Re: Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, sedition, and Mark.
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:44 am
Hyper-defining the crucifixion as exclusively a Roman (''and-only-Roman'') crucifixion is an apologetical move (of the kind of hyper-defining the resurrection of Jesus in order to make it different from other resurrection stories, etc).
But I disagree with Maryhelena about the interpretation of 'king of Jews'. The theological point behind the titulum crucis (''INRI''), in the first Gospel, is that Jesus is not the true king of Jews, he is not the true Jewish messiah. If he was truely the true ''king of Jews'', then he would come down from the cross (as the pharisees did challenge), but Jesus didn't: therefore he is the messiah of another God.
But I disagree with Maryhelena about the interpretation of 'king of Jews'. The theological point behind the titulum crucis (''INRI''), in the first Gospel, is that Jesus is not the true king of Jews, he is not the true Jewish messiah. If he was truely the true ''king of Jews'', then he would come down from the cross (as the pharisees did challenge), but Jesus didn't: therefore he is the messiah of another God.