No, the point was …
It has absolutely nothing to do with respecting the person.
Yes, I do not disagree that your idea here is grounded. As I said: Thought you were saying something else.
What’s not grounded is the oft-asserted idea that somehow execution by crucifixion would render a revolutionary figure in Judea at that time and place completely unrespectable in Jewish eyes. There’s just no reason to think this so, and everything we know about how these things work militates against it.
But’s it’s okay because you weren’t saying that. 
Guys, it’s up for debate in scholarly circles whether this “Jesus” is the Jesus. Right there in the same passage, Josephus refers to a whole nother Jesus. That could be the one referred to.
Again: We just don’t know (Khaleesi) a lot of the things we think are known (Khaleesi).
I rather like Carrier and have since my early days on the iidb site. Whether he is “as plausible as non-mythicism” is a matter of opinion. I believe that a significant majority of scholars would disagree.
It’s up for grabs in Scholarly circles whether Jews at that time and place even had an expectation that there was going to be some “the Messiah” figure–they, or a lot of them, might have thought there would be several, or that that a Messiah is just a type of person rather than a special specific prophesied person, and there are other ideas attested as well.
And there is no clear, strong grounding for any claims about what jews at that time “would have said” or “would have found believable” about a wide range of ideas about the concept of Messiah, because the diversity we do see in relevant sources, together with what we know about how much was lost, makes any such claim a weak one at best.
We just don’t know a lot of the stuff we assume we know when it comes to this.
People say all manner of things, but I’ve never seen this asserted in any informed discussion. What is asserted is that a humiliating death by crucifixion would mitigate against respecting the victim as the mashiach.
In that case, we can toss all of Roman History out. * Nothing* is verified then.:rolleyes:
What “Scholarly circles.” According to what peer-reviewed works? What have you read about the closing days of the Second Temple Period?
His comment about Jesus was the James- the Brother of Jesus-- was executed in AD 62 or so. Altho he did not participate, he was there at the time. He knew the Sanhedrin, was related to them, was part of that caste. Thus, he had direct evidence that James was executed.
Of course, this is no way validates any of the miracles or any details about Jesus, other than He was “called” “Christ” and He had a brother named James, who was a early Christian.
So, the execution of James was not hearsay to Josephus.
John has miracles and he wasnt part of the Pauline church.
wiki: * Brown and others argue that, based on Bethlehem’s estimated population of 1,000 at the time, the largest number of infants that could have been killed would have been about twenty,[15][16] and R. T. France, addressing the story’s absence in Antiquities of the Jews, argues that “the murder of a few infants in a small village [is] not on a scale to match the more spectacular assassinations recorded by Josephus”.[17]*
However, Macrobius (c. 395-423), wrote in his Saturnalia “When he [emperor Augustus] heard that among the boys in Syria under two years old whom Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered killed, his own son was also killed, he said: it is better to be Herod’s pig, than his son.”[19]
Yes.
What I’m describing is just what’s generally known if you read much about this. Lots of different biblical historians have lots of different ideas about what “messiah” meant to Jews at the relevant time and place. And if that’s the case, then we here on the SDMB message boards can hardly think of ourselves as knowing what a jew at that time and place “would” or “wouldn’t” have said or believed about the concept of messiah.
Yes, but that other Jesus wasnt called “Christ”. Jesus was a common name, true.
Your evidence?
I have read a great deal about it. What books would you recommend?
FWIW this looks to be a relevant work displaying some mainstream contemporary scholars’ view that the idea of Messiah was much more fluid and diverse than many have assumed. The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity: Charlesworth, James H.: 9780800697587: Amazon.com: Books
I haven’t read it.
Did you read his autobiography? I even included a link.
You’re telling me you’ve read a great deal about it, yet think there is a clear consensus about what the jewish expectation of messiah was?
What books do you recommend?
You’ll not get any contemporary biblical scholar to agree that there is such a consensus. I welcome you to produce one.
Sure most will have their view about what messianic expectation consisted in, and may think they’re own view is clearly right, but none of them are going to say there’s a clear consensus about this among biblical historians today.
I kind of like the Flavian theory:
The Jews were looking for a Messiah to triumph over the Romans – They invented Christianity to say be humble, go along with the Romans and you’ll be rewarded after you die.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo