Sure, but you seem to forget that Romans were the masters, and Jews their subjects.
***No, I do not forget. The same accounts that put “King of the Jews” above Jesus’s head during the crucifixion are reliable when they describe why He was condemned. Especially when the Sanhedrin put out a circular letter saying the exact same thing.
There is no possible way — zero, zip, nada — that Romans would crucify anybody for the “crime” of blasphemy.
***And yet, they did. They just found some other reason to crucify the man.
Therefore, Romans had to be convinced, and were convinced that Jesus was a political threat to them — a threat such as represented by a new “King of the Jews”.
***Which historical document are you citing when you say this is the case? Because the reliable accounts do not say such a thing, they say that Pilate allowed the crucifixion because he was afraid of the crowd rioting. So when you discount what the reliable accounts ACTUALLY say and insert your own version without backup from reliable accounts, you are engaging in historical revisionism, showing disdain for the science behind the historicity of the event.
What is your problem, FRiend, do you think I'm making this up?
Did you ever read it all yourself?
I'll say it again: Romans cared nothing about "blasphemy".
They cared a lot about rebellion.
The Roman punishment for rebellion was crucifixion.
The Jewish Sanhedrin delivered the "appropriate" punishment for blasphemy -- stoning -- to Jesus' follower, Stephen.
So please tell us, FRiend Kevmo, why you continue to deny the facts of history?
Right, you said it: "some other reason".
That reason was rebellion, Jesus claiming to be "King of the Jews" -- trumped-up or not, true or falsely-accused, that was the reason for Christ's crucifixion, not "blasphemy".
Kevmo: "reliable accounts... say that Pilate allowed the crucifixion because he was afraid of the crowd rioting."
Once again, you wish us to forget who was the master and who were his subjects.
Pilate was the master, so he didn't "allow" the crucifixion, he ordered it, and for the only reason which would make sense in Roman law: rebellion.
And, as I understand it, such a charge was not entirely false -- do not the Gospel writers tell us that Jesus was King of the Jews?
Do we not all sing, at Christmastime: