AskHistorians
Not an expert but maybe it helps you to know that Romans had all kinds of floral crowns, e.g. Caesar's laurel crown. It's a story for the citizens of the Roman empire so that could be a context to interpret it.
The Romans (at that point) weren’t concerned about suppressing Christianity as a religion, but with using the execution to deter potential independence movements. So they gave him the crown of thorns to indicate to Jewish separatists that their political aspirations would be self-defeating.
"Are you the king of the Jews?"
"That is what you call me."
"OK boys, the 'king' needs a crown!"
Henchmen snickering, making a crown of thorns. Not really that complicated.
This should be asked in a religious group as it is a book written by a human and the only thing historical is the book it self and actions caused by the interpretations of said book.
Unless you're talking about the act of putting thorns on people who were crucified.
It is a book of fiction as are all books that deal with the super natural
Exactly what I am asking about the thorns on who were crucified. Jesus just seems the all around figure.
Jesus is still a work of fiction. You were specifically asking about a work of fiction.
Could habe easily used Jesus as an example but ya went much further.
Leave religion to the idiots that believe in it. This isn't the place
The consensus among modern historians is that Jesus did indeed exist.
Jesus is still a work of fiction.
Absolutely, unequivocally incorrect. There is corroborating evidence in Josephus. Jesus was one of many troublemaking itinerant messianic claimants at the time. This doesn’t mean anything supernatural, but no mainstream historian doubts the existence of a historical Jesus.
Disbelieving in the religion does not mean that you get to throw the entire thing out. Muhammad similarly was a real figure - this does not mean we have to be Muslims. Disbelieving in mainstream academic consensus solely because of your ideology does not make you any different from a creationist.
Your first 3 words says it all. They're both works of fiction.
You can believe what you want but, but The Life of Brian is less of a work of fiction than all forms of religious texts.
The piece of fiction has enormous historical relevance, and depends on the greater historic context of the time. You could easily ask similar questions from a historical perspective about Don Quixote or Jane Eyre.
vindictive
he wasn't really saying he was king of the Jews, he was basically saying I Am.. And only God or the Messiah is able to make such a claim. This is why the Jewish leaders didn't try to stop the Romans from executing him for the crimes of basically saying that religion is wrong.