Cognisonance, thanks for setting the record straight on Aslan's credentials.
mP said-
"Jesus was connected to those rebellious parties. Judas Iscariot is obviously a pun on Sicarri, many scholars agree on this. The sons of thunder moniker is another reference to another rebel leader. The main apostles share names with the leaders of the largest groups rebelling against Rome. The story of jesus having two other crminals beside him is a retelling of a similar story by Josephus where he runs into three former friends all being crucified for their rebellion. He asks Titus to let them go which happens but only one survives with the help of doctors. Joseph of Arimathea is of course a pun on Jospehus full name in Hebrew."
Did you READ the HuffPo article, written by a NT scholar?
More importantly, do you THINK NT scholars don't already KNOW what you cite as 'proof' to support the claim made in the title of Alsan's book (and I agree with BOTR: most authors sacrifice titling rights, since their publisher needs to market and sell as many copies of the book as possible)?
The very fact the references to zealotry are hidden in the NT as puns, clever word-play, etc, supports the claim that Jesus wasn't advocating violent overthrow of the Romans (which is the definition of a zealot), since all of these illusions are HIDDEN, veiled. In fact, what IS explicitly stated and credited to Jesus is non-violent resistance, eg Jesus reprimanded his disciple for cutting off the ear of a Roman centurian (and even healed him!), saying, "I could call down a legion of angels" if needed and explaining that his Kingdom was no part of this Earthly World.
Those references are simply an acknowledgment of the existence of zealots in Jewish culture, and give Jesus an opportunity to DENOUNCE those who'd advocate violence: what better plot device than for some of his apostles to have zealot tendencies, themselves? It's an excuse to introduce the issue into the story of Jesus.
100 yrs after Jesus was died at Roman hands, Bar Kokhba didn't exactly HIDE his agenda, or sacrifice the idea of an Earthly Kingdom: he claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, and his Kingdom WAS very much to be a part of this World, with his throne to be established in Jerusalem (that's an idea intrinsic to the claims of a Jewish Messiah: setting up a Kingdom in Israel). Bar Kokhba often used techniques of guerrila warfare, ambushing and killing Roman troops, etc and openly marshalled support for his rebellion amongst his fellow Jews who saw his as the Messiah (which failed, with deadly results).
Some scholars have offered that the very reason Christianity was accepted as the official state religion of the Roman Empire centuries later was BECAUSE it was seen as a non-threatening alternative to smoldering Jewish zealotry and Messianic claims (or the message could be modified to say it): the thinking of the ruling class was to let the sheepish people have their beliefs of an afterlife with Jesus in Heaven, just as long as they forgot about their deditious talk of Jewish Messiahs, paid their taxes, were peaceful, etc. If this new religion (targeted to Jews, BTW) makes the believers easier to manipulate in the lands controlled by the Romans, it solved the Roman's problem with rebellious Jewish sects who advocated violent overthrow of their Earthly oppressors.
Point is, you're all over the map in your position: you see that Christianity was a religion designed to control others, but then you say Jesus was a zealot who advocated violent overthrow of the Romans?
Adamah