keithprosser wrote: Jesus was - allegedly - the son of an ordinary carpenter, not of a priest or prince.
I believe this to be incorrect and simply a case of prosser being contrary for the sake it..... again.
The gospel of Matthew States explicitly that Jesus was of royal blood – a genuine king, the lineal descendant of Solomon and David. If this is the case, then Jesus would have enjoyed a legitimate claim to the throne of a united Palestine and perhaps the legitimate claim. And the inscription affixed to the cross would have been much more than mere derision, for Jesus would indeed have been ‘King of The Jews.
He had influential rich friends in very high places and most, if not all of his disciples were rich. Jesus is repeatedly called “king of the Jews” many times when being interrogated by Pilate.
Mark 15:12-15 states clearly Pilate asking those assembled dignitaries:
“What shall I do, then,with the one you call the king of the Jews?” thus indicating at least some Jews do actually refer to Jesus as their king. In All four gospels, Pilate also accords Jesus that title. In the fourth gospel he insists on it quite adamantly and seriously- despite the protests from the elders.
In three of the synoptic, Jesus Himself acknowledge his claim to the title telling Pilate he had spoken correctly when asked “art thou king of the Jews”.
Jesus is referred to many times a teacher and rabbi indicating he was of the priesthood.