aa5874

Jesus was NOT an anti-Roman zealot just like Superman was NOT a real human.

The Jesus cult wrote their stories of Jesus and the character was completely mythological.

We cannot change the story of the origin of Supoerman and we can't change stories of the origin of Jesus.

We are dealing specifically with non-historical figures in the Canon with respect to Jesus and his 12 disciples.

Grog

Where does this idea of an "anti-Roman rebel" have any support in the ancient records. In another thread, I have already shown how that can't be possible, based mostly on the writings of Josephus. If the TF is real, then Jesus can't have been an anti-Roman rebel for whom Josephus only heaps scorn. If the TF is not real, then Josephus completely misses this supposed rebel, who, by the 60s should be well-known.

Going beyond Josephus, there is no evidence in any other ancient sources to support the idea that there was a Jesus from Nazareth who rebelled against Rome and was crucified by Pilate. That includes all our early Christian sources about Jesus of Nazareth. I will also note that most scholars accept that Paul is our earliest Christian source and he had nothing but praise for the civil rulers (Romans 13).

outhouse

Josephus only gives us a partial biased view.


Its my opinion Galileans in general are know for their Zealous views, and often called Zealots.

Why would traditional Jews forced off their land by Herod in Galilee, be happy about oppression?

The tax wars in Galilee when Jesus was a child claimed thousands of Jews, and 4000 ish sent to slavery, do you think this left Galileans happy about the Hellenistic oppressors, or bitter?


The biblical records claiming he was crucified for sedition and tax evasion justify claims as a "anti-Roman rebel"

The money tables and their temple coins had a Roman pagan deity Melqart which could have been viewed as blasphemous. Tipping these could be considered as anti Roman.




What you may fail to realize is that Herod was walking a tightrope during this time period. If he didn't cater to the Romans letting them feed off the temples profits, the Romans would have leveled the temple a long time ago. The temple was the Romans cash cow and Herod did not want to lose control.

Tenorikuma

We're talking about the 30s CE. What "Herod" are you referring to? Antipas had no control over the Temple.

outhouse

To understand "rebel" you need to understand the context of this time period.

What Herod the Great started continued after his death, Romans took it over placing Caiaphas in charge.

The money kept flowing to the Romans, Pilate raided the treasury for the aqueduct at will.

Above all Pilate and Caiaphas job was to keep the money flowing, Rome's sword was perched above the temple ready to fall at any time.

Some Jewish sects had it right, gods kingdom was at hand for much of the Jewish population. Jews would rather commit suicide then to keep living the oppression and corruption they were forced to endure.

Tenorikuma

You can't fudge the dates like that, though. You can't posit an imaginary revolution from the late 30s because Herod the Great ruled with an iron fist 50 years earlier.

Palestine was tranquil in the 30s and 40s. Heck, the Jews seem to have loved Agrippa when the Romans put him in charge. (Though the writers of Acts sure didn't!)

Grog

Of course he does and his bias is to be adamantly opposed to zealots, a view diametrically at odds with the extant record. That's my point.

Yes, that's documented, but you are begging the question. I am not questioning the existence of rebellious Galileans "in general," but specifically the Galilean, Jesus from Nazareth.
Again, begging the question.

The question I am asking is did this occur. My recollection was that , according to the story, the charge against Jesus was blasphemy and the Roman governor only reluctantly crucified Jesus at the behest of Jewish officials and under popular pressure from Jews themselves. Do you have a differenet account? Romans seemed to me always more than willing to execute rebels, happily so. If Jesus were a zealot, do you think Pilate would have been reluctant to crucify him?

Wasn't Herod already dead?

outhouse

If you prefer I can call it "from" Herodian rule, no dates need to be fudged at all.

The temple wasn't even finished completely


Not exactly tranquil, what about the 40 Jews burned alive for tearing down the eagle?

The 50's had quite the ordeal over the Roman Guard exposing himself.


That would be the Hellenistic Jews

outhouse

Tax evasion and sedition as well

That would be the unknown authors playing to their Roman audience, so they would not be persecuted like the Jews, since many were not Jews.

Remember, these are not Jewish legends, they are Hellenist stealing Judaism for their personal needs finding monotheism appealing.



Pilate was a bloodthirsty killer, his Job was keeping peace. I doubt Pilate would have blinked a eye, and would have never heard the mans name and only knew him as a trouble maker at best.

I think the legends grew from Pilate being in attendance at the Passover policing the event.

Pilate and Caiaphas jobs were at stake to make sure they kept the peace, their hineys were on the line.





Yes, what 3CE? im talking in context of "Herods temple" and I was not clear enough. It started when Herod built the temple and stayed in place until it fell at Romans hands.



The Roman ax was over the temples head the whole time starting from when Herod built it top its fall.

Grog

In gMark, Jesus is charged with blasphemy:

Pilate doesn't convict Jesus of anything. Did the author of Mark forget to mention tax evasion and sedition? In gMark, Pilate, in fact, believes Jesus ot be innocent and offers to release him:

According to our earliest version of the Gospel story, Jesus was executed by Rome on charges brought by the Sanhedrin, those charges being blasphemy.

That is your assumption.

You want me to remember something that you haven't demonstrated yet.




Wait. Are you saying Pilate would have known or would not have known?



ok.