Well I guess I will start...
Lets get the controversy fired up quickly.
here is the commonly accepted scholarly explanation...
Consider the worldview of the Jews in Israel at the time of Jesus. Roman occupation, corruption within thier own leadership, taxation just to worship at their own temple, and general oppression by an occupying pagan enemy. The Jews were looking for a Messiah. Jesus appears on the scene, teaches (Rabbi after all), proclaims all these wonderful things, and generally sounds a lot like what the prophets of antiquity were describing as the promised Messiah. He was at the same time Priest (well, Rabbi but preached religious purity) and King. They celebrated his triumphant entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, because they thought he would take up the role of Jewish Messiah, and be a warrior king, cleanse the temple and lead the people to drive the Romans from the land promised to them by YHWH and establish the eternal kingdom. By Thursday it was clear that Jesus was not going to take up that role, he had no intentions of causing a citizen revolt against the Romans. The Messiah that the Jews thought had come turned out to them at least to be an abject failure, and they had him crucified for it.
This ideology can be traced back to intiquity by Trypho, who was cited in Justin's Dialogues and others, and by Jewish Rabbis through the middle ages.
.................
Linear Mode
