blkgayatheist

I guess this bleeds over into the inevitable Mythical Jesus discussion, but what evidence is there that Jesus was 'really' a political rebel executed by Rome because he stirred up trouble? Ive known many secularist who have made this assertion.

Notwithstanding the ugliness of antisemitism, the gospels are consistent in describing Jesus death as being instigated by a group of Jewish religious leaders who then went to the Romans to carry out the execution. There is no suggestion that the Romans came up with the idea of executing Jesus for his politicizing.

Since there is very little (or no) extrabiblical evidence speaking to the Jesus story as political rebel, and the only political commentary addressing the Romans that we get from Jesus in the gospels is "Render unto Caesar", how exactly has this narrative of Jesus as political rebel been constructed?

Toto

The strongest argument for Jesus as a political rebel is the crucifixion. Crucifixion was a punishment used by the Romans for those who rebelled against Roman rule.

DrZoidberg

Before the European Enlightenment religion and politics was the same thing. A prophet back then, by definition, is a political rebel. The concept of separating church and state back then was an absurd concept. There was no such thing as a personal faith. If you don't understand this church history becomes nonsensical. Some of the nit-picking on theology within early Christianity was to a large extent pure power politics.

The Roman authority had given Judism special status in Palestine. But only if they could keep the Jews in line and accept Roman rule. Niether the rabbis nor Roman's had any wish to rock the boat.

So the narrative actually fits the political history. The only major historical error in the Jesus narrative, (as far as I know) is that the pharisees are chronologically off. They didn't rise to prominence in Palestine until after the fall of Madada in AD 70, which is 37 years too late for the Jesus story. But that doesn't mean that in reality it couldn't have been some other rabinical authority who did it.

aa5874

If we are going to use events in the NT to claim Jesus was a political rebel then we MUST also show that PILATE found NO FAULT with Jesus.

It is an EXTREMELY weak argument to claim Jesus was a political rebel AGAINST Roman Rule when he was EXONERATED by a ROMAN governor.

Lu 23:4 -

blkgayatheist

But again, there is nothing in the only sources we have about Jesus that suggest him making any political statements against Roman rule. His statements were directed towards the Jews and the practice of their own religion. If the Romans executed him for making trouble for the Jewish religious elite, that still doesnt neatly fit the narrative that seems to have been spun out of whole cloth with Jesus as Jewish rebel against the authority of Rome

blkgayatheist

Yet the only source we have re the crucifixion does not make the association between the act and any political agitation on Jesus' part.

blkgayatheist

agreed

Toto

This is how the historical Jesus is reconstructed. It is assumed that the gospels are full of later redactions and theological overlays, but that it is possible to dig through these and reconstruct the original historical basis for the story. Many of us here are skeptical that this is at all possible, but that is how the game is played.

So the historical Jesus scholars decide that the crucifixion probably happened, because Christians would not have made up such a shameful way for their leader to have died. And if Jesus was crucified, he was probably a political rebel.

Then there are other parts of the gospels that seem to allude to rebellion, although they have mostly been transformed to have Jesus rejecting a violent solution, until the end times. Jesus tells his followers to buy swords. Peter cuts off a Roman's ear (and Jesus heals it.)

The whole gospel story does not hang together. It is a game to try to figure out a story that does make sense.

aa5874

You make an EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT observation. The very HJers who claim Jesus could NOT have been INVENTED from "whole cloth" have themselves INVENTED from "WHOLE CLOTH" and CONTRARY to the ACTUAL written evidence, that Jesus was a rebel AGAINST Roman Rule.

Now, it must be NOTED that Jesus even PAID his taxes.

Matthew 17:24-27 - Jesus was a MODEL citizen. He even paid tribute for his friends.

It is WHOLE CLOTH invention that Jesus was a rebel AGAINST Roman rule by those who claim Jesus could NOT be a whole cloth invention.

jgoodguy

It is a game to try to figure out a methodology that does make sense. The other issue is to find a probable HJ that would have influenced gentile Christianity.

A strict methodology will yield a HJ that has no real connection to Gentile Christianity. A loose methodology yields many many possible HJs.