I see you read the post, because you responded to it. So then, why did you not respond to this:
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.
Kevmo responding: "***Interesting theory.
From what historical source do you draw this?
At this point it is a fact in dispute."
The detail of the plaque saying Jesus was "King of the Jews" is certainly not in dispute, since it is one of the very few details which all four Gospel writers agreed on.
It is also not in dispute that Pontius Pilate, however callous & indifferent he certainly was, would not execute somebody for no real reason.
He needed an official reason, and that was certainly not "blasphemy", but rather as the plaque shows: rebellion.
So I don't "get" why that's so hard for you to understand.