nator writes:
Look, you can massage your interpretation all you want.
thats an overstatement
nator writes:
If you want to interpret "darkness over all the land" as "a low pressure front moved in", be my guest.
you assume that writers back then could understand that? putting into consideration the education of that writer passes right over you?
nator writes:
If you want to imagine that the Romans felt shame for crucifying Jesus, even though there's no indication in the bible that they did (or independent sources that Jesus even existed) then go for it.
i admit there was no proof of that, at least to MY knowledge i havent LOOKED for the answers. but i DO admit that there is no proof of that, that is the reason why i said "maybe". but then again a lot of the miracles Jesus did wasnt in Rome, it was out of Rome, so what are the romans to document? and when the pharisees went over to Rome to whine about Jesus they didnt tell them hes bringing peopel alive!!! all they said was "this man is accusing our belief saying he is the messiah" etc.
even the pharisees wish to ignore what miracles Jesus did! you think if they ignored it it would reach Rome's ears happily? no, even when Jesus wasnt even close to Rome when he did miracles.
nator writes:
I'd love to hear your explanation of why all the resurrected dead people roaming the streets were not remarked upon by the Romans, though.
ah well you cant because i dont know much about that, may you please be kind to point out the verse where it says such things? (minus the sarcasm)