why was there no general riot among when Jesus was arrested?

[dio9]

Matthew 26:3
"Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, 4 and they conspired to arrest Jesus in a treacherous way and kill Him. 5 “Not during the festival,� they said, “so there won’t be rioting among the people.�

Caiaphas cautioned the conspirators not to arrest Jesus because he was afraid there would be rioting among the people.
Why was there no riot?
Did the people not really believe Jesus was the Messiah?
After All the wonders in Galilee where he made the blind to see and the lame walk, preached to and fed multitudes , where was the riot?

[TSGracchus]

JehovahsWitness: "So you interpret "hate"(your family etc) ...to mean "don't use as an excuse" ?

"Εἴ τις ἔ�χεται π�ός με καὶ ο� μισεῖ τὸν πατέ�α ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τὴν μητέ�α καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα καὶ τὰ τέκνα καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς καὶ τὰς ἀδελφάς, ἔτι τε καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ἑαυτοῦ, ο� δ�ναται εἶναί μου μαθητής." -- ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑ� 14:26 SBL Greek New Testament

The Greek (Koine) word translated as "hate" is "μισεῖ ", which means, among other things, "diminish" with various connotations which may be lost after a couple of millennia. (Think mis-anthropist, miso-gyny, or even mis-understanding) Now Jesus was probably not speaking Greek, but rather Aramaic, so we can't even be certain of his exact words. If you look at the context of the verse, that would seem, to me, to be what he, or at least the author of the gospel, meant. Or maybe Jesus really did mean that his followers should hate their families, although that doesn't really seem likely considering other teaching attributed to him.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 21 by TSGracchus]

So is that YES to my question or NO?

JehovahsWitness: "So you interpret "hate"(your family etc) ...to mean "don't use as an excuse" ?

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 21 by TSGracchus]

So is that YES to my question or NO?

JehovahsWitness: "So you interpret "hate"(your family etc) ...to mean "don't use as an excuse" ?

I am not certain that I can be any clearer. I explicitly stated my interpretation and the reasons I arrived at that interpretation and why it might be in error.
"Hate" is an English word that has shifted some of its meanings over time. In this case it is part of a translation of a Greek phrase , which is also an interpretation of something that was probably originally Aramaic, each translation with its own connotations and semiotics. I have given my answer.
Define it out of existence or generalize it to meaninglessness, as you will.

So far, I've done the heavy lifting. Why don't you tell us what you think it means? Then there will be a basis for discussion about agreement or disagreement.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 23 by TSGracchus]

Yes but if I'm not mistaken at no time have you said the words "yes" or "no"; Do you have any obljection to actually saying "yes" or "no" to a question that requires a yes or no answer?

The question was ...

"So you interpret "hate"(your family etc) ...to mean "don't use as an excuse" ?

If the above accurately summarizes your point, a usual answer would be something along the lines of "Yes, that's what I'm saying" ... The question isn't an attack or even a challenge it is a just an attempt to clarify if your point has been accurately understood.

[dio9]

hate is such a strong word , I hardly think Jesus meaning is what this word implies.
for example synonyms are ; loathing, detestation, dislike, distaste, abhorrence, abomination, execration, aversion; He can't have meant that toward ones family. Hate is a bad interpretation of the Greek.

[polonius]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Jesus didn't have popular support of the Jerusalem religious community .
If such a thing happened today there would be riots for sure and in those days too there were riots uprisings against Roman occupation. But not for Jesus, why not?

RESPONSE:

First of all, you are taking as being accurate what was written 40 to 60 years after Jesus' death.

The first gospel was that of Mark, a Syrian writing about 70 AD. Jesus had been executed about 33 AD. The writer we now call Matthew and Luke largely copied this story. (The Evangelist later named Matthew was not the Apostle Matthew)

Jesus was opposed by most of the Jewish leadership and the Romans considered him an insurrectionist (one of the two crimes meriting crucifixion). His real crime as far as they were concerned was letting it be believed that he was the "Messiah" who would be king, replacing the Roman emperor.

There were about four Messiah candidates at that time all of which were killed by the Romans.

Note that Jesus was originally arrested by the Jewish temple guards not the Romans.

[TSGracchus]

"Εἴ τις ἔ�χεται π�ός με καὶ ο� μισεῖ τὸν πατέ�α ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τὴν μητέ�α καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα καὶ τὰ τέκνα καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς καὶ τὰς ἀδελφάς, ἔτι τε καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ἑαυτοῦ, ο� δ�ναται εἶναί μου μαθητής." -- ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑ� 14:26 SBL Greek New Testament

The Greek word "μισεῖ ",which in the 17th century was translated as "hate", can also mean "diminish" or "cut off". And Jesus was probably speaking Aramaic, and we have only the slightest clue about what he actually said, what words or idioms he used or what associations (semiotics) may have been involved.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 1 by dio9]

Jesus convinced his followers that if they should have the faith to move mountains to take and cleanse the Temple, then God would resume the throne and rule from there. So they took it but God didn't show. So in their disappointment and fear of the punishment for insurrection, crucifixion, they turned on him, including even Judas and Peter. Even Jesus believed God had abandoned him in spite of his faith. But it doesn't work that way--God never intervenes, never has since the Creation, and never will.

You asked why. That's the answer. But believers in revealed religion will never accept it. And so it goes.