Heaven = the region of the Lord of Heaven, Baal Shamin. Hegra its why it has so many Roman military retirees there

it's funny

Rock-cut = "not made with hands"

Nor does the fact that he was not an emperor. The overwhelmingly vast majority of existing people throughout history were not emperors.

Nor does the fact that he is reported by the Roman historian Tacitus to have suffered capital punishment under Pontius Pilate. Whether you judge this prophet or the unnamed Samaritan figure as more or less consequential is likewise of little relavance. Again, the overwhelmingly vast majority of existing people lead lives of relatively inconsequential effect on major contemporary events and subsequent historical records.

Not to mention the fact that the unnamed Samaritan figure had no subsequent following, while the apocalyptic prophet was at the center of a movement the subsequent literary artifacts of which and it's continuing tradition eventually became the largest religion in the world, with an estimated 2.4 to 2.6 billion of adherents, accounting for roughly 29% to 31% of the global population. That seems rather consequential, and I'm not sure how to additionally estimate the number of non-Christians who also hold him and his teachings in very high regard.

The fact that this person soon became a legendary figure, eg, having a virgin birth or working miracles will certainly lead both Christian and non-Christian historians to try and differentiate between likely historical elements of these stories from legendary and mythical elements. Many known figures of history also achieved legendary status with similar miracle deeds attributed to them. Even some contemporary people have such high ghly unlikely stories told about them. 

That the overwhelming majority of historians and scholars do not see grounds for seriously doubting the historical Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified by Pontius Pilate should give you pause, Steefen.

Steefen said
Robert:
the elements that are historical about Jesus of Nazareth being
crucified under the authority of Pontius Pilate
is the crucial element about which
most everyone, perhaps most especially historians
and other scholars,
disagree with you.
Steefen:
Jesus was crucified under the authority of Pontius Pilate?
Everyone, historians, scholars.
disagree with me? 
Does Richard Carrier, PhD hold Jesus was crucified on Calvary by Pilate?
No, Richard Carrier does not hold that Jesus was crucified on Calvary by Pontius Pilate. Because Carrier is a prominent proponent of the Christ myth theory, he argues that Jesus of Nazareth never existed as a historical person.
ROFL
You're gaslighting and cherry picking what you would have people believe.

Steefen, I can't believe you're purposefully misrepresenting what I said?l since you actually quoted me, but the only other option is that you completely misunderstood the words you quoted. I said, "most everyone," not everyone. Citing one scholar is not sufficient to contradict my words 

Crucified under the authority of Pontius Pilate is not even historical Robert. Even Bart Ehrman will tell you that.

Where do you imagine Bart states his disagreement with this???

Historical and Legal Context

Extrabiblical Evidence: There are no surviving Roman legal codes or independent historical records explicitly detailing a formal privilegium paschale (a legal right to a Passover pardon). 
** you do not have permission to see this link **

Nor do I believe this was historical.

Local Goodwill Gestures: Historians note that Roman and Herodian rulers in Judea occasionally pardoned prisoners or made political concessions during volatile festivals to appease local populations and prevent riots. Examples of similar releases are recorded by Josephus regarding other Judean leaders and procurators like Herod Archelaus and Albinus. [1, 2]

Scholarly Skepticism: Many modern historians and scholars debate the historical plausibility of a Roman governor routinely freeing dangerous insurrectionists or murderers condemned to death, viewing the gospel accounts primarily through a theological and traditional lens rather than standard Roman judicial practice. [1, 2]

Again, I too do not believe this detail is historical.

#1 Tell it to PhD Richard Carrier.

Why? Carrier is aware that he defends a miniscule minority opinion among scholars. And do you really want to invoke Carrier? Should we revisit what Carrier thinks of your view?

#2 Under the authority of Pontius Pilate? That charade starts off phoney as explained above.

That detail of the story does not contradict the basic fact of the crucifixion under the authority of Pontius Pilate. Surely you realize this, right?

#3 God gets Romans to kill Jesus who says, Pay your taxes?

Did I say anything at all about God? No, I did not. You're completely off-base here. Why bring up God in this discussion???

#4 Pontius Pilate was removed from office because he used excessive, violent force to suppress a peaceful Samaritan religious gathering at Mount Gerizim.

And you believe this is relevant to the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth being crucified under the authority of Pontius Pilate because ...?

No, @Robert, most everyone, most especially historians and scholars do NOT agree with you, disagreeing with me.  

Yes, they most certainly do. You've named one person. I could easily name a dozen more, but that's still a miniscule minority of scholars  among "most everyone" else.

Justin had memoirs of the apostles.
Justin explicitly mentions Marcion in his First Apology (chapter 26). So Justin was unquestionably aware of Marcion and his movement while operating in Rome.

Tatian's Diatessaron, with most modern biblical scholars narrowing the date of composition, is around 160–175 A.D. 

Marcion died around 160.
Justin Martyr died in 165.
Tatian died around 180.

= = = =

Steefen:

Bart and scholars before Historical Accuracy was published in 2021 held to the four gospels existing before 100 CE.

Then there would be Marcion's Gospel, 130-149 CE, with some version of Luke.

Then there would be the Diatessaron, 160-175 because, apparently, Marcion's Evangelion was not satisfying to Tatian.

= = = =

Marcion knew that other Gospels existed, but he chose the one Gospel that he believed could be reconciled with Paul's Gospel and his theology.

= = = = = 

Robert:
the elements that are historical about Jesus of Nazareth being
crucified under the authority of Pontius Pilate
is the crucial element about which
most everyone, perhaps most especially historians
and other scholars,
disagree with you.

Steefen:
Jesus was crucified under the authority of Pontius Pilate?
Everyone, historians, scholars.
disagree with me? 

Does Richard Carrier, PhD hold Jesus was crucified on Calvary by Pilate?

No, Richard Carrier does not hold that Jesus was crucified on Calvary by Pontius Pilate. Because Carrier is a prominent proponent of the Christ myth theory, he argues that Jesus of Nazareth never existed as a historical person.

ROFL

You're gaslighting and cherry picking what you would have people believe. Crucified under the authority of Pontius Pilate is not even historical Robert. Even Bart Ehrman will tell you that.

#1 Tell it to PhD Richard Carrier.

#2 Under the authority of Pontius Pilate? That charade starts off phoney as explained above.

#3 God gets Romans to kill Jesus who says, Pay your taxes?

#4 Pontius Pilate was removed from office because he used excessive, violent force to suppress a peaceful Samaritan religious gathering at Mount Gerizim.

No, @Robert, most everyone, most especially historians and scholars do NOT agree with you, disagreeing with me.

Sorry but I am unable to resist chasing my own rabbits.

We admit that John uses the narrative to support his own agenda.   Even by the end of the first century or the beginning of the second the author still feels able to adapt the traditional narrative to his own use.  But we know this because we have the synoptics to compare it to.   We don't know Mark's sources but why assume he wasn't also willing to adapt his sources to fit his agenda as well?  

I ask that to ask this.  Perhaps the historical memory here was not so specific?  Perhaps the actual surviving historical memory both these writers had was only that Jesus was arrested and executed sometime during or around the Passover.  Mark made it the day he did to fit his agenda and John made it the day he did to fit his agenda. 

Robert said
Nonfiction can and is absolutely considered literature when it is written with artistic craft, style, and thematic depth. While I agree, as does Stephen, that Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction, nonetheless the elements that are historical about Jesus of Nazareth being crucified under the authority of Pontius Pilate is the crucial element about which most everyone, perhaps most especially historians and other scholars, disagree with you. 
  

What Robert said. I will only add that these genre boundaries were porous or non-existent in the ancient world. The fact that John is willing to change the day of Jesus' Crucifixion to make a theological point should illustrate clearly the difference between their approach and that of a modern historian.

Steefen:
With Justin Martyr using four sources, I can see Tatian being opposed to Marcion's work.

In my considered opinion, you should definitely follow up (transparently disclosing the above referenced matters) with the question posed to you by the AI bot in 'your' Post #100 about identifying specific passages where a reconstructed Diatessaron (as reconstructed by whom?) agrees with Marcion’s Evangelion against the canonical Luke—that would give us all the concrete textual evidence to better evaluate your AI-generated content. 

I the meantime, I would caution any abandonment of the important and obvious consideration that Tatian was certainly opposed to the singular use and endorsement of Marcion's gospel. 

Does any of this advice seem in any way unreasonable to you?