dog-on

Here we go.

Tortie Cat

How? Claiming Messianic status was a political statement.

In the context of the political situation in first century Judaea Jesus’ Messianic claim becomes easier to comprehend. After Herod the Great’s death in 4 BCE his kingdom was divided between his two surviving sons Archelaus and Antipas. During this period the Jews rose up to try and take back their own land. The insurrection was savagely put down by Rome and thousands of Jews were crucified. After the insurrection Augustus took Judaea and Samaria into direct Roman control where they became part of the Province of Syria. However, in Galilee Antipas remained as King, although he was still a client King to Rome (it is his entourage that, in the Gospels, are called the Herodians). Jesus of Nazareth was a Galilean and Galilee was a hotbed of Zealot fervour. The Zealots were a military and religious group who advocated violence to overthrow Roman rule. [A somewhat analagous modern parallel are the various jihadist militant Islamic groups who want to drive all Westerners and Western values from Muslim territory].

What is evident however is the fact that Jesus of Nazareth as a Jew of his time could not have been unaware of the current political situation and accepted the justice of his Nations' cause against Roman domination. As a preacher of 'the Kingdom of God' he was announcing the end of Roman rule. The gospels tell us that he had Zealots amongst his disciples so it would not be surprising that his preaching would have contained appeals to revolutionary zeal, religious fervour and patriotism amongst his listeners.

He was brought before Pontius Pilate and, given that an uprising had already occurred which Mark mentions in 15:7, it is not unlikely that Pontius Pilatus accepted the charge against Jesus. He probably viewed this man as the ringleader of the recent uprising, for the gospels tell us that he ordered the crucifixion to be carried out between two other λησται (brigands) the official designation for Zealots.

No, the gospels allege this. I suggest you read the post I wrote earlier.

TC

Solo

Here you go, Joe Wallack :

...offence to the Jews


...folly to the Gentiles .

(Pr'tty ironic that, is it not ?)

Jiri

DCHindley

TC,

It is unproductive to "argue" with aa. One may laugh and make jokes, but he consistently proves beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with geometric logic, that everything we think we can know about Jesus Christ is nothing but myth.

DCH

dog-on

All you need to do is pin the charge on the lamb.

It's really not that hard, you're not even blindfolded...

Doug Shaver

That is what Christians say. Do you believe everything they say?

Amaleq13

Yes, you should have everything you need to realize that Jesus wasn't crucified by the Romans for blasphemy. The story depicts the Jews being at least partially motivated by his alleged blasphemy to have him convicted and executed for sedition.

Now that you understand this, you are ahead of double a. :thumbs:

aa5874

It is not a matter of belief, but stating EXACTLY the information supplied in the NT.

In the Jesus story from the author of Luke, Pilate found no fault with Jesus.

This is the author of Luke writing about Pilate and the charges presented in the trial of Jesus.

Luke 23.13-15 Jesus was not crucified for sedition based on gLuke.

I will NOT be engaged in making stuff up because Christians may have been fiction writers or embellishers

.

Clivedurdle

Umm, was Jesus a Pharisee?

dog-on

Nah, it says that the Jews decided he should die for blasphemy and brought him to the Romans, who then killed him simply to appease the crowd.