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

[TheMessiah]

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like a militant Jew because the death of Christ via Crucifixion is an event which is well-attested to; both via historical reference from Tacticus (who also hated Christians, but acknowledged his cruxification) and on a logical level.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.