bacht

No, he's already dead and risen by then, just the ascension remains.

As you say, it was the Jews who had conflicts with the Christians (like stoning Stephen). The Romans weren't involved except when called in by others (like Paul's appeal to Caesar).

Steven Carr

Acts 2
Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.

bacht

Yes, this was put on the lips of of Peter when addressing a group of friends. I thought you were trying to show that the Christians were a threat to Rome? We already know that the Jews didn't like them.

Steven Carr

I'm just pointing out one more inconsistency.

If the Jews killed Jesus, why is Josephus not more scathing of the brother of Jesus?

If the Romans killed Jesus, why is Josephus not more scathing of the Christians and their claims of a Messiah, causing trouble with Rome?

bacht

Well Josephus says nothing about Christians at all, so I'm not sure what your point is. The mention of James and his murder is interesting, but not secure enough to connect with the NT characters imo. It could just as easily have been inserted by later Christians looking for more guilt to hang on the Jews (ie. authors of their own misfortune, provoking God's wrath etc)

robto

Sigh. Please read Neusner's Judaisms and their Messiahs (or via: amazon.co.uk). There is no unique thing the Jewish Messiah "was supposed to do". There were many different figures (many who were not even called "Messiah") that carried many different expectations. Any argument that relies on "what the Jewish Messiah was supposed to do" is dead in the water right from the outset.
No. Please read what I am writing. I am not relying on any assumption about the messiah, Jewish or Christian. I am writing about what Josephus actually says in the passages Bacht cited. What he actually says in each of these instances is that the persons in question were violent and/or rebellious.

If you or Steven want to claim Josephus "should have" felt the same way about Christians as he did about these groups, you have to explain why. The connection I see among these groups is violence and rebellion, and that doesn't fit the early Christians. So you have two choices: argue that there is a different thread that connects all these groups, and that is shared by Christians (other than violence); or argue that the Christians were in fact inciting rebellion against Rome.

Steven, you seem to be taking the second option here: claiming the Christians were rebelling against Rome. Here's my question for you: do you think everything in the gospels is historically accurate? In particular, do you think the charge of "King of the Jews" is historically accurate? If so, why?