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.
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.
***Then the gospel writers are acceptable and reliable historical sources. In order to push your history theory you end up throwing these gospel writers under the bus. It is historical witchcraft.
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.
***Weren’t you the one claiming that he did exactly that kind of thing, cruelty, lack of trial, ruthlessness, all that stuff?
He needed an official reason, and that was certainly not “blasphemy”, but rather as the plaque shows: rebellion.
***Interesting theory. What is your source? Because the source you’ve cited actually says that Pilate found Jesus innocent of rebellion.
So I don’t “get” why that’s so hard for you to understand.
***I don’t “get” why you think that you can proceed from the gospel writers as historically accurate (placque said “King of the Jews) and then throw out EXACTLY the same sources which say that Pilate found Jesus innocent of rebellion. In terms of historical scholarship, it is pure garbage to proceed in such a way.