And you think that the research is without any contention? That everyone agrees about it all?
There is no question that the scholars have a diversity of opinion, nor did I intend to suggest otherwise.
In fact, I'm quite certain those scholars have a higher tolerance for different interpretations than some non-scholarly sources....
"Prove it?" What proof would you accept, since you have already stated that you will reject scholarly opinion? I guess we could just read the full passage....
15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.[/quote]
To me, this clearly indicates that Jesus knew the Pharisees were trying to trap him in a crime (flouting Roman authority), and found a clever way to avoid it. It doesn't take much of a stretch to recognize that Jesus is not lauding Roman secular authority, and/or is speaking in a caustic or sarcastic manner.
In fact, the more I think about it, the term "Roman secular authority" doesn't apply in the first place; that's a modern concept. To the Romans, Caesar (the position, not the first emperor) was classified as divine, and the Romans had already developed an imperial cult. To Jesus, offerings to Caesar would be offerings to a false deity.
And again: Once we have a historical awareness, it should be very clear that Jesus was certainly not indicating a favorable attitude towards Roman occupation. Christians debated their stance towards Roman authority for centuries, in no small part because the Roman authorities repeatedly persecuted Christians. Augustine was one of the first to make a prominent case in favor of working with Rome, instead of viewing it as an illegitimate, unjust, pagan occupier.
IIRC Elaine Pagels discusses some of this transition. I don't recall exactly which book, sorry.
Claiming to be the son of God is far different from a concept or value.
OK, sure. But that doesn't change the fact that I am entirely capable of holding the following beliefs:
• Jesus was not divine
• Jesus was not insane
• Jesus was not evil
• Some of his ideas were wise and intelligent
• I can ignore those that I do not find wise, intelligent or relevant
Josephus accounts most of these things. There were certainly famines (as is wont to happen during a siege), there was an earthquake, there were constant storms, etc. Nation against nation (Rome against the Jews) is also pretty clear.
As I said, you would need to engage in a significant interpretation action to make these kinds of claims. Which, apparently, you've done.
Do your own scholarly research on this one. It can't possibly be explained sufficiently in a web forum post.
But why did the Jews specifically want Him dead?
The idea that the Jews "specifically" wanted anything is almost certainly a Christian interpolation. When you read the accounts in the Synoptic Gospels, it seems like the entire world held its breath as Jesus was executed. The reality is that from the perspective of the non-Christians of that time -- the vast overwhelming majority of people -- it was just another troublemaker who ran afoul of the Romans.
To the Jews and the Romans of that time and place, there was nothing special about Jesus.
St. John was likely present, and the Jews did not have the authority to kill so they had to go to Roman authorities.
I have to ask.... Where do you get the idea that John was present? There's certainly no textural support for that. Nor did the Romans care about internecine Jewish theological debates. They cared about maintaining order and control; Jesus was a threat to that order and control; and the Romans dispensed with him the same way they did so many other troublemakers.
There's good reason to believe that Matthew was written earlier than Mark sometime in the 50's, notably is the inclusion of the Sadducees who were eliminated after the siege of Jerusalem. So it was probably written before the Jewish revolt.
Matthew drew on Mark or, if it exists, Q. It was almost certainly written after the First Revolt.
If He claimed to be the Son of God but was not, then He is evil.
I cannot stress enough how much I disagree with this statement, nor do I see any possible justification for it.
At the risk of being too brief: Jesus would only be "evil," at least in my book, if he a) intended to deceive with the purpose of causing harm, and b) actually succeeded at causing harm in this way.
Nor do I regard claiming that "I am the son of God" is an inherently evil act. I'm sure that some religious people would differ -- many Jews of Jesus' time almost certainly did -- but I'm not obligated to share that particular ethical principle. (After all, we don't consider the ancient Greeks "evil" because they believed Heracles was the son of a mortal woman and Zeus.)
There is no question in my mind that Christian institutions have, in many instances, caused harm. However, I don't think any individual has such perfect foresite that they could predict every wrong done in their name. As such, I don't think it makes sense to claim that Jesus is "evil."