Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians

[TheMessiah]

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.