Skeptical response to Bart Ehrman's book in the historical Jesus

[shunyadragon]

I'm getting confused, and have stopped automatically "Amen'ing" everything Robrecht says.
Sure, Shuny misstates a lot and keeps obfuscating his mistakes, but....
In his #157 Shunyadragon quotes Ehrman at some length:
"Evidence that Jesus really did think that he was the king of the Jews is the very fact that he was killed for it. If Pilate asked him whether he was in fact calling him this, Jesus could have simply denied it, and indicated that he had no kingly expectations, hopes, or intentions. And that would have been that. The charge was that he was calling himself the king of the Jews., and either he flat-out admitted it or he refused to deny it." (pg. 123 in How Jesus became God)
So J. D. Crossan (cute, same initials as my Grandfather Adams) gets no points here towards joining the revolutionary crowd with claims that Jesus was inciting the peasants to riot or even for his followers to become Zealots against Rome. Ehrman says here (note that Ehrman is not one for consistency--whatever it takes to win one internet-video debate he will readily contradict to make points in some different debate) that he has proven that Jesus was known to have claimed to be King of the Jews. Ehrman does not claim that Jesus PUBLICALLY proclaimed it, and from the Bible itself we cannot find anywhere that Jesus preached that he was King of the Jews.
What Ehrman said is one thing (quite reasonable here, the middle position that Jesus did acknowledge the Title without confirming he believed it was precisely correct. Ehrman argues beyond this, however, that this implies in addition that Jesus believed it and must have said so to someone who reported it to Pilate--otherwise Jesus would have had the easy out of specifically denying it, and he did not deny it. Ehrman pushes too much even for this, as in my Thompson Chain Reference Bible NIV 1983 they fail even to list a "King of the Jews" item. It's not in the Bible anywhere else (other than same context: Mt. 27:11, Luke 23:3, but I guess we have to regard Mark 15:2 as in error when Jesus is quoted, "'Yes, it is as you say.'". (And here goes my Thompson Chain Reference Bible into the trash, it almost made me make a huge error ON THE INTERNET.) If his apostles or evangelists wanted to admit it, they never did. So I go with Jesus never having said it. Not only is Ehrman wrong, but all the Ravi Shankar (Aslan or whatever) revolutionaries are quite wrong. As for Shuny, he's wrong to see anything revolutionary in Jesus, but it turns out (inadvertently, I suppose) that he was not wrong about Ehrman at least stating that Jesus is at least implied to be revolutionary--or at least in the apocalyptic sense.
I don't see where Robrecht clarifies at least the small degree to which Shuny is right.
(And is this the book he was talking about--the bigger Ehrman book is the earlier [I]Did Jesus Exist?/I]?

You approaching the issue from the perective of a believer, as Robrecht is, concerning the nature of Jesus's claim. It is not a matter of what I 'believe' Jesus claimed. It is a matter of what secular historians concluded about Jesus. Yes, Ehrman also addressed the theological aspects, and other possible alternatives as to who Jesus was, even the possibility that he was 'peasant revolutionary.' I cited other secular historians that came to similar conclusion as Ehrman. Nontheless the citation clearly describes Jesus as a rebel, regardless of what type of rebel you want describe Jesus as.

As far as recruiting others concerning the nature of his claims and goals of his ministry. He, of course, did recruit the Apostles at least, who believed his claim that he was the Messiah, and therefore the king of the Jews.

Robrecht puts too much emphasis on the belief of Ehrman that Jesus did not publically claim to be the king of the Jews. I believe that Jesus clearly publically proclaimed that he was the Messiah, therefore fulfilled the prophesy that he was king of the Jews. This is not an issue, because both Ehrman and I believe that Jesus did claim to be the king of the Jews.

[robrecht]

That is not the summary of the whole passage. It is your selective editorial comment on part of the passage. It is irrelevant to the question whether Jesus proclaimed he was the king of the Jews publically or privately.

I simply disagree with Ehrman, and gave valid reasons why.

There is no problem with your disagreement with Ehrman, now that you actually understand his position.

[robrecht]

You approaching the issue from the perective of a believer, as Robrecht is, concerning the nature of Jesus's claim. It is not a matter of what I 'believe' Jesus claimed. It is a matter of what secular historians concluded about Jesus. Yes, Ehrman also addressed the theological aspects, and other possible alternatives as to who Jesus was, even the possibility that he was 'peasant revolutionary.' I cited other secular historians that came to similar conclusion as Ehrman. Nontheless the citation clearly describes Jesus as a rebel, regardless of what type of rebel you want describe Jesus as.

As far as recruiting others concerning the nature of his claims and goals of his ministry. He, of course, did recruit the Apostles at least, who believed his claim that he was the Messiah, and therefore the king of the Jews.

Robrecht puts too much emphasis on the belief of Ehrman that Jesus did not publically claim to be the king of the Jews. I believe that Jesus clearly publically proclaimed that he was the Messiah, therefore fulfilled the prophesy that he was king of the Jews. This is not an issue, because both Ehrman and I believe that Jesus did claim to be the king of the Jews.

I have in no way approached this issue here from the perspective of a believer (which I am) but have merely tried to help you understand what Ehrman's actual position is. Ehrman is not a believer. You do not need to be a believer to understand Ehrman's position.

[shunyadragon]

I have in no way approached this issue here from the perspective of a believer (which I am) but have merely tried to help you understand what Ehrman's actual position is. Ehrman is not a believer. You do not need to be a believer to understand Ehrman's position.

[robrecht]

his public claim to be the Messiah does not translate to the claim of being the king of the Jews.

The believers who choose to follow Jesus as the Messiah, therefore the 'king of the Jews,' is simply advocating acts of rebellion against Rome.

I think you must mean John Dominic Crossan, not Crossman. I was, of course, referring to his work as an historian. Understanding his historical views, as well as the views of Ehrman, does not require one to be a believer. Of course I understood the citation of Ehrman, but it seems you still have more reading to do. Ehrman does not think that Jesus publicly taught or proclaimed himself to be the Messiah. For Ehrman, this was only a matter of private teaching among his disciples and it was this that Judas betrayed to the Judean authorities.

[shunyadragon]

I think you must mean John Dominic Crossan, not Crossman. I was, of course, referring to his work as an historian. Understanding his historical views, as well as the views of Ehrman, does not require one to be a believer. Of course I understood the citation of Ehrman, but it seems you still have more reading to do. Ehrman does not think that Jesus publicly taught or proclaimed himself to be the Messiah. For Ehrman, this was only a matter of private teaching among his disciples and it was this that Judas betrayed to the Judean authorities.

I always read and will continue to do so. Your problem is simply a matter of reading comprehension.

IT is somewhat indifferent to the initial dispute, but nonetheless I disagree with Ehrman on this issue. Jesus made a number of public statements that clearly indicated that he claimed to be the Messiah.

[robrecht]

I always read and will continue to do so. Your problem is simply a matter of reading comprehension.

IT is somewhat indifferent to the initial dispute, but nonetheless I disagree with Ehrman on this issue. Jesus made a number of public statements that clearly indicated that he claimed to be the Messiah.

What is it that you think I misunderstand about Ehrman's position???

[shunyadragon]

What is it that you think I misunderstand about Ehrman's position???

From: How Jesus Became God by Bart Ehrman, pp 123-124

"Evidence that Jesus really did think that he was the king of the Jews is the very fact that he was killed for it. If Pilate asked him whether he was in fact calling him this, Jesus could have simply denied it, and indicated that he had no kingly expectations, hopes, or intentions. And that would have been that. The charge was that he was calling himself the king of the Jews., and either he flat-out admitted it or he refused to deny it. Pilate did what governors typically did in such cases. He ordered him executed as a troublemaker and political pretender. Jesus was charged with insurgency, and political insurgents were crucified.

The reason Jesus could not have denied that he called himself the King of the Jews was precisely that he called himself the King of the Jews. He meant that, of course, in a purely apocalyptic sense; when the kingdom arrived, he would be made king. But Pilate was not interested in theological niceties. Only the Romans could appoint someone to be king. Only the Romans could appoint someone to be king, and anyone else who wanted to be king had to rebel against the state."

And so Pilate ordered Jesus crucified on the spot. According to our records. According to our records, which are completely believable at this point, the soldiers roughed him up, mocked him, and then led him off to be crucified. Evidently, two similar cases were decided that morning. Maybe a couple more the day after that and the day after that. In this instance, they took Jesus and two others to a public place of execution and fixed them to crosses. According to the account Jesus was dead in six hours."

[robrecht]

From: How Jesus Became God by Bart Ehrman, pp 123-124

"Evidence that Jesus really did think that he was the king of the Jews is the very fact that he was killed for it. If Pilate asked him whether he was in fact calling him this, Jesus could have simply denied it, and indicated that he had no kingly expectations, hopes, or intentions. And that would have been that. The charge was that he was calling himself the king of the Jews., and either he flat-out admitted it or he refused to deny it. Pilate did what governors typically did in such cases. He ordered him executed as a troublemaker and political pretender. Jesus was charged with insurgency, and political insurgents were crucified.

The reason Jesus could not have denied that he called himself the King of the Jews was precisely that he called himself the King of the Jews. He meant that, of course, in a purely apocalyptic sense; when the kingdom arrived, he would be made king. But Pilate was not interested in theological niceties. Only the Romans could appoint someone to be king. Only the Romans could appoint someone to be king, and anyone else who wanted to be king had to rebel against the state."

And so Pilate ordered Jesus crucified on the spot. According to our records. According to our records, which are completely believable at this point, the soldiers roughed him up, mocked him, and then led him off to be crucified. Evidently, two similar cases were decided that morning. Maybe a couple more the day after that and the day after that. In this instance, they took Jesus and two others to a public place of execution and fixed them to crosses. According to the account Jesus was dead in six hours."

And what part of this quote do you think I misunderstand???

[shunyadragon]

And what part of this quote do you think I misunderstand???

That Ehrman specifically considered Jesus a rebel, and claimed he was the 'king of the Jews.'

You have hammered at his belief that Jesus only claimed to be the 'king of the Jews' in private 'only
according to Ehrman, and my supposed misinterpretation of this. I made an error and corrected in long ago, and it does not represent a misinterpretation. I presented my case clearly that Jesus publically proclaimed that he was the Messiah and that I disagree with Ehrman, and gave the argument and reasons, which are valid. Yes, he could be interpreted as a apocalyptic rebel, but that does not change the argument. In fact, it could be understood that Jesus preached that this would all take place within 'one generation,' and that clearly is a direct 'now' challenge to the authority of Rome, and rebellion and sedition regardless of methods. Paul also preached this. Based on the citation from Ehrman it is clear that Jesus's claim was a direct rebellious challenge to the authority of Rome, and Jesus clearly knew this.

It is true that theologian 'believers' do not describe Jesus as a rebel, but this thread primarily addresses secular historians. I do not always agree with secular historians like Ehrman, but I do agree that Jesus declared that he was the promised Messiah and in rebellion against Rome.

I had not read Crossan for quite a while. In review he does take an skeptical idealistic secular view of the life of Jesus. He seems to describe Jesus as anarchistic antiestablishment hippy like magician that got caught up in the apocalyptic fever of the age. Like Ehrman and other secular historians he rejects the claims of miracles of the life of Jesus Christ. Crossan considered himself Christian, but apparently a more humanist (secular) Christian. He shreds the accepted academic view of the history of the gospels with his own unorthodox dating of the known scriptures. He does not share the dominant historical view that Jesus was an 'apocalyptic preacher.'

He in fact did 'recruit' followers, the apostles at minimum, in his cause.

I also cited other secular historians who clearly support Ehrman that Jesus was indeed a rebel by any definition.

[robrecht]

That Ehrman specifically considered Jesus a rebel, and claimed he was the 'king of the Jews.'

You have hammered at his belief that Jesus only claimed to be the 'king of the Jews' in private 'only according to Ehrman, and my supposed misinterpretation of this. I made an error and corrected in long ago, and it does not represent a misinterpretation.

I presented my case clearly that Jesus publically proclaimed that he was the Messiah and that I disagree with Ehrman, and gave the argument and reasons, which are valid. Yes, he could be interpreted as a apocalyptic rebel, but that does not change the argument. In fact, it could be understood that Jesus preached that this would all take place within 'one generation,' and that clearly is a direct 'now' challenge to the authority of Rome, and rebellion and sedition regardless of methods. Paul also preached this. Based on the citation from Ehrman it is clear that Jesus's claim was a direct rebellious challenge to the authority of Rome, and Jesus clearly knew this.

Of course, both Jesus and Paul considered the authority of God to be greater than that of Rome; this is not a matter of dispute. And perhaps because it was God who would soon act to decisively bring about his Kingdom, they had no reason to advocate that their followers commit acts of rebellion against the state.

It is true that theologian 'believers' do not describe Jesus as a rebel, but this thread primarily addresses secular historians. I do not always agree with secular historians like Ehrman, but I do agree that Jesus declared that he was the promised Messiah and in rebellion against Rome.

I had not read Crossan for quite a while. In review he does take an skeptical idealistic secular view of the life of Jesus. He seems to describe Jesus as anarchistic antiestablishment hippy like magician that got caught up in the apocalyptic fever of the age. Like Ehrman and other secular historians he rejects the claims of miracles of the life of Jesus Christ. Crossan considered himself Christian, but apparently a more humanist (secular) Christian. He shreds the accepted academic view of the history of the gospels with his own unorthodox dating of the known scriptures. He does not share the dominant historical view that Jesus was an 'apocalyptic preacher.'

It seems you are proving my point for me.

He in fact did 'recruit' followers, the apostles at minimum, in his cause.

Of course he did.

I also cited other secular historians who clearly support Ehrman that Jesus was indeed a rebel by any definition.

There are lots of ways of defining a rebel.

[shunyadragon]

Ehrman's citation showed that Jesus knew he was advocating rebellion. It was not 'some sort of claim.' If you believe 'it was some sort of claim,' ok, but that is not how Ehrman described it nor the other secular historians I cited. Jesus according to Ehrman did in fact claim specifically to be the 'king of the Jews,' and Jesus knew indeed he was advocating rebellion against Rome. Here is where you are dodging the specific meaning of the citation with a biased editorial view of your own agenda.

"Evidence that Jesus really did think that he was the king of the Jews is the very fact that he was killed for it. If Pilate asked him whether he was in fact calling him this, Jesus could have simply denied it, and indicated that he had no kingly expectations, hopes, or intentions. And that would have been that. The charge was that he was calling himself the king of the Jews., and either he flat-out admitted it or he refused to deny it. Pilate did what governors typically did in such cases. He ordered him executed as a troublemaker and political pretender. Jesus was charged with insurgency, and political insurgents were crucified.

The reason Jesus could not have denied that he called himself the King of the Jews was precisely that he called himself the King of the Jews. He meant that, of course, in a purely apocalyptic sense; when the kingdom arrived, he would be made king. But Pilate was not interested in theological niceties. Only the Romans could appoint someone to be king. Only the Romans could appoint someone to be king, and anyone else who wanted to be king had to rebel against the state."

And so Pilate ordered Jesus crucified on the spot. According to our records. According to our records, which are completely believable at this point, the soldiers roughed him up, mocked him, and then led him off to be crucified. Evidently, two similar cases were decided that morning. Maybe a couple more the day after that and the day after that. In this instance, they took Jesus and two others to a public place of execution and fixed them to crosses. According to the account Jesus was dead in six hours."

Your beating a dead horse. It was not a problem of an error in interpretation. It was an error in a statement which I corrected. Both Ehrman and I believe Jesus claimed to be the 'king of the Jews.' The difference in the interpretation is that we just simply disagree as to whether Jesus did so in private or public.

Of course, both Jesus and Paul considered the authority of God to be greater than that of Rome; this is not a matter of dispute. And perhaps because it was God who would soon act to decisively bring about his Kingdom, they had no reason to advocate that their followers commit acts of rebellion against the state.

The proclaiming that Jesus was the 'king of the Jews' and Rome would be deposed within one generation in private or public are specifically acts of rebellion. It would be conspiracy to overthrow the state of Rome literally or apocaliptically.

Even today in many countries forming an organization claiming to be the king, and advocating the overthrow of the government within one generation would be an act of conspiracy, rebellion and subversion against the state.

Your bring in your religious belief here in the highlighted. This is not an issue of what you believe concerning what would make the life of Jesus meaningful or explicable, but what Ehrman believed in the citation I provided. To advocate the overthrow of Rome in one generation and the claim that Jesus was the 'legitimate 'king of the Jews does represent a politically dangerous claim against the rule of Rome.

It seems you are proving my point for me.

No point proven here. If you believe so specifically describe what point you are trying to demonstrate that is proven. I simple described Crossan's view of Jesus. I will have to go back and reread his books to discuss his views further if you want to bring him into the discussion. The differing views of different historians does not prove anything.

Of course he did.

In a previous statement to Adam you seemed to think he did not.

There are lots of ways of defining a rebel.

As per this discussion you did not seem to acknowledge this is the case.

[robrecht]

Ehrman's citation showed that Jesus knew he was advocating rebellion. It was not 'some sort of claim.' If you believe 'it was some sort of claim,' ok, but that is not how Ehrman described it nor the other secular historians I cited. Jesus according to Ehrman did in fact claim specifically to be the 'king of the Jews,' and Jesus knew indeed he was advocating rebellion against Rome. Here is where you are dodging the specific meaning of the citation with a biased editorial view of your own agenda.

No, I am not dodging anything at all, just trying to be faithful to Ehrman's interpretation of what Jesus' perspective was on his claim, which was not the same as Pilate's. He does not go into detail in this in this passage, except to say that Jesus meant it, of course, in a purely apocalyptic sense, which would have entailed theological niceties in which Pilate had no interest. Ehrman is also here leaving it open as to whether Jesus either flat-out admitted it or merely refused to deny it. That is what I meant by 'some sort of claim'.

Your beating a dead horse. It was not a problem of an error in interpretation. It was an error in a statement which I corrected. Both Ehrman and I believe Jesus claimed to be the 'king of the Jews.' The difference in the interpretation is that we just simply disagree as to whether Jesus did so in private or public.

You are the one who is trying to keep a dead horse on life support by trying to make some sort of feeble claim that your mistake was not in fact a misinterpretation of Ehrman's view. You have not explained this yet.

The proclaiming that Jesus was the 'king of the Jews' and Rome would be deposed within one generation in private or public are specifically acts of rebellion. It would be conspiracy to overthrow the state of Rome literally or apocaliptically.

Even today forming an organization claiming to be the king, and advocating the overthrow of the government within one generation would be an act of conspiracy, rebellion and subversion against the state.

So you would probably not interpret Romans 13 in the traditional manner of Paul telling Christians to be subject to the authorities, who are servants of God, appointed by God, and that those who resist the authorities are resisting God's order, and will be judged by God, etc? Do you think Paul is here only speaking about ecclesial or spiritual authority? Or do you have a differing interpretation?

Your bring in your religious belief here in the highlighted.

This is not an issue of what you believe, but what Ehrman believed in the citation I provided. To advocate the overthrow of Rome in one generation and the claim that Jesus was the 'legitimate 'king of the Jews does represent a politically dangerous claim against the rule of Rome.

No point proven here. If you believe so specifically describe what point you are trying to demonstrate that is proven. I simple described Crossan's view of Jesus. I will have to go back and reread his books to discuss his views further if you want to bring him into the discussion. The differing views of different historians does not prove anything.

In a previous statement to Adam you seemed to think he did not.

Clearly another misinterpretation on your part.

As per this discussion you did not seem to acknowledge this is the case.

Yet another misinterpretation on your part.

[shunyadragon]

No, I am not dodging anything at all, just trying to be faithful to Ehrman's interpretation of what Jesus' perspective was on his claim, which was not the same as Pilate's. He does not go into detail in this in this passage, except to say that Jesus meant it, of course, in a purely apocalyptic sense, which would have entailed theological niceties in which Pilate had no interest. Ehrman is also here leaving it open as to whether Jesus either flat-out admitted it or merely refused to deny it. That is what I meant by 'some sort of claim'.

Again it is your editorial interpretation not Ehrman's. Ehrman made no such conclusion as 'some sort of claim.'

"Evidence that Jesus really did think that he was the king of the Jews is the very fact that he was killed for it. If Pilate asked him whether he was in fact calling him this, Jesus could have simply denied it, and indicated that he had no kingly expectations, hopes, or intentions. And that would have been that. The charge was that he was calling himself the king of the Jews., and either he flat-out admitted it or he refused to deny it. Pilate did what governors typically did in such cases. He ordered him executed as a troublemaker and political pretender. Jesus was charged with insurgency, and political insurgents were crucified.

The reason Jesus could not have denied that he called himself the King of the Jews was precisely that he called himself the King of the Jews. He meant that, of course, in a purely apocalyptic sense; when the kingdom arrived, he would be made king. But Pilate was not interested in theological niceties. Only the Romans could appoint someone to be king. Only the Romans could appoint someone to be king, and anyone else who wanted to be king had to rebel against the state."

And so Pilate ordered Jesus crucified on the spot. According to our records. According to our records, which are completely believable at this point, the soldiers roughed him up, mocked him, and then led him off to be crucified. Evidently, two similar cases were decided that morning. Maybe a couple more the day after that and the day after that. In this instance, they took Jesus and two others to a public place of execution and fixed them to crosses. According to the account Jesus was dead in six hours."

You are the one who is trying to keep a dead horse on life support by trying to make some sort of feeble claim that your mistake was not in fact a misinterpretation of Ehrman's view. You have not explained this yet.

Your problem!?!? I explained myself clearly. You have a fundamental problem in the English definition of 'interpretation.'

So you would probably not interpret Romans 13 in the traditional manner of Paul telling Christians to be subject to the authorities, who are servants of God, appointed by God, and that those who resist the authorities are resisting God's order, and will be judged by God, etc? Do you think Paul is here only speaking about ecclesial or spiritual authority? Or do you have a differing interpretation?

Temporal obedience to Rome has no particular meaning or importance since Paul believed that Rome would be gone or deposed in one generation, and Jesus would be 'king of the Jews.'

First, Crossan is not remotely a traditional Christian believer. Second, the belief of a different secular description of the nature and life of Christ proves nothing. Ehrman's view is the issue here, not Crossan's. If you wish to discuss Crossan's view in detail, let's do it. It is very apparent that Crossan's view is not even close to your view, nor that of any traditional understanding of Jesus Christ. Third, Crossan does not describe Jesus as having a religious ministry as do traditional Christians.

Ehrman's description is specific, Jesus claimed to be the 'king of the Jews' and knew it. He is described by Ehrman as a rebel. Again your are not recognizing the variation in the definition of rebel as Ehrman and I do.

As is clear in a previous post your religious view clouds this discussion:

Again . . .

First, Crossan is not remotely a traditional Christian believer. Second, the belief of a different secular description of the nature and life of Christ proves nothing. Ehrman's view is the issue here, not Crossan's. If you wish to discuss Crossan's view in detail, let's do it. It is very apparent that Crossan's view is not even close to your view, nor that of any traditional understanding of Jesus Christ. Third, Crossan does not describe Jesus as having a religious ministry as do traditional Christians.

The issue in this thread is Ehrman's view not Crossan's

[robrecht]

Again it is your editorial interpretation not Ehrman's. Ehrman made no such conclusion as 'some sort of claim.'

I have already described exactly how Ehrman understood Jesus claim. It should not be necessary be necessary for me to repeat it word-for-word over-and-over again. Eventually, you should be able to understand that Ehrman's view of Jesus' theological and apocalyptic understanding of his future role as king was not exactly the same as Pilate's view. Jesus meant it, according to Ehrman, in a purely future apocalyptic sense and Pilate had no interest in such theological niceties.

Your problem!?!? I explained myself clearly. You have a fundamental problem in the English definition of 'interpretation.'

How was your mistake not in fact a misinterpretation of Ehrman? You described Ehrman's position incorrectly. You attributed to him opinions that he does not hold. How is that not a misinterpretation of Ehrman's position?

Temporal obedience to Rome has no particular meaning or importance since Paul believed that Rome would be gone or deposed in one generation, and Jesus would be 'king of the Jews.'

It has great deal of meaning if you want to defend the claim that Paul encouraged Christians to take direct rebellious action to overthrow the Roman Empire. You really do not see the difference?

First, Crossan is not remotely a traditional Christian believer.

I never said he was.

Second, the belief of a different secular description of the nature and life of Christ proves nothing.

It only proves that you were wrong about 'believer' theologians.

Ehrman's view is the issue here, not Crossan's. If you wish to discuss Crossan's view in detail, let's do it. It is very apparent that Crossan's view is not even close to your view, nor that of any traditional understanding of Jesus Christ. Third, Crossan does not describe Jesus as having a religious ministry as do traditional Christians.

You are the one who claimed that my giving more credence than Ehrman to the historical views of Crossan betrayed my supposedly problematic perspective as a believer in preferring the theological perspective of Crossan. I then merely quoted Crossan to show that you were wrong when you claimed that 'believer' theologians do not recognizing this aspect of Jesus' work and message.

Ehrman's description is specific, Jesus claimed to be the 'king of the Jews' and knew it. He is described by Ehrman as a rebel. Again your are not recognizing the variation in the definition of rebel as Ehrman and I do.

I gave you a much more specific description of Ehrman's opinion on how Jesus understood his future apocalyptic role as king than you have. You're crazy to say that I do not recognize any variation in the definition of rebel. My whole point in first referencing this passage was that Pilate and Jesus, according to Ehrman, had differing interpretations of Jesus' claim to be king of the Jews. And your own misrepresentation of Jesus' claim has been corrected as well. You should be thanking me for that.

As is clear in a previous post your religious view clouds this discussion:

Actually, it shows that what you call a 'religious view' or a 'theological perspective' in no way limits one's ability to adopt this interpretation of Jesus' work and message. A believer or theologian, as you call Crossan, can indeed affirm a very strong sense in which Jesus actions were radically subversive, socially revolutionary, and politically dangerous, more so than Ehrman's apocalyptic view.