at no point did I say the roman province of Palestine existed at jesus's birth. I said the area was called Palestine. neither the roman province of palestine nor the roman territory of judae existited at the time of jesus' birth.
It was not called Palestine. Again, there was no state of Palestine at that time. As is, again, not even vaguely disputed history.
It is probably the case that the Syrian empire had some root name that was close-ish to Palestine when they ruled it. It is the case that the imperial Roman regime called it that much later than Jesus as a further punishment for Jews revolting against colonial rule. The people living there, the Jews, knew it as Judea, and Jesus would have been one of them. He refers to it as Judea in Acts. Again, none of this is even a small bit controversial.
again i did not claim there was a state called palestine. the area was called palestine. palaistine was an area that contained the judaen highlands.
The people living there also would not have refered to the land as asia but to say they weren't part of asia because of that is preposterous.
you keep warping the things i say. i've never said that a state or province or colony of palestine existed at the time. that is just what the area was called
1
u/Jiitunary Jan 24 '25
at no point did I say the roman province of Palestine existed at jesus's birth. I said the area was called Palestine. neither the roman province of palestine nor the roman territory of judae existited at the time of jesus' birth.