And so the we're slowly getting the picture of what you assert as "obvious truth".
Although I think I made myself very clear, it's interesting that you would press me. Especially considering I didn't press you on your evasive non-answers.
The ONLY things you were clear on what that you felt the Jews who witnessed and/or who were involved with the crucixion were totally powerless and had to do whatever the Romans said. Which by implication means you don't think the Jews wanted Christ to be killed (at least that's how all your previous posts read). You never really told your version of the story. So "LOL" yourself. It should be obvious I'm not the only one questioning your assertions... have a look around.
I don't believe Jesus was at all sympathetic or even neutral towards the Roman authorities. Any such depiction implied in the Gospels would be an obvious falsehood.
You believe this because? Your evidence of "obvious falsehood" is in which texts / historical documents? While I agree not much attention was given (in the Bible passages I'm aware of, anyway) to what Jesus thought of the Romans, I would like to see the historical grounding for your bold statements.
Moreover, I believe Jesus was at the vanguard of a fermenting nationalist rebellion that wanted to oust the Romans from Judea.
Because? You see clear evidence of Jesus leading this specific rebellion where, exactly? This is something completely new to me, please give more details so I can understand.
I also don't believe Jesus made any claims to being divine or having divine powers.
Because? What readings are you privvy to that lead you to believe Jesus made no such claims and had no such powers? That he was just "an average Joe" basically?
Jesus was a popular Rabbi among the common folk because he was antithetical to the thieving murderous Roman beasts and their cronies in Jerusalem. And that was why he was crucified.
He was a Rabbi... in the official sense? Or do you mean they just looked up to him as a teacher and in that sense he was a Rabbi?
"Thieving murderous Roman beasts"?
Wow. I know the Romans did many cruel things during the reign of their Empire, but your language screams "agenda". 2000 years later and you speak of them as if they killed someone you know. Your first "contributions" to this thread consisted of little more than bad-mouthing me and my postings... as if I was attempting some clever ploy to dupe people... and you give us all this? Ballsy. I'll leave it at that.
I will allow that a big part of why Jesus was crucified (most likely) had to do with his stance against Jewish authorities, but I have no reason to believe those authorities were also a "minority" among Jewish leaders of the time. Of course, I am willing to have light shed on this if there is proof to the contrary.
Jesus could never have been a threat to the Jewish religious authorities, because they too, like everyone else, naturally wanted the Roman occupiers out of the country.
This is getting comical. Have you ever taken a formal logical class?
So, because Jesus himself was not in favor of Roman rule and abuse, and because the Jewish high priests did not favor Roman rule either, in your view, Jesus was therefore no threat (political or otherwise) to any Jewish religious or political leaders? He was living in a vacuum I guess? Nothing
he said or did could have *possibly* thrown an ill light on the other Rabbis or Jewish leaders in his area? Just an utter impossibility in your mind? A direct, if-then, cause-effect type relationship... all because they had the common belief of not wanting Roman rule?
Your lack of critical thinking is pretty obvious at this point. I think now you're not so much trolling as you are misguided by your own convinctions.
Common sense also dictates that should Jesus have made any heretical claims (being the son of God, being born a virgin birth, etc.), he would have met his death by stoning (Jewish punishment), and not by crucifixion (Roman punishment).
Ah, interesting point. But I thought the Jewish community was completely "powerless" in this time according to your earlier posts. Wouldn't the ability to have Jesus tried for high religious crimes and then stoned, be a sign there was some autonomy in the Jewish community?? Could they have done such a thing without Roman permission? Just asking.
Again, I would love to see the evidence that makes such claims as these "common sense". I am confident though, that you will not show us any and will instead just keep telling us that it's "obvious".
My final take before I disengage from this thread (until I see the movie).
As Kirkland said, all you're doing is throwing out conspiracy theories. You're proposing very unusual interpretations of the situation and saying "well you'd have to be CRAZY not to believe my version..." Unfortunately for you, that doesn't qualify as proof in anyone else's mind. Such theories need to be grounded in some sort of respected, historical text (wouldn't matter to me if the author was Jewish or not... only that the work be regarded as a thorough and thoughtful one). It's pointless for you to claim such intricate theories as being "self evident".
What *is* self-evident are the kinds of things I was originally saying (i.e. the makeup of the local population during Jesus' time, the nature of crucifixion, the tendancy for people in modern society to not say what they mean when dealing with sensitive topics in the media... out of a desire for "political correctness" basically). And yet you refuted all those notions for some reason.
I'm not even saying the Bible hasn't been tampered with, because I believe it has been altered many times over the centuries... even changing a few words here or there can make a big difference when you look at a work over the course of centuries and not decades. Look how many changes have been made to a popular work like the Lord of the Rings in less than 100 years. We're talking about a span of time 20x that. So of course (all religious texts, not just Christian ones) are going to get their words massaged during that time. Due to social pressures, due to political greed, and for all sorts of other reasons based on "the human condition".
I doubt very much though, that one day, a bunch of people got together and said "let's retell this story and make it the "official version", so no one really knows what we did to all the Jews! Bwaahahahahaaaa!" Of course, that's just my way of thinking. I could be wrong.
As always, I remain ever-open to "the enlightenment" of your sources.