spamandham

In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is not crucified as a result of any political charges. In regards to the title 'king of the jews', we have Pilate saying:

"And Pilate again answered and said unto them, What then shall I do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews? And they cried out again, Crucify him. And Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done?"

Pilate recognizes 'king of the Jews' as an accusation made by the crowd, but nothing Jesus as actually said or done.

In that story, Jesus is not a political victim of Rome, he's a victim of the Jews themselves - which is the primary theme of the passion story. Pilate is depicted as giving in to an angry mob to appease them.

By reading into it that Jesus was actually accused and convicted by Pilate, you are admitting the story is wildly implausible at face value. But rather than taking the small step of presuming the entire thing a construction, you are instead constructing your own version of the story based on your imagination, and loosely concocted from the passion story you know. You are rewriting your own version of the hero biography.

spamandham

The emperor Julian in the mid 4th century was totally unaware of the Jesus citations in Josephus and Tacitus.

From "Against the Galilaeans", in reference to Jesus and Paul:

But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,----then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters.


...which is the simpler explanation for an emperor to put his entire reputation on the line in regard to the absence of any mention of these men by the well known writers of the time:

a) He simply hadn't bothered to inform himself about what the writers said before putting his reputation on the line

b) He was bluffing figuring that no-one would call him on the bluff in spite of the fact his letter would be expected to be a hornets nest

c) the citiations in Josephus and Tacitus, which are already questioned as being authentic for other reasons - didn't exist in the copies Julian was aware of, because they were not in the originals.

d) ...{insert your preferred explanation here}...

Amaleq13

spamandham,

Upon what passage do you base the claim that Jesus was executed on the charge of violating the Sabbath?

ynquirer

Should the Jews have Jesus put to death for blasphemy, as you say, they would have stoned him. That was the Law.

aa5874

But you must have read Mark 14.61-64 So, when Jesus was before the sanhedrin or high priest, he was condemned to be guilty of death for blasphemy.

Now, the reason why he was not stoned is a question for the anonymous author to answer. Perhaps, no trial did occur.

ynquirer

The actual reason is that under the Roman rule jurisdiction on capital cases was removed from the Sanhedrin. Only the Roman governor might put anyone to death, but he might not do on the charge of blasphemy according to the Mosaic law. A fake accusation – an alleged claim to the Jewish throne – was then fabricated ad hoc.

mountainman

The evidence available does not preclude the ancient historical possibility that the historical jesus may have also been fabricated ad hoc. Arius of Alexandria was made famous for saying things like He was made out of nothing existing. Isn't this a very funny comment to make about the existence of the historical jesus as soon as christianity appears above the ground in the fourth century?


Best wishes,


Pete

Toto

Pete - please stop repeating your misunderstanding of Arius.

When Arius said there was a time when he was not - he was arguing that Jesus was not in existence at the beginning of the world, but was born at a certain point in history. This is far from a disproof of the historical Jesus. In fact, you might say that Arius believed in a historical Jesus similar to modern historicists, while his orthodox opponents believed in a spiritual Jesus who transcended history.

This is part of a debate on the nature of the godhead that does not make much sense to us now.

ynquirer

Pete,

What you envision under a new light is not just a character and early times of a religious movement, as Doherty and others do, but the late antiquity as a whole.

Basically, it is a problem of common sense. It is as if Constantine, in publishing the Edit of Milan, would have told the Romans, both West and East: “All of you have been pagans so far. All right, not only will all of you be Christians hereinafter, but also a great number of you will confess to have been Christians so far.” That is unprecedented in history. And a little difficult to understand.

Huon

During the fourth century, the history of Christianity is not that of a small group of less than 200 persons (and I may be generous, saying that). It seems that the anti-christian policies of Diocletian had failed. Constantine understood this. Also probably under the influence of his mother Helena, and her friends in the Christian church, he published the Edict of Milan in 313 with Licinius.