A fact not in dispute, but your original claim, Kevmo, was:
Again, we are not disputing facts of history, but their interpretation.
“Romans cared a lot about revolution, and therefore condemned Jesus not for any blasphemous claims, but rather for, in their eyes, pretending to be a “King of the Jews”.
Spirited: Perhaps the first part of your claim has merit, but certainly not the last. Pilate knew that Jewish leaders were enormously proud, covetous and on fire with murderous envy, that it was for this reason that they desired the “murder” of Jesus Christ.
Jesus had earlier said to them, “you are of your father the devil.” Why? Because the devil is the spirit of pride, covetousness and envy.
Cain was of his father as well. Like Jewish leaders, Cain was on fire with envy of his brother Abel (a type of Jesus, thus a foreshadowing of His coming murder), thus giving
into its’ gnawing, biting teeth, he bludgeoned his brother to death.
Returning to Pilate, when he called Jesus “King of the Jews,” he was really tormenting the envy-bitten, murder-minded Jewish leaders, not just with his insight into their black-hearts but with his power to dominate and humiliate them by declaring as their King the Messiah they envied, thus wanted dead.
A fact not in dispute, but your original claim, Kevmo, was:
***Ok, let’s see if that fact is not in dispute.
Tacticalogic, do you accept that Jesus was condemned by the sanhedrin for blasphemy, for claiming equality with God?
My prediction is that TL will not answer the question.
The Sanhedrin did not put Jesus to death, their Roman masters did, and Romans cared nothing about “blasphemy”.
***Agreed.
Romans cared a lot about revolution, and therefore condemned Jesus not for any blasphemous claims, but rather for, in their eyes, pretending to be a “King of the Jews”.
***Interesting theory. From what historical source do you draw this? At this point it is a fact in dispute. But it doesn’t necessarily rise to a level of importance as the historically undisputed fact that Jesus claimed equality with God.
Again, we are not disputing facts of history, but their interpretation.
***On the Roman thing you just mentioned, I would dispute it as a fact of history, for now, unless you come up with some sources that I’m unfamiliar with.