell him?

>classics
kys colonialist subhuman

Reminder, there is not a single period source that mentions Jesus, much less his supposed crucifixion. If he really existed he can't have been important at his time.

>If he really existed he can't have been important at his time.

He absolutely wasn't. He was just a minor condemned criminal. His cult didn't kick off until later.

It's more accurately translated as "terrorists" or "insurrectionists," right? Remember hearing that Barabbas' actual crime was killing a Roman during a rebellion.

>He was just a minor condemned criminal
This, he was just another uppity Jew.