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

[robrecht]

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

No, I have never done that.

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

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.'

Done.

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.

Untrue. You are forgetting your previous interpretation of Ehrman's view. The sense in which you thought Ehrman thought Jesus was advocating rebellion against Rome was that Jesus was publicly proclaiming himself king in direct, public defiance of Rome's authority and that Jesus' disciples would follow him as king of the Jews when he vanquished Rome. But, this is not Ehrman's view. You now know that you were completely wrong about Ehrman's view. You're welcome.

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.

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.

Common and uncontroversial ... and consequently this was never what I was trying to discuss with you, as I've said all along.

[robrecht]

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.

You previously misunderstood Ehrman's position, now you understand it better; it's as simple as that. The sense in which you now want to say that Jesus was a rebel is not even remotely controversial and I never disagreed with it at all. The problem is, I was never asking you for Ehrman's view of Pilate's or Rome's perspective on Jesus' claim. That is known by everyone. I specifically told you that was not controversial and that not what I asking you about. Rather, I was asking you in what sense you thought Ehrman thought Jesus was advocating rebellion against Rome. The sense in which you thought Ehrman thought Jesus was advocating rebellion against Rome was that Jesus was publicly proclaiming himself king in direct, public defiance of Rome's authority and that Jesus' disciples would follow him as king of the Jews when he vanquished Rome. But, this is not Ehrman's view. You now know that you were completely wrong about Ehrman's view. You're welcome.

[shunyadragon]

You previously misunderstood Ehrman's position, now you understand it better; it's as simple as that. The sense in which you now want to say that Jesus was a rebel is not even remotely controversial and I never disagreed with it at all. The problem is, I was never asking you for Ehrman's view of Pilate's or Rome's perspective on Jesus' claim. That is known by everyone. I specifically told you that was not controversial and that not what I asking you about. Rather, I was asking you in what sense you thought Ehrman thought Jesus was advocating rebellion against Rome. The sense in which you thought Ehrman thought Jesus was advocating rebellion against Rome was that Jesus was publicly proclaiming himself king in direct, public defiance of Rome's authority and that Jesus' disciples would follow him as king of the Jews when he vanquished Rome. But, this is not Ehrman's view. You now know that you were completely wrong about Ehrman's view. You're welcome.

It is unbelievably simple and clear from Ehrman's citation. Ehrman considered Jesus to know he was in rebellion against Rome by claiming to be the 'king of the Jews.' You are misrepresenting my view and that of Ehrman. You even revealed a religious agenda in your endless monologue.

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.

Eheman's citation primarily deals with the view of Jesus's claims. He refers to the Roman view as simply the consequence of the claim of Jesus claiming to be the 'king of the Jews,' and Jesus knew that he was advocating rebellion against Rome by making the claim.

[robrecht]

It is unbelievably simple and clear from Ehrman's citation. Ehrman considered Jesus to know he was in rebellion against Rome by claiming to be the 'king of the Jews.' You are misrepresenting my view and that of Ehrman. You even revealed a religious agenda in your endless monologue.

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.

Eheman's citation primarily deals with the view of Jesus's claims. He refers to the Roman view as simply the consequence of the claim of Jesus claiming to be the 'king of the Jews,' and Jesus knew that he was advocating rebellion against Rome by making the claim.

You are forgetting your own view:

In response to my question and explanation of Ehrman's view,

To whom was Jesus advocating rebellion against Rome? Yes, according to Ehrman, Jesus believed that after God destroyed all evil on the world, he would be the king, but that is an apocalyptic vision of God's actions, not advocating that anyone commit any rebellion against Rome prior to God's destruction of all evil. On his blog, Ehrman has directly addressed the powerful logic of the view that Jesus is to be understood as a political insurgent who favored the overthrow of the Roman empire by means of (human) force because he was crucified on charges of political insurgency.

You said,

How did he want others to rebel against Rome? By following him as the promised prophesied king of the Jews.

When I tried to explain again that it was not Ehrman's view that Jesus and his disciples were to lead the rebellion against Rome in the future,

Ehrman does not say that Jesus preached or taught publically that people should follow him as the King of the Jews. Ehrman basically believes in an historical (rather than traditional or redactional) messianic secrecy motif. His view is that Jesus would have only privately told his disciples about his future role after God intervened. Even if you stretch this to somehow include the disciples following him before God intervenes, nowhere does he urge them to do anything in rebellion against Rome. Believing that their master will have an exalted role in the future world to come is not rebelling against Rome.

You offered your belief that it was Jesus who would be vanquishing Rome in his future role as king of the Jews in the new world:

Pilate distinctly knew of the claims of Jesus, therefore it was very public. I do not believe it was clear as you say that the future was not rebelling against Rome. I believe that a new world would include a Kingdom of Jews with Jesus as king, and a vanquishing of Rome to fulfill the prophesy.

It is obvious from the citation and the Testimony of the NT, that the fact that Pilate knew that Jesus preached publically to others that he was the king of the Jews. It was obviously part of his fulfillment of prophesy as expected by all the Jews at the time. Your bring in other issues not addressed in the particular citation I referenced by Ehrman.

If you no longer interpret Ehrman as believing that Jesus was publicly proclaiming himself King of the Jews and the prophesied Messiah who would vanquish Rome and calling disciples to follow him as their king when he would vanquish Rome, you have me to thank for this.

For you to try and claim that our disagreement is based on my not understanding Ehrman's passage about Jesus or Pilate's understanding of the Roman perspective on Jesus' private teaching to his disciples or the events that transpired at his trial seems to be merely your attempt to avoid admitting that you misinterpreted or misunderstood or were ignorant of Ehrman's view.

[Adam]

I can hardly object to Robrecht running circles around Shuny in exposing what Shuny now prefers to call "errors" instead of "misinterpretations", but I would think there is little purpose in getting him to acknowledge such by such reading comprehension problems that he switches definitions almost in mid-sentence.
I worry that you, Robrecht, are continuing this farce simply to please me by getting me to "Amen" your every post where you once again do in my old enemy. Please don't continue just for my sake. (I do enjoy seeing him squirm his way supposedly out of one defeat after another, but after all, I'm a Christian, and I'm not supposed to enjoy getting revenge, even if it's someone else doing my work for me.)

This brings us back to the theory brought up here not long ago, probably by someone no longer following this thread (or was it you, Adrift?) that must be exceedingly boring for most of us. That is, has Shuny reached beyond just stubbornness to some debility of old age? I can't put my finger on one diagnosis, and I in particular know that he was useless to argue with in 2007, but this possibility must be considered. So, Robrecht, is that the explanation of such diligence and infinite patience, that you hope that you (or some expert here--perhaps Teallaura) will see him exhibiting the characteristics of dementia for which we can refer him for treatment? If that's your reason, I don't recommend continuing for that purpose alone, as no one here seems at that level of medical and psychiatric expertise.

So If you're doing it because it's fun, you have my permission to carry on.

[shunyadragon]

You are forgetting your own view:

In response to my question and explanation of Ehrman's view,

To whom was Jesus advocating rebellion against Rome? Yes, according to Ehrman, Jesus believed that after God destroyed all evil on the world, he would be the king, but that is an apocalyptic vision of God's actions, not advocating that anyone commit any rebellion against Rome prior to God's destruction of all evil. On his blog, Ehrman has directly addressed the powerful logic of the view that Jesus is to be understood as a political insurgent who favored the overthrow of the Roman empire by means of (human) force because he was crucified on charges of political insurgency.

You said,

How did he want others to rebel against Rome? By following him as the promised prophesied king of the Jews.

When I tried to explain again that it was not Ehrman's view that Jesus and his disciples were to lead the rebellion against Rome in the future,

Ehrman does not say that Jesus preached or taught publically that people should follow him as the King of the Jews. Ehrman basically believes in an historical (rather than traditional or redactional) messianic secrecy motif. His view is that Jesus would have only privately told his disciples about his future role after God intervened. Even if you stretch this to somehow include the disciples following him before God intervenes, nowhere does he urge them to do anything in rebellion against Rome. Believing that their master will have an exalted role in the future world to come is not rebelling against Rome.

You offered your belief that it was Jesus who would be vanquishing Rome in his future role as king of the Jews in the new world:

Pilate distinctly knew of the claims of Jesus, therefore it was very public. I do not believe it was clear as you say that the future was not rebelling against Rome. I believe that a new world would include a Kingdom of Jews with Jesus as king, and a vanquishing of Rome to fulfill the prophesy.

It is obvious from the citation and the Testimony of the NT, that the fact that Pilate knew that Jesus preached publically to others that he was the king of the Jews. It was obviously part of his fulfillment of prophesy as expected by all the Jews at the time. Your bring in other issues not addressed in the particular citation I referenced by Ehrman.

If you no longer interpret Ehrman as believing that Jesus was publicly proclaiming himself King of the Jews and the prophesied Messiah who would vanquish Rome and calling disciples to follow him as their king when he would vanquish Rome, you have me to thank for this.

For you to try and claim that our disagreement is based on my not understanding Ehrman's passage about Jesus or Pilate's understanding of the Roman perspective on Jesus' private teaching to his disciples or the events that transpired at his trial seems to be merely your attempt to avoid admitting that you misinterpreted or misunderstood or were ignorant of Ehrman's view.

Our disagreement has nothing to do with the Roman perspective of Jesus's view of being 'king of the Jews.' The description by Ehrman was clear. He simply describe the consequences of the Roman response to Jesus's claims.

It is clear in the scripture that Jesus claimed that Rome would be deposed in one generation and he would be 'king of the Jews.' That is my view. Ehrman did not comment on this issue in the citation. Ehrman simply described Jesus as a rebel because he claimed to be the 'king of the Jews' and he knew that was rebellion against Rome, and knew the consequences of the claim. It is Jesus's claim and knowledge that is focus of the citation.

I do not believe Ehrman proposed that Jesus publically proclaimed that he was the king of Jews. I believe by the evidence in scripture that Jesus publically proclaimed he was the Messiah, therefore the king of the Jews. Whether Jesus publically or privately proclaimed he was the 'king of the Jews has nothing to do with our disagreement.

Remember you have interjected your religious view in this discussion. The secular historians care less.

[robrecht]

Our disagreement has nothing to do with the Roman perspective of Jesus's view of being 'king of the Jews.' The description by Ehrman was clear. He simply describe the consequences of the Roman response to Jesus's claims.

It is clear in the scripture that Jesus claimed that Rome would be deposed in one generation and he would be 'king of the Jews.' That is my view. Ehrman did not comment on this issue in the citation. Ehrman simply described Jesus as a rebel because he claimed to be the 'king of the Jews' and he knew that was rebellion against Rome, and knew the consequences of the claim. It is Jesus's claim and knowledge that is focus of the citation.

I do not believe Ehrman proposed that Jesus publically proclaimed that he was the king of Jews. I believe by the evidence in scripture that Jesus publically proclaimed he was the Messiah, therefore the king of the Jews. Whether Jesus publically or privately proclaimed he was the 'king of the Jews has nothing to do with our disagreement.

Remember you have interjected your religious view in this discussion. The secular historians care less.

My disagreement with your initial description of how Ehrman supposedly saw Jesus as advocating rebellion against Rome involved two errors of interpretation of Ehrman's view, first that Jesus publicly proclaimed himself king of the Jews and that his disciples were to follow him as king while he vanquished Rome in fulfillment of prophecy. Ehrman does not view Jesus as vanquishing Rome either at that time or in the world to come. Ehrman's Jesus was only to attain a kingly role after God and the Son of Man had already brought about the Kingdom of God. This is why I have been pointing out to you the importance of the future dimension of Jesus role as king only after God and the Son of Man's s prior role in bringing about the final apocalyptic Kingdom of God and asking you what concrete acts of rebellion Jesus was encouraging his disciples to take in order to overthrow the government of Rome. You claimed this morning that neither you nor Ehrman claimed that Jesus and his disciples had any specific role in overthrowing the government, which is why I quoted you again as indeed saying that there would be rebellion against and vanquishing of Rome by Jesus in the new world. This may still be your view but at least now you realize this is not Ehrman's view. Again, you're welcome. My correction of your misunderstanding, mistaken misinterpretation, and misrepresentation of Ehrman's views obviously has nothing to do with my Christian faith.

[robrecht]

I can hardly object to Robrecht running circles around Shuny in exposing what Shuny now prefers to call "errors" instead of "misinterpretations", but I would think there is little purpose in getting him to acknowledge such by such reading comprehension problems that he switches definitions almost in mid-sentence.
I worry that you, Robrecht, are continuing this farce simply to please me by getting me to "Amen" your every post where you once again do in my old enemy. Please don't continue just for my sake. (I do enjoy seeing him squirm his way supposedly out of one defeat after another, but after all, I'm a Christian, and I'm not supposed to enjoy getting revenge, even if it's someone else doing my work for me.)

This brings us back to the theory brought up here not long ago, probably by someone no longer following this thread (or was it you, Adrift?) that must be exceedingly boring for most of us. That is, has Shuny reached beyond just stubbornness to some debility of old age? I can't put my finger on one diagnosis, and I in particular know that he was useless to argue with in 2007, but this possibility must be considered. So, Robrecht, is that the explanation of such diligence and infinite patience, that you hope that you (or some expert here--perhaps Teallaura) will see him exhibiting the characteristics of dementia for which we can refer him for treatment? If that's your reason, I don't recommend continuing for that purpose alone, as no one here seems at that level of medical and psychiatric expertise.

So If you're doing it because it's fun, you have my permission to carry on.

Hi, Adam. Don't worry, I'm not continuing this for your benefit or approval in the form of amens. I have no knowledge of whatever disagreements you have had with Shuny in the past. You are, of course, right not to laugh or enjoy the misfortune of others. I too try not to be mean or cruel in my unavoidable amusement at the lengths Shuny will go to avoid conceding a point. I personally find it very liberating to admit when I don't know something or have been wrong about something. It is the only way to learn stuff.

[shunyadragon]

My disagreement with your initial description of how Ehrman supposedly saw Jesus as advocating rebellion against Rome involved two errors of interpretation of Ehrman's view, first that Jesus publicly proclaimed himself king of the Jews and that his disciples were to follow him as king while he vanquished Rome in fulfillment of prophecy. Ehrman does not view Jesus as vanquishing Rome either at that time or in the world to come. Ehrman's Jesus was only to attain a kingly role after God and the Son of Man had already brought about the Kingdom of God. This is why I have been pointing out to you the importance of the future dimension of Jesus role as king only after God and the Son of Man's s prior role in bringing about the final apocalyptic Kingdom of God and asking you what concrete acts of rebellion Jesus was encouraging his disciples to take in order to overthrow the government of Rome. You claimed this morning that neither you nor Ehrman claimed that Jesus and his disciples had any specific role in overthrowing the government, which is why I quoted you again as indeed saying that there would be rebellion against and vanquishing of Rome by Jesus in the new world. This may still be your view but at least now you realize this is not Ehrman's view. Again, you're welcome. My correction of your misunderstanding, mistaken misinterpretation, and misrepresentation of Ehrman's views obviously has nothing to do with my Christian faith.

Please cite Ehrman where he supports the highlighted. It is indifferent to the secular historians how Jesus becomes the 'king of the Jews.' It is a fact that he made the claim, and the claim is that he is the promised Messiah and the 'king of the Jews,' which is rebellion against Rome, and Ehrman believes that Jesus made the claim. The citation describes Jesus's perspective of making the claim. He only describes the consequences of Jesus's claim from the Roman perspective.

Again and again it is indifferent to the discussion whether Jesus made his claims in private or public.

You did interject your religious agenda and belief, which underlies your argument, in this post:

[robrecht]

Please cite Ehrman where he supports the highlighted. It is indifferent to the secular historians how Jesus becomes the 'king of the Jews.' It is a fact that he made the claim, and the claim is that he is the promised Messiah and the 'king of the Jews,' which is rebellion against Rome, and Ehrman believes that Jesus made the claim. The citation describes Jesus's perspective of making the claim. He only describes the consequences of Jesus's claim from the Roman perspective.

Again and again it is indifferent to the discussion whether Jesus made his claims in private or public.

I understand you now want to claim it is indifferent, but it was certainly of some importance to your earlier misinterpretation of Ehrman, when your interpretation of the passage you keep quoting over and over again, was precisely that Jesus publicly proclaimed himself king:

"It is obvious from the citation [of Ehrman] and the Testimony of the NT, that the fact that Pilate knew that Jesus preached publically to others that he was the king of the Jews."

That would clearly be Jesus advocating rebellion against Rome.

As for citing Ehrman's belief that Jesus' purely apocalyptic understanding of this claim concerned the future kingdom of God to be brought about, not by Jesus, but by the Son of Man, you need only read a little further beyond the quotation that you keep repeating:

"He believed and taught that he was the future king of the coming kingdom of God, the messiah of God yet to be revealed. This was the message he delivered to his disciples, and in the end, it was the message that got him crucified."

To better understand the nature of this future kingdom of God, see earlier in this same book:

"Those who were most avidly apocalyptic believed that this future kingdom would be no ordinary run-of-the-mill political system with all its bureaucracies and corruption, but would in fact be the kingdom of God, a utopian state in which there would be no evil, pain, or suffering of any kind.

And:

"But as an apocalypticist, Jesus did not think that the future kingdom was going to be won by a political struggle or a military engagement per se. It was going to be brought by the Son of Man, who came in judgment against everyone and everything opposed to God. Then the kingdom would arrive. And I think Jesus believed he himself would be the king in that kingdom."

And:

"Jesus must have thought that he would be the king of the kingdom of God soon to be brought by the Son of Man."

And:

"The first is to reaffirm that we have no record of Jesus ever proclaiming himself to be the future king of the Jews, the messiah, in a public context. This is never his message. His message is about the coming kingdom to be brought by the Son of Man. He always keeps himself out of it. ... Jesus never preached in public that he was the future king"

And:

"THIS, THEN, IN A nutshell is what I think we can say about the historical Jesus and his understanding of himself. He thought he was a prophet predicting the end of the current evil age and the future king of Israel in the age to come."

And:

"I have already argued that he did not consider himself to be the Son of Man, and so he did not consider himself to be the heavenly angelic being who would be the judge of the earth. But he did think of himself as the future king of the kingdom, the messiah."

This is clearly alluded to in the very same passage that you keep quoting over and over again:

"... 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. ..."

All of this was also apparent in Ehrman's much earlier book on Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, where Jesus' advocated not rebellion against the Roman Empire, but repentance and love of one another:

"God would soon intervene on behalf of his people, sending a cosmic judge from heaven, sending a cosmic judge from heaven, the Son of Man who would destroy the forces of evil and set up God's Kingdom. In preparation for his coming, the people of Israel needed to turn to God, trusting him as a kindly parent and loving one another as his special children. Those who refused to accept this message would be liable to the judgment of God, soon to arrive with the coming of the Son of Man."

You did interject your religious agenda and belief, which underlies your argument, in this post:

My point is precisely the opposite of your interpretation. Being a believer or theologian certainly does not prevent one from affirming a very strong sense of the rebellious character of Jesus' message and ministry, as is shown by the historical views of Crossan.

[shunyadragon]

I understand you now want to claim it is indifferent, but it was certainly of some importance to your earlier misinterpretation of Ehrman, when your interpretation of the passage you keep quoting over and over again, was precisely that Jesus publicly proclaimed himself king:

No earlier misinterpretation of Ehrman that is relevant to the discussion. The horse died long ago.

"It is obvious from the citation [of Ehrman] and the Testimony of the NT, that the fact that Pilate knew that Jesus preached publically to others that he was the king of the Jews."

That would clearly be Jesus advocating rebellion against Rome. [/quote]

Yes in my interpretation it is obvious, based on scripture, regardless that Ehrman considers Jesus only privately proclaiming himself king of the Jews. Ehrman nonetheless describes Jesus as a rebel against Rome, and Jesus knew what he was claiming.

As for citing Ehrman's belief that Jesus' purely apocalyptic understanding of this claim concerned the future kingdom of God to be brought about, not by Jesus, but by the Son of Man, you need only read a little further beyond the quotation that you keep repeating:

"He believed and taught that he was the future king of the coming kingdom of God, the messiah of God yet to be revealed. This was the message he delivered to his disciples, and in the end, it was the message that got him crucified."

I already described that this does not change the fact that claiming to be the king of the Jews. This message was clearly rebellion against Rome, and he knew it.

To better understand the nature of this future kingdom of God, see earlier in this same book:

"Those who were most avidly apocalyptic believed that this future kingdom would be no ordinary run-of-the-mill political system with all its bureaucracies and corruption, but would in fact be the kingdom of God, a utopian state in which there would be no evil, pain, or suffering of any kind.

And:

"But as an apocalypticist, Jesus did not think that the future kingdom was going to be won by a political struggle or a military engagement per se. It was going to be brought by the Son of Man, who came in judgment against everyone and everything opposed to God. Then the kingdom would arrive. And I think Jesus believed he himself would be the king in that kingdom."

And:

"Jesus must have thought that he would be the king of the kingdom of God soon to be brought by the Son of Man."

And:

"The first is to reaffirm that we have no record of Jesus ever proclaiming himself to be the future king of the Jews, the messiah, in a public context. This is never his message. His message is about the coming kingdom to be brought by the Son of Man. He always keeps himself out of it. ... Jesus never preached in public that he was the future king"

And:

"THIS, THEN, IN A nutshell is what I think we can say about the historical Jesus and his understanding of himself. He thought he was a prophet predicting the end of the current evil age and the future king of Israel in the age to come."

And:

"I have already argued that he did not consider himself to be the Son of Man, and so he did not consider himself to be the heavenly angelic being who would be the judge of the earth. But he did think of himself as the future king of the kingdom, the messiah."

This is clearly alluded to in the very same passage that you keep quoting over and over again:

"... 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. ..."

All of this was also apparent in Ehrman's much earlier book on Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, where Jesus' advocated not rebellion against the Roman Empire, but repentance and love of one another:

"God would soon intervene on behalf of his people, sending a cosmic judge from heaven, sending a cosmic judge from heaven, the Son of Man who would destroy the forces of evil and set up God's Kingdom. In preparation for his coming, the people of Israel needed to turn to God, trusting him as a kindly parent and loving one another as his special children. Those who refused to accept this message would be liable to the judgment of God, soon to arrive with the coming of the Son of Man."

My point is precisely the opposite of your interpretation. Being a believer or theologian certainly does not prevent one from affirming a very strong sense of the rebellious character of Jesus' message and ministry, as is shown by the historical views of Crossan.

Absolutely none of the above which I have read changes anything. Jesus is described by Ehrman as a rebel against Rome. The manner of the nature of the rebellion to take place changes absolutely nothing.

[robrecht]

No earlier misinterpretation of Ehrman that is relevant to the discussion. The horse died long ago.

"It is obvious from the citation [of Ehrman] and the Testimony of the NT, that the fact that Pilate knew that Jesus preached publically to others that he was the king of the Jews."

That would clearly be Jesus advocating rebellion against Rome.

Yes in my interpretation it is obvious, based on scripture, regardless that Ehrman considers Jesus only privately proclaiming himself king of the Jews. Ehrman nonetheless describes Jesus as a rebel against Rome, and Jesus knew what he was claiming.

I already described that this does not change the fact that claiming to be the king of the Jews. This message was clearly rebellion against Rome, and he knew it.

To better understand the nature of this future kingdom of God, see earlier in this same book:

Absolutely none of the above which I have read changes anything. Jesus is described by Ehrman as a rebel against Rome. The manner of the nature of the rebellion to take place changes absolutely nothing.

Do you now concede that you previously believed that in Ehrman's view Jesus would be vanquishing Rome as king of the Jews and now you realize that this is not Ehrman's view, rather he saw Jesus' role as king in the future Kingdom of God after God and the Son of Man had intervened?

[shunyadragon]

Do you now concede that you previously believed that in Ehrman's view Jesus would be vanquishing Rome as king of the Jews and now you realize that this is not Ehrman's view, rather he saw Jesus' role as king in the future Kingdom of God after God and the Son of Man had intervened?

No. Rome would be vanquished and Jesus would be 'king of the Jews' by fulfillment of prophesy within one generation, regardless of your religious agenda to justify otherwise.

[robrecht]

No. Roe would be vanquished and Jesus would be 'king of the Jews' by fulfillment of prophesy, regardless of your religious agenda to justify otherwise.

I have absolutely zero religious agenda here. As far as I'm concerned, the only issue being discussed is Ehrman's view. You previously claimed that Ehrman thought Jesus was advocating rebellion against Rome by publicly proclaiming himself king of the Jews in defiance of Roman authority and that he, as king of the Jews, would be vanguishing Rome. It has been shown that this is not Ehrman's view.

[shunyadragon]

I have absolutely zero religious agenda here. As far as I'm concerned, the only issue being discussed is Ehrman's view. You previously claimed that Ehrman thought Jesus was advocating rebellion against Rome by publicly proclaiming himself king of the Jews in defiance of Roman authority and that he, as king of the Jews, would be vanguishing Rome. It has been shown that this is not Ehrman's view.

This indicates a religious agenda: