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

[Doug Shaver]

Jesus made a number of public statements that clearly indicated that he claimed to be the Messiah.

Yes, he did -- if we can assume that the gospels authors were writing reliable history. But why should we assume that?

[shunyadragon]

Yes, he did -- if we can assume that the gospels authors were writing reliable history. But why should we assume that?

Your skepticism is valid concerning whether the gospel authors were writing reliable history. Many secular historians consider the gospels narratives written in history referring to some factual history, and not necessarily reliable history. The context of this discussion is based the evidence and testimony in the Gospels and letters. There is no assumption that they are historically accurate

Part of the disagreement with robrecht is whether Jesus publically proclaimed that he was the 'king of the Jews.' Ehrman proposes that he did not, and only did so in private to the apostles and limited audience of family and maybe followers. I propose that Jesus publically proclaimed himself the Messiah, and based on the expectation of prophecy the 'King of the Jews.' This difference in interpretation of the gospel testimony does not effect whether Ehrman considered Jesus a rebel proclaiming himself the 'king of Jews' or not. This is reasonable conclusion based on what we know of the history of the times of Jesus. It was a time of widespread apocalyptic expectations of the advent of a Messianic figure that would arise and proclaim the 'king of the Jews' and free the Jews from Roman rule. There were actually a number such Messianic figures to arise appealing to prophecy from scripture around the times of Jesus.

The heart of the dispute is whether Ehrman considered Jesus a rebel. In the reference I gave Ehrman as a matter of fact did describe Jesus as rebel. You can split frog hairs as to what kind of rebel Ehrman considered Jesus, but the fact is Ehrman considered Jesus a rebel, and believed Jesus knew he claimed to be a rebel against Rome. Several other secular historians I referenced came to the same conclusion. Robrecht claims that Jesus never commited any specific acts nor encouraged his followers to do so. This neglects the facts that to declare oneself the 'king of the Jews,' claim that Rome would be deposed in one generation, and recruit followers to believe this is considered specific acts of rebellion and sedition under Roman Law, and under the law of many kingdoms and countries throughout history.

[robrecht]

Your skepticism is valid concerning whether the gospel authors were writing reliable history. Many secular historians consider the gospels narratives written in history referring to some factual history, and not necessarily reliable history. The context of this discussion is based the evidence and testimony in the Gospels and letters. There is no assumption that they are historically accurate

Part of the disagreement with robrecht is whether Jesus publically proclaimed that he was the 'king of the Jews.' Ehrman proposes that he did not, and only did so private in to the apostles and limited audience of family and maybe followers. I propose that Jesus publically proclaimed himself the Messiah, and based on the expectation of prophecy the 'King of the Jews.' This is reasonable conclusion based on what we know of the history of the times of Jesus. It was a time of widespread apocalyptic expectations of the advent of a Messianic figure that would arise and proclaim the 'king of the Jews' and free the Jews from Roman rule. There were actually a number such Messianic figures to arise appealing to prophecy from scripture around the ties of Jesus.

The heart of the dispute is whether Ehrman considered Jesus a rebel. In the reference I gave Ehrman as a matter of fact did describe Jesus as rebel. You can split frog hairs as to what kind of rebel Ehrman considered Jesus, but the fact is Ehrman considered Jesus a rebel, and believed Jesus knew he claimed to be a rebel against Rome. Several other secular historians I referenced came to the same conclusion. Robrecht claims that Jesus never commited any specific acts nor encouraged his followers to do so. This neglects the facts that to declare oneself the 'king of the Jews,' claim that Rome would be deposed in one generation, and recruit followers to believe this is considered specific acts of rebellion and sedition under Roman Law, and under the law of many kingdoms and countries throughout history.

I have made no such claim whatsoever; I have merely helped you understand Ehrman's view.

[shunyadragon]

I have made no such claim whatsoever; I have merely helped you understand Ehrman's view.

Your no help in understanding Ehrman's view considering you biased view of a 'believer' which you expressed in a previous post.

Robrecht claims that Jesus never commited any specific acts nor encouraged his followers to do so.

You did object in previous posts that Jesus advocated specific acts of rebellion, see above. You disagree that making the claim that Jesus was the Messiah, therefore the 'king of the Jews,' and that Rome would be disposed in one generation were acts of rebellion. Whether Jesus believed it would be an act of God or not does not change the fact that according to Rome and many kingdoms and nations in history such claims and recruiting followers are considered acts of rebellion.

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.

[robrecht]

Your no help in understanding Ehrman's view considering you biased view of a 'believer' which you expressed in a previous post.

As has been repeatedly demonstrated in this thread, one does not need to be a nonbeliever in order to understand Ehrman's views. One need merely read his work; he is a very clear writer and all his work in this field are written for the non-specialists.

You did object in previous posts that Jesus advocated specific acts of rebellion, see above.

No, I have not, but I have challenged you to support your view that Jesus or Paul advocated specific acts designed to overthrow the government of Rome. To date, you have not offered a consistent interpretation of Paul.

You disagree that making the claim that Jesus was the Messiah, therefore the 'king of the Jews,' and that Rome would be disposed in one generation were acts of rebellion.

No, I have accepted all along that this would be seen as rebellion by Pilate or from a Roman perspective in general.

Whether Jesus believed it would be an act of God or not does not change the fact that according to Rome and many kingdoms and nations in history such claims and recruiting followers are considered acts of rebellion.

Of course. I have never disagreed with this.

[shunyadragon]

As has been repeatedly demonstrated in this thread, one does not need to be a nonbeliever in order to understand Ehrman's views. One need merely read his work; he is a very clear writer and all his work in this field are written for the non-specialists.

No problem you do not 'have to be a believer,' but you fail to acknowledge the clear specific meaning of the citation I referenced by Ehrman. Jesus Christ was a rebel according to Ehrman.

No, I have not, but I have challenged you to support your view that Jesus or Paul advocated specific acts designed to overthrow the government of Rome. To date, you have not offered a consistent interpretation of Paul.

You do not have 'advocate specific acts' to overthrow the government of Rome to advocate the over throw of the government of Rome which Jesus Christ did advocate. To claim to be the 'king of the Jews' and claim that Rome will be overthrown or deposed in one generation is sufficient to advocate a rebellion against regardless whether the over throw of Rome whether by man or God.

No, I have accepted all along that this would be seen as rebellion by Pilate or from a Roman perspective in general.

The citation by Ehrman clearly states that Jesus knew that he was advocating the rebellion against Rome.

Of course. I have never disagreed with this.

Maybe, but your previous posts have not always been clear on this. The citation by Ehrman clearly indicated that Jesus knew he was in rebellion against Rome by declaring himself 'king of the Jews.'

[robrecht]

No problem you do not 'have to be a believer,' but you fail to acknowledge the clear specific meaning of the citation I referenced by Ehrman. Jesus Christ was a rebel according to Ehrman.

Nope, I expressed exactly what the citation said and explained Ehrman's view in more detail and much more accurately than your misinterpretation and misrepresentation of his view.

You do not have 'advocate specific acts' to overthrow the government of Rome to advocate the over throw of the government of Rome which Jesus Christ did advocate. To claim to be the 'king of the Jews' and claim that Rome will be overthrown or deposed in one generation is sufficient to advocate a rebellion against regardless whether the over throw of Rome whether by man or God.

Not really, unless you merely want to say that Jesus was encouraging God to rebel against the government of Rome, which does not really fit in well with Jesus or Paul's view of God, does it? If you want to say that Jesus was encouraging his disciples to overthrow the government of Rome, you ought to be able to mention some specific actions that they were encouraged to do in order to accomplish this goal. Otherwise, you have not really demonstrated that Jesus was advocating that his disciples rebel against and overthrow the government of Rome. Believing that God and the Son of Man would destroy the temple, usher in the Kingdom of God, raise the dead, judge the living and the dead, etc, is not the same thing as Jesus' disciples being encouraged to overthrow the government of Rome. Merely believing that Jesus would have an exalted role as a future ruler in this world to come, after it was established by God and the Son of Man, is not really the same as the disciples themselves being encouraged to overthrow the government of Rome. Nor have you yet even attempted to reconcile your understanding of Paul's views.

The citation by Ehrman clearly states that Jesus knew that he was advocating the rebellion against Rome.

But not in the sense that Pilate would have understood, since Pilate had no interest in the 'niceties' of Jesus' theological and apocalyptic understanding of his future role.

Maybe, but your previous posts have not always been clear on this. The citation by Ehrman clearly indicated that Jesus knew he was in rebellion against Rome by declaring himself 'king of the Jews.'

I will be happy to clarify for you anything else that has not been clear to you. What else has not been clear to you, other than your mistaken belief that Ehrman thought Jesus publicly proclaimed himself king of the Jews, or that this was obvious from the quotation of Ehrman you keep repeating from Ehrman, or that you claimed that you never said Ehrman believes Jesus publically proclaimed himself King, or that Jesus publicly proclaimed himself Messiah, or that Jesus did not see his kingship as a future role in God's Kingdom, which would be brought about by God and the Son of Man and not by Jesus or his disciples, or that I supposedly did not think that Jesus called disciples, or that I did not understand Ehrman because I am a believer, or that my lending credence to Crossan's perspective is problematic because he is a believer and theologian, or that believing theologians cannot view Jesus as a rebel, or that I do not realize that 'rebel' can be variously defined, or that secular historians are not interested in correctly understanding how Jesus might have viewed his own claims apart from their own or others own religious beliefs, or that I supposedly have a problem with reading comprehension, etc ... other than these dozen or so things, what else have you not understood up to this point?

[shunyadragon]

Nope, I expressed exactly what the citation said and explained Ehrman's view in more detail and much more accurately than your misinterpretation and misrepresentation of his view.

No, you did not.

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."

Not really, unless you merely want to say that Jesus was encouraging God to rebel against the government of Rome, which does not really fit in well with Jesus or Paul's view of God, does it? If you want to say that Jesus was encouraging his disciples to overthrow the government of Rome, you ought to be able to mention some specific actions that they were encouraged to do in order to accomplish this goal. Otherwise, you have not really demonstrated that Jesus was advocating that his disciples rebel against and overthrow the government of Rome. Believing that God and the Son of Man would destroy the temple, usher in the Kingdom of God, raise the dead, judge the living and the dead, etc, is not the same thing as Jesus' disciples being encouraged to overthrow the government of Rome. Merely believing that Jesus would have an exalted role as a future ruler in this world to come, after it was established by God and the Son of Man, is not really the same as the disciples themselves being encouraged to overthrow the government of Rome. Nor have you yet even attempted to reconcile your understanding of Paul's views.

I never said any of the above. Cite my posts properly and respond properly with out your misrepresentation of my posts.

But not in the sense that Pilate would have understood, since Pilate had no interest in the 'niceties' of Jesus' theological and apocalyptic understanding of his future role.

I never said that it was 'in the sense that Pilate would have understood.' Whether it was a future role or present role does not change things. The claim was Jesus would be the 'king of the Jews' within one generation. I am referring to Ehrman's description in the citation above from the perspective of Jesus that Ehrman believed he knew the consequences of his claim, and what was the expected response by Pilate.

I will be happy to clarify for you anything else that has not been clear to you. What else has not been clear to you, other than your mistaken belief that Ehrman thought Jesus publicly proclaimed himself king of the Jews, or that this was obvious from the quotation of Ehrman you keep repeating from Ehrman, or that you claimed that you never said Ehrman believes Jesus publically proclaimed himself King, or that Jesus publicly proclaimed himself Messiah, or that Jesus did not see his kingship as a future role in God's Kingdom, which would be brought about by God and the Son of Man and not by Jesus or his disciples, or that I supposedly did not think that Jesus called disciples, or that I did not understand Ehrman because I am a believer, or that my lending credence to Crossan's perspective is problematic because he is a believer and theologian, or that believing theologians cannot view Jesus as a rebel, or that I do not realize that 'rebel' can be variously defined, or that secular historians are not interested in correctly understanding how Jesus might have viewed his own claims apart from their own or others own religious beliefs, or that I supposedly have a problem with reading comprehension, etc ... other than these dozen or so things, what else have you not understood up to this point?

I never said I did not say Ehrman believed Jesus publically proclaimed himself 'king of the Jews.' I corrected my error and clarified my view repeatedly and you refuse to acknowledge it. The rest of the stuff above is meaningless.

[robrecht]

No, you did not.

Of course I did. You have not been able to identify a single thing about Ehrman's view that I have misstated.

I never said any of the above. Cite my posts properly and respond properly with out your misrepresentation of my posts.

I did not say that you did say any of the above things. That is precisely my point!

I never said that it was 'in the sense that Pilate would have understood.'

So do you admit that Jesus' understanding of his future role as ruler in the Kingdom of God was very different than what Pilate would have understood by the charge and Jesus' response, whether it was a clear affirmation or at least a refusal to answer?

Whether it was a future role or present role does not change things.

Of course it changes things. Claiming to be the present king without having been appointed by Rome is indeed different than believing that one will be made a king when there is no longer a Roman Empire.

The claim was Jesus would be the 'king of the Jews' within one generation. I am referring to Ehrman's description in the citation above from the perspective of Jesus that Ehrman believed he knew the consequences of his claim, and what was the expected response by Pilate.

So what? Do you imagine that I have claimed that Ehrman or Jesus did not know the consequences of his claim and the expected response by Pilate???

I never said I did not say Ehrman believed Jesus publically proclaimed himself 'king of the Jews.'

Yes, you did, in Post #133: "I never said Ehrman believes Jesus publically proclaimed himself King."

I corrected my error and clarified my view repeatedly and you refuse to acknowledge it.

Not true. I have acknowledged that you have corrected your misinterpretation and misrepresentation of Ehrman. In fact, I've even taken some credit for it since it was I who pointed out your error to you. The polite thing for you to do would be to thank me for pointing out your error to you.

The rest of the stuff above is meaningless.

I know, but I'm glad that you now realize this too.

[shunyadragon]

Of course I did. You have not been able to identify a single thing about Ehrman's view that I have misstated.

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."

So do you admit that Jesus' understanding of his future role as ruler in the Kingdom of God was very different than what Pilate would have understood by the charge and Jesus' response, whether it was a clear affirmation or at least a refusal to answer?

NOT very different. Both the view of Jesus and Pilate amounted to rebellion and sedition against Rome. Jesus knew the meaning of what the consequences of rebellion and sedition against Rome would be if he declared himself the 'king of the Jews.' Jesus as future ruler 'king of the Jews' was clearly claimed to be within one generation here on earth.

The only difference would be that Pilate considered any claim of anyone being the 'king of the Jews' as rebellion and sedition against Rome, and Jesus knew that his apocalyptic claim was indeed rebellion and sedition against Rome when he made the claim and knew the consequences of making the claim.

Of course it changes things. Claiming to be the present king without having been appointed by Rome is indeed different than believing that one will be made a king when there is no longer a Roman Empire.

The point of claiming to being 'king of the Jews,' and no more Rome at the time Jesus faced Pilate or a future date clearly be rebellion and sedition against Rome regardless.

So what? Do you imagine that I have claimed that Ehrman or Jesus did not know the consequences of his claim and the expected response by Pilate???

As the sky is Carolina blue on a clear day at noon on the 4th of July, declaring oneself 'king of the Jews' at the present or a future date would clearly be rebellion and sedition against Rome and Ehrman believed Jesus knew what he was doing.

Yes, you did, in Post #133: "I never said Ehrman believes Jesus publically proclaimed himself King."

I corrected my errors and clearly restated my position.

Not true. I have acknowledged that you have corrected your misinterpretation and misrepresentation of Ehrman. In fact, I've even taken some credit for it since it was I who pointed out your error to you. The polite thing for you to do would be to thank me for pointing out your error to you.

It was not a misinterpretation it was an error on my part. You need to work on your English comprehension concerning what is 'interpretation' and what is an 'error.'

I know, but I'm glad that you now realize this too.

I am pleased that you agree as to what you posted is meaningless.

[robrecht]

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

You still have not pointed out where I have misunderstood Ehrman.

NOT very different.

But different, you admit this at least?

Both the view of Jesus and Pilate amounted to rebellion and sedition against Rome.

I have not denied this. From Rome's perspective, at least, and that is the only perspective that matters in a Roman trial. But Jesus had a somewhat different perspective.

Jesus knew the meaning of what the consequences of rebellion and sedition against Rome would be if he declared himself the 'king of the Jews.' Jesus as future ruler 'king of the Jews' was clearly claimed to be within one generation here on earth.

I have also not denied this.

The only difference would be that Pilate considered any claim of someone being and he knew that was indeed rebellion and sedition against Rome when he made the claim and knew the consequences of making the claim.

Can you clarify this last sentence, please, it does not seem to make sense.

The point of claiming to being 'king of the Jews,' and no more Rome at the time Jesus faced Pilate or a future date clearly be rebellion and sedition against Rome regardless.

I think this probably depends on whether Jesus saw himself or his disciples as having any role in overthrowing the Roman government. Ehrman's Jesus does not believe that he or his disciples will be the ones to bring about the overthrow of the Roman government. But believing they will have a future role in God's kingdom certainly makes them suspects.

As the sky is Carolina blue on a clear day at noon on the 4th of July, declaring oneself 'king of the Jews' at the present or a future date would clearly be rebellion and sedition against Rome and Ehrman believed Jesus knew what he was doing.

I also believe Jesus probably knew what he was doing. And, as I've said, I have no problem believing that Jesus was guilty of a capital offense, but when I've asked you to identify the specific acts of rebellion that Jesus was encouraging his disciples to perform in order to bring about the overthrow of the Roman government, all you can come up with is Jesus and his disciples beliefs about Jesus' present or future role and their belief that the world would soon come to an end. You seem to see little or no clear difference in whether Jesus' role is a current one or a future one but I clearly see a difference, especially if, as Ehrman believes, Jesus did not see a role for himself or his disciples in bringing about the overthrow of the Roman government.

I corrected my errors and clearly restated my position.

And then tried to deny that you had ever misinterpreted Ehrman's position, when clearly you had.

It was not a misinterpretation it was an error on my part. You need to work on your English comprehension concerning what is 'interpretation' and what is an 'error.'

Well I've asked you a few times now if you can please explain how your error of interpretation and misrepresentation is different from a misinterpretation and you do not seem to be able to explain this either. Are you perhaps trying to say that you made a mistake in claiming to know Ehrman's position when clearly you did not? Thus, is it not so much that you misinterpreted Ehrman's position, but rather that you were simply ignorant of his position and made a mistake in pretending to know what his position was? Could that be it? Were you being a little dishonest in claiming to have read and understood Ehrman's work, when in fact you had not?

I am pleased that you agree as to what you posted is meaningless.

Yes, I was merely reminding you of a dozen or so of the errors that you've made in this thread. Let's hope you can avoid repeating them.

[shunyadragon]

It is so cute that you keep quoting a passage that I first summarized for you before you even read it. What in the world do you believe you are accomplishing here?

It is so cute that you keep mindlessly obfuscating, and ignoring the simple straight forward meaning of the passage. What in the world do you believe you are accomplishing here?

[robrecht]

It is so cute that you keep mindlessly obfuscating, and ignoring the simple straight forward meaning of the passage. What in the world do you believe you are accomplishing here?

I have not obfuscated anything. I referred you to this passage to help you understand that, according to Ehrman, Jesus had a different understanding of his claim to be king of the Jews than Pilate would have supposed, and I wanted you to understand what Ehrman took to be the sense in which Jesus made this claim. You, on the other hand, thought that it was obvious from this passage that Ehrman thought Pilate knew of Jesus' claim because he had publicly claimed to be the king of the Jews. I have only been trying to help you better understand what Ehrman's position is. I have been successful in this.

[shunyadragon]

I have not obfuscated anything. I referred you to this passage to help you understand that, according to Ehrman, Jesus had a different understanding of his claim to be king of the Jews than Pilate would have supposed, and I wanted you to understand what Ehrman took to be the sense in which Jesus made this claim. You, on the other hand, thought that it was obvious from this passage that Ehrman thought Pilate knew of Jesus' claim because he had publicly claimed to be the king of the Jews. I have only been trying to help you better understand what Ehrman's position is. I have been successful in this.

You have been no help at all. In fact you have brought up belief issues, where we are dealing with secular historians that do not believe in traditional Christianity. The fact whether Jesus publically or privately proclaimed that he was the 'king of the Jews' is not an issue in our original disagreement.

The bottom line is it is not controversial that Ehrman and other secular historians considered Jesus a rebel.

[shunyadragon]

You still have not pointed out where I have misunderstood Ehrman.

I did many times. You fail to acknowledge the specific meaning of the citation.

But different, you admit this at least?

The difference was explained, and it remains that Ehrman considered Jesus a rebel.

I have not denied this. From Rome's perspective, at least, and that is the only perspective that matters in a Roman trial. But Jesus had a somewhat different perspective.

The somewhat difference was explained. Not an issue. Ehrman still considered Jesus a rebel, and that Jesus realized the consequences of claiming he was the 'king of the Jews.'

Can you clarify this last sentence, please, it does not seem to make sense.

Done.

I think this probably depends on whether Jesus saw himself or his disciples as having any role in overthrowing the Roman government. Ehrman's Jesus does not believe that he or his disciples will be the ones to bring about the overthrow of the Roman government. But believing they will have a future role in God's kingdom certainly makes them suspects.

It is not remotely necessary that Jesus and his disciples had any specific role in overthrowing the government. This was never claim by Ehrman nor I. Claiming to be the king of the Jews and that Rome would overthrown in one generation is sufficient to be in rebellion against Rome with the intent that Rome would be overthrown in one generation.

I also believe Jesus probably knew what he was doing. And, as I've said, I have no problem believing that Jesus was guilty of a capital offense, but when I've asked you to identify the specific acts of rebellion that Jesus was encouraging his disciples to perform in order to bring about the overthrow of the Roman government, all you can come up with is Jesus and his disciples beliefs about Jesus' present or future role and their belief that the world would soon come to an end. You seem to see little or no clear difference in whether Jesus' role is a current one or a future one but I clearly see a difference, especially if, as Ehrman believes, Jesus did not see a role for himself or his disciples in bringing about the overthrow of the Roman government.

And then tried to deny that you had ever misinterpreted Ehrman's position, when clearly you had.

Well I've asked you a few times now if you can please explain how your error of interpretation and misrepresentation is different from a misinterpretation and you do not seem to be able to explain this either. Are you perhaps trying to say that you made a mistake in claiming to know Ehrman's position when clearly you did not? Thus, is it not so much that you misinterpreted Ehrman's position, but rather that you were simply ignorant of his position and made a mistake in pretending to know what his position was? Could that be it? Were you being a little dishonest in claiming to have read and understood Ehrman's work, when in fact you had not?

Not dishonest at all, and not pretending anything. The citation is specific. Ehrman considered Jesus to be a rebel when he claimed to be the 'king of the Jews,' which is a crime of rebellion and sedition against Rome. This is a common secular historian view of Jesus Christ.