(June 5, 2015 at 3:10 pm)TheMessiah Wrote: The Jewish priesthood had influence over Judea on a purely religious sense; hence if Jesus threatens them, then the Priests will get worried, and what happens when they get worried? They contact the Romans.

What's so hard to understand? They were a Roman administrative body.

(June 5, 2015 at 3:12 pm)abaris Wrote:

(June 5, 2015 at 3:10 pm)TheMessiah Wrote: The Jewish priesthood had influence over Judea on a purely religious sense; hence if Jesus threatens them, then the Priests will get worried, and what happens when they get worried? They contact the Romans.

What's so hard to understand? They were a Roman administrative body.

When did I deny that?

I'm aware that they were an administrative body; I admitted as much - however Jesus as a preacher was more appealing to the poor, his version of Judaism was more radical and thus a threat to the reactionary priests. This wasn't really within Roman interests unless the Priests made it so.

Tell me if I'm missing something. The claim boils down to accepting that there may have been (probably if you prefer) a Jesus that roamed around Judea preaching a message that garnered a small following. So what?

The character named Jesus as portrayed in The Bible is assuredly mythological so even if the above statement is accurate it amounts to very little. 

(June 5, 2015 at 3:15 pm)Cato Wrote: Tell me if I'm missing something. The claim boils down to accepting that there may have been (probably if you prefer) a Jesus that roamed around Judea preaching a message that garnered a small following. So what?

The character named Jesus as portrayed in The Bible is assuredly mythological so even if the above statement is accurate it amounts to very little. 

That's the point - Jesus in historical context was actually, very little.

He was just a dude who preacher, had a following and died a disgraceful death. The historical evidence needed to verify that isn't much; more evidence exists for him than other great historical figures.

Historically, what's more interesting is how this obscure preacher became the official religion of the Roman empire; and then recognized by 2.2 billion people; the history of the rise of Christianity is more interesting than the actual figure, who was actually, quite typical.

(June 5, 2015 at 3:15 pm)TheMessiah Wrote: I'm aware that they were an administrative body; I admitted as much - however Jesus as a preacher was more appealing to the poor, his version of Judaism was more radical and thus a threat to the reactionary priests. This wasn't really within Roman interests unless the Priests made it so.

Yeah, so we're back at base one. If he was appealing to the poor and in fact inciting them against the authorities, he was a threat to Roman authority and all the historical fallacies of how he was dealt with, kick in with a vengeance.

(June 5, 2015 at 3:18 pm)abaris Wrote:

(June 5, 2015 at 3:15 pm)TheMessiah Wrote: I'm aware that they were an administrative body; I admitted as much - however Jesus as a preacher was more appealing to the poor, his version of Judaism was more radical and thus a threat to the reactionary priests. This wasn't really within Roman interests unless the Priests made it so.

Yeah, so we're back at base one. If he was appealing to the poor and in fact inciting them against the authorities, he was a threat to Roman authority and all the historical fallacies of how he was dealt with, kick in with a vengeance.

There aren't ''historical fallacies'' - the Romans typically killed people. In fact, that supports the argument; The Romans didn't truly see him as a threat, only the Priests did.

It was the priests who pushed for his death, and the Romans who ultimately, and reluctantly, carried it out.

There was a Jewish ''messiah'' years after Jesus who actually was a threat to Roman rule, because he was a fighter who attempted a militant uprising; the Romans disposed of him like dog-meat, that's not the case with Jesus.

Pontius finding no fault in a man who is non-violent is probably quite accurate to a degree, that's a testament to how desperate the priests were.

(June 5, 2015 at 3:21 pm)TheMessiah Wrote: There was a Jewish ''messiah'' years after Jesus who actually was a threat to Roman rule, because he was a fighter who attempted a militant uprising; the Romans disposed of him like dog-meat, that's not the case with Jesus.

Pontius finding no fault in a man who is non-violent is probably quite accurate to a degree, that's a testament to how desperate the priests were.

So assuming he lived, what gives you the impression he wasn't disposed like dog meat? The gospels? Bible proving bible?

Read up on Roman history. Non violent doesn't figure in the Roman equation. Trouble maker does. And if he was a trouble maker, who according to the bible even said to Pilates face he was the king of the jews, the dog meat treatment is the only possibility. Not only for Jesus to be clear, but for all of his followers and family.

(June 5, 2015 at 3:26 pm)abaris Wrote:

(June 5, 2015 at 3:21 pm)TheMessiah Wrote: There was a Jewish ''messiah'' years after Jesus who actually was a threat to Roman rule, because he was a fighter who attempted a militant uprising; the Romans disposed of him like dog-meat, that's not the case with Jesus.

Pontius finding no fault in a man who is non-violent is probably quite accurate to a degree, that's a testament to how desperate the priests were.

So assuming he lived, what gives you the impression he wasn't disposed like dog meat? The gospels? Bible proving bible?

Read up on Roman history. Non violent doesn't figure in the Roman equation. Trouble maker does. And if he was a trouble maker, who according to the bible even said to Pilates face he was the king of the jews, the dog meat treatment is the only possibility. Not only for Jesus to be clear, but for all of his followers and family.

He was ''disposed'' in the way that he was crucified - we know he wasn't slaughtered like a militant Jew because the death of Christ via Crucifixion is an event which is well-attested to; both via historical reference from Tacticus (who also hated Christians, but acknowledged his cruxification) and on a logical level.

Lol, I've read up on Roman history - but perhaps you are misunderstanding me. Jesus being a ''trouble maker'' doesn't mean that he caused trouble towards the Romans; his ''trouble'' was on a purely religious level, due to his interpretation of Jewish scripture, the Romans were reluctant and both not interested in such Jewish matters. He was not a threat to Roman rule, and his claim of being ''King of the Jews'' was equally as insignificant to Pontius because he had done little to start a revolution.

He was in other words, a hippie - he was no threat to Roman rule; just ''problematic'' for priests.