Christianity - Religious System, or the True Natural State of Man?

This is a spinoff from the Islam thread, where I wished to show that total relism's critique of Islam was somewhat hypocritical given his own beliefs.

First off, before people like PVC even comment - yes this subject might look old and tired, but I feel old and tired, and 12hr waking days are currently too long for me, hence this thread.

Now, total relism (TR from now on) criticized Islam on I would say 4 grounds. That it is based on paganism, that it is idolatrous, that it calls believers to acts of violence, and that it degrades women. I suggested that all of these (less so the third actually) might equally apply to Christianity (or what nearly anybody would mean by it), and so this thread is about the Christian, rather than Islamic viewpoint.

To be fair, I don't know what denomination TR is from, I may just be projecting things onto him, but if he's any sort of mainstream Christian then there's a 99.5% chance I'm not. But I'll have to just ask before I get into the nitty-gritty.

To start, paganism. To the average person, many of the most obvious features of Christianity are essentially pagan. Most obviously, Christmas. Contrary to the traditional story, Jesus was most likely born in September, Mary may or may not have arrived in Bethlehem on a donkey and she certainly did not arrive the night she gave birth. She then probably stayed in a house with relatives without talking with any inkeepers. The wise men (not kings, probably not riding camels, and their number is not stated) did visit Jesus, but by that time he was a toddler. As for the festivities, the date of September 25th, the practice of decorating trees, and the giving of gifts are all outright pagan ripoffs.

And Christmas is just an example, it's the tip of the iceberg. But the other examples sort of merge into the next point...

Next, idolatry. Idolatry is placing any sort of spiritual value in anything other than God, such as the use of religious rituals in worship. This includes water baptism (and especially infant baptism), ritual clothing for priests/ministers etc, communion/mass/the eucharist, and the observance of holy days. I challenge TR to justify any of these using scripture. I think it will be revealed they are either all a) pagan, b) a complete innovation, or c) a throwback to Judaism and the bondage of the law.

Thirdly, violence. Well, right off, I think we can agree that Christians are not called to violence in the name of their faith. But I have to say I think it is going to be very hard to argue that genocide isn't recorded as being carried out by the Israelites in the Old Testament. What about Joshua 6:21 in reference to Jericho: "And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and ass, with the edge of the sword."?

And finally, the treatment of women. As I mentioned in the other thread, women are forbidden from speaking at an assembly of believers, they must cover their heads in church, and they must keep their hair long. TR responded with the various things women were permitted to do, which was a bit beside the point. If women are seen as equal in authority to men, why can't they open their mouths during a service, and why are they only seen as fit to tutor children?

And as for Eve, although she is of course like Adam in some sense created in the image of God, she was ultimately created as a domestic helper and was even given childbearing as a form of punishment. Which isn't really equality as most people would consider it.

So back to the thread title, which probably seem stranged for TR when I came across as an atheist. Of course I am not. For me, Christianity is quite simply the promise of a return to true natural state of mankind, and being a Christian is about striving for that right now. Both God-ordained and man-made problems will be removed. God-ordained problems being death, ill-health etc, and man-made ones being anything that is somehow related to the breakdown of our God-appointed and entirely natural social relationships (eg gender roles, family, nation etc) caused by man's fallen state. Everything will just work because people will be reconciled with God.

And that for me is the big difference between what I believe, and any mainstream religion out there. Religious systems are, as a philosopher would say, 'artificial and positive', based on rituals and observances etc. Whereas for me, Christianity is simply a description of our natural state. These two notions are the exact opposite each other, and yet it is these foundations that your faith really boils down to. Is the Bible a set of arbitrary commands, or does it offer a deeper meaning of who we really are and how we are meant to live? One detracts from the other, so it can't be both...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

This is a spinoff from the Islam thread, where I wished to show that total relism's critique of Islam was somewhat hypocritical given his own beliefs.

First off, before people like PVC even comment - yes this subject might look old and tired, but I feel old and tired, and 12hr waking days are currently too long for me, hence this thread.

Now, total relism (TR from now on) criticized Islam on I would say 4 grounds. That it is based on paganism, that it is idolatrous, that it calls believers to acts of violence, and that it degrades women. I suggested that all of these (less so the third actually) might equally apply to Christianity (or what nearly anybody would mean by it), and so this thread is about the Christian, rather than Islamic viewpoint.

To be fair, I don't know what denomination TR is from, I may just be projecting things onto him, but if he's any sort of mainstream Christian then there's a 99.5% chance I'm not. But I'll have to just ask before I get into the nitty-gritty.

To start, paganism. To the average person, many of the most obvious features of Christianity are essentially pagan. Most obviously, Christmas. Contrary to the traditional story, Jesus was most likely born in September, Mary may or may not have arrived in Bethlehem on a donkey and she certainly did not arrive the night she gave birth. She then probably stayed in a house with relatives without talking with any inkeepers. The wise men (not kings, probably not riding camels, and their number is not stated) did visit Jesus, but by that time he was a toddler. As for the festivities, the date of September 25th, the practice of decorating trees, and the giving of gifts are all outright pagan ripoffs.

And Christmas is just an example, it's the tip of the iceberg. But the other examples sort of merge into the next point...

Next, idolatry. Idolatry is placing any sort of spiritual value in anything other than God, such as the use of religious rituals in worship. This includes water baptism (and especially infant baptism), ritual clothing for priests/ministers etc, communion/mass/the eucharist, and the observance of holy days. I challenge TR to justify any of these using scripture. I think it will be revealed they are either all a) pagan, b) a complete innovation, or c) a throwback to Judaism and the bondage of the law.

Thirdly, violence. Well, right off, I think we can agree that Christians are not called to violence in the name of their faith. But I have to say I think it is going to be very hard to argue that genocide isn't recorded as being carried out by the Israelites in the Old Testament. What about Joshua 6:21 in reference to Jericho: "And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and ass, with the edge of the sword."?

And finally, the treatment of women. As I mentioned in the other thread, women are forbidden from speaking at an assembly of believers, they must cover their heads in church, and they must keep their hair long. TR responded with the various things women were permitted to do, which was a bit beside the point. If women are seen as equal in authority to men, why can't they open their mouths during a service, and why are they only seen as fit to tutor children?

And as for Eve, although she is of course like Adam in some sense created in the image of God, she was ultimately created as a domestic helper and was even given childbearing as a form of punishment. Which isn't really equality as most people would consider it.

So back to the thread title, which probably seem stranged for TR when I came across as an atheist. Of course I am not. For me, Christianity is quite simply the promise of a return to true natural state of mankind, and being a Christian is about striving for that right now. Both God-ordained and man-made problems will be removed. God-ordained problems being death, ill-health etc, and man-made ones being anything that is somehow related to the breakdown of our God-appointed and entirely natural social relationships (eg gender roles, family, nation etc) caused by man's fallen state. Everything will just work because people will be reconciled with God.

And that for me is the big difference between what I believe, and any mainstream religion out there. Religious systems are, as a philosopher would say, 'artificial and positive', based on rituals and observances etc. Whereas for me, Christianity is simply a description of our natural state. These two notions are the exact opposite each other, and yet it is these foundations that your faith really boils down to. Is the Bible a set of arbitrary commands, or does it offer a deeper meaning of who we really are and how we are meant to live? One detracts from the other, so it can't be both...

---

As stated on this thread https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...lam-true/page2

None of those 4 are the objections I made in op, but the objections from the debates in OP. The others were brought up and I replied to as time went along.


The claim made was Christianity has been influenced by paganism.

1] paganism

I feel I have to point out that Christmas has nothing to do with chritianity or the bible. It is a celebration done by some [including me] to celebrate the birth of the messiah. He is actually almost 100% correct in what he says of chritmas, good source here
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...e.aspx#Article

But this has nothing to do with bible or christanity. Same with easter etc. If you want to ask me why I do celebrate Christmas given its likely pagan origins, I am glad to do so.



2] idolatry
Idolatry is the worship of anything other than god.
Baptism- is not a form of idolatry at all, it is baptism is a sign of a covenant like rainbow circumcision, no one worshiping water in any way. Baptism is throughout the OT ans NT, many passages.Not once does anyone worship the water, it is a sign.

ritual clothing for priests/ministers etc
again not idolatry, also not found in NT, added by catholic church. OT priest did entering temple have certain garnets. Not in anyway a from of idolatry.

communion/mass/the eucharist, and the observance of holy days
I agree these were created by catholic church, all but holy days. Nothing wrong with holy days at all, ever heard of Sabbath?.

5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.
roamns 14

Please show me were these are any form of idolatry?



Thirdly, violence
I agree fully, the conquest of cannan was ordered by god to be fulfilled by believers [OT jews] I disagree this is genocide. I love this topic and its a great one. But I ask of you as I did last thread, please allow me to have this as its own thread, it is great topic I love and have done on twc many times. But wish for it to be its own, when I have more time. Also I have no idea how this would disprove the bible, especially when it constant with archaeology. If you mean violence in koran is same as the conquest of cannan. I suggest you bring that up in other thread, or watch debates on the subject I posted on other thread.


And finally, the treatment of women.
admittedly this is a subject I know little of,but Rhyfhylwyr is taking one specific letter to a Corinth church, that contradicts other letters from paul and nt on woman. The reason being more is going on here than normal. As I pointed out woman are allowed to be teachers/leaders this is true in OT and NT.

In Galatians 3:28 the scriptures explicitly state that women hold a position of equal value and importance to men: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
The Bible does not say that a woman cannot teach a man about Christ. Priscilla, along with her husband, taught Apollos the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:26).
It does not say women cannot exercise spiritual gifts. The four daughters of Phillip had the gift of prophecy (Acts 21:9). 1 Corinthians 14:3 tells us "But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation." Thus prophesy and other gifts can be used between women and men.
It does not say that women cannot evangelize. Lydia, after being converted, had regular fellowships in her home and evangelized others(Acts 16:14,40).
This does not make the man superior, only placed in a different role than the woman. The best example of this I can think of is the tribes of ancient Israel. The Levites were chosen out of the twelve tribes to be the priests and to run the house of God, but this didn't mean they were superior to any of the other tribes. That is just the position in which God placed them. In the same way, men are to be the authority in the church. Women are allowed to teach other women, and instruct men. Even Timothy, the recipient of this epistle, was tutored by his mother and grandmother (2 Tim 1:5; 3:15). God also commanded Abraham to listen to the council of his wife in Genesis 21:12. However, since the authority falls to the man, it is he who will be held accountable for improper decisions, such as also happened to Abraham when he followed bad advice from Sarah in Genesis 16.
So, God is not against women at all. Because each sex has a different role to play, doesn't make one role more important than the other.
And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
gen 1.27

allow me time to look into specifics of church at Corinth.

Eve
she was created in the image of god 100%, created in the image and likeness of god gen 1 26-28 child birth was not punishment but gift, pain in childbirth was punishment just as adam was punished. That eve was created second means nothing to importance, what is more important NT or OT?. When eve is called a helper, that word is only ever used of god in OT, this in no way means inferior to man, but godlike. God is not inferior to man neither is woman. Sutible helper means "like opisite him" a mirror image.


I agree with most everything about last paragraphs.Gone will again bring the world back to its prefallen state.
4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’[a] or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”
revelations 21.4

I disagree that god caused problems, it was man sin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

To start, paganism. To the average person, many of the most obvious features of Christianity are essentially pagan. Most obviously, Christmas. Contrary to the traditional story, Jesus was most likely born in September, Mary may or may not have arrived in Bethlehem on a donkey and she certainly did not arrive the night she gave birth. She then probably stayed in a house with relatives without talking with any inkeepers. The wise men (not kings, probably not riding camels, and their number is not stated) did visit Jesus, but by that time he was a toddler. As for the festivities, the date of December 25th, the practice of decorating trees, and the giving of gifts are all outright pagan ripoffs.

---

More than just that. There are those that theorize that the story of Jesus is a pastiche of Egyptian myths about Horus, Isis, and Osiris. With Isis being Mary (both have the title mother of God), and Jesus being a mix of Horus (who had the epitaph lamb of god) and Osiris (story of the resurrection). It's part of the Jesus was wholly mythological line of thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

More than just that. There are those that theorize that the story of Jesus is a pastiche of Egyptian myths about Horus, Isis, and Osiris. With Isis being Mary (both have the title mother of God), and Jesus being a mix of Horus (who had the epitaph lamb of god) and Osiris (story of the resurrection). It's part of the Jesus was wholly mythological line of thinking.

---

I have to ask for evidence, these comparisons are severely overstated or are clearly after jesus, or both. I would love a original source on this one. I have seen the "best" comparisons by atheist and Muslims ripped apart in debates, watch william lane craig.

Here we go again. Mans inherit goodness forced into a Jewish Mysticism

Face it boys we are here alone

I realize that sucks but it is what it is.

Make the most of it,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Mans inherit goodness forced into a Jewish Mysticism

---

What I said contained about as much Jewish mysticism as a bacon butty.

And I don't believe things have to suck, I feel good knowing the big man's looking out for me.

To avoid getting in debate on things I disagree with you on, I will only suggest, a baptist church if you want freedom and not rituals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

More than just that. There are those that theorize that the story of Jesus is a pastiche of Egyptian myths about Horus, Isis, and Osiris. With Isis being Mary (both have the title mother of God), and Jesus being a mix of Horus (who had the epitaph lamb of god) and Osiris (story of the resurrection). It's part of the Jesus was wholly mythological line of thinking.

---

That was probably common among the monophysitists (strongest in Egypt) and influenced how they viewed the divinity of Jesus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

More than just that. There are those that theorize that the story of Jesus is a pastiche of Egyptian myths about Horus, Isis, and Osiris. With Isis being Mary (both have the title mother of God), and Jesus being a mix of Horus (who had the epitaph lamb of god) and Osiris (story of the resurrection). It's part of the Jesus was wholly mythological line of thinking.

---

The argument against this has always been that the Gospels are about a man who is self conciously playing up existing myths - Jesus litterally goesout of his way to ape Joshua's movements through Israel, he does things just to fulfil the prophecies. In the most extreme example he openly states that he does miracles not to help individuals, but so people will believe he is Son of God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I don't really mind the Rituals. Where I judge a church is on the quality of the Sermons, and that has less to do with the denomination and everything to do with the kinds of people doing the preaching.

---

Aint it the truth - the quality is usually also heavily influenced by the amount of time the preacher spends learning and meditating upon his learning. An excess of learning in a Sermon can make it inaccessable, but too often it is the case that the preacher doesn't understand the passages he is using to make his point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

I have to ask for evidence, these comparisons are severely overstated or are clearly after jesus, or both. I would love a original source on this one. I have seen the "best" comparisons by atheist and Muslims ripped apart in debates, watch william lane craig.

---

Impossible. It's based on interpretations of history and theology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

That was probably common among the monophysitists (strongest in Egypt) and influenced how they viewed the divinity of Jesus.

---

Actually I first heard it in a History channel program. Which was itself based on the works of some early 20th century writers, Gerald Massey and Alvin Boyd Kuhn. Who's works didn't survive Academic rigors. Massey believed that Herod the great was made up as well for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The argument against this has always been that the Gospels are about a man who is self conciously playing up existing myths - Jesus litterally goesout of his way to ape Joshua's movements through Israel, he does things just to fulfil the prophecies. In the most extreme example he openly states that he does miracles not to help individuals, but so people will believe he is Son of God.

---

The gospels were written from oral traditions, and were edited by their authors. It's possible that there was a man who called himself Jesus of Nazareth traipsing around Judea with a list of Messiah requirements knocking them off one by one. It's also possible that it was a group of men using Jesus of Nazareth like Red Hood, an identity used by all of the group at different times to pull off the Messiah miracles (some of which experimental Archaeologists have pulled off with first century Jewish knowledge). Short of a time machine it's not possible to know for sure if Jesus was a real individual person. It requires faith, something I'm not capable of. So I cannot believe he was real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

And I don't believe things have to suck, I feel good knowing the big man's looking out for me.

---

What a horrifying way to live. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

What a horrifying way to live. :no:

---

What's horrible about it and what makes your way any better?

Also, GC, yeah the most important thing is not the denomination, what matters most is the spirit of things not sticking to the letter with everything in terms of dogma. Obviously you need the basics but as long as you stay away from anything too 'out there' you should be fine.

I went to church with my gf when we first started going out. Worst hour of my life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

What's horrible about it and what makes your way any better?

---

It makes you always some kind of child. I hate that. Anything other than that is huge step up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Here we go again. Mans inherit goodness forced into a Jewish Mysticism

Face it boys we are here alone

I realize that sucks but it is what it is.

Make the most of it,

---

Strike​, I love you. Now let's find a motel room.

Since I am curious on a fews ideas that occured while debating total realism.

First, moral absolutism. Is it more to it than "I'm freaking powerful so my words are the law"? Is it being not human, he can percieve things without being trapped with that viewpoint? Did he weave it in (poorly) to the universe itself?

Second, the notion on that God began alone. As I pointed out, there's no good and evil when being truely alone, since the notion stems from interactions. God learning morality fits the Bible much more than the other way. Mainly an interesting notion, since the idea of God's infinate wisdom means that he could come up with a perfect theoretical moral system and fully comprehend it before he even created any other living being. That he doesn't act this way is another matter.

What I honestly don't understand is how people can think the GT and NT God can be the same God...

They seem quite far apart when it comes to morals.



From my atheistic viewpoint the answer is of course simple: Human morals evolved between the old and new testament and that is of course represented in oral and written works from that era.

But what methods have Christians to explain it? God going "Uhm, actually I seem to have been rather stupid here. Hey Jesus, can you go down and tell them to scrap what I said; now THIS is the new deal. Scrap eye for an eye, we turn the other cheek now, mmmkay? I haven't taken the thought much further, but it should give you something to work with. Good luck down there son!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

It makes you always some kind of child. I hate that. Anything other than that is huge step up.

---

The relationship people have with God is not that of a parent to a child, it is unique. All it means is there is someone out there that is stronger and smarter than you, unless you're the strongest and smartest person in the world that's going to be true anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

What I honestly don't understand is how people can think the GT and NT God can be the same God...

They seem quite far apart when it comes to morals.

---

Both the OT and NT God raise up the poor, promote justice and some sense of equality etc. At the same time they both destroy empires, punish peoples with terrible afflictions, and carry out (or at least promise) mass killings. The different focus in the NT is because God has come down in the form of man to show how people should live humbly and without sin before God, and ultimately to die for theirs sins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

From my atheistic viewpoint the answer is of course simple: Human morals evolved between the old and new testament and that is of course represented in oral and written works from that era.

---

That might make sense if the NT was written and compiled in fairly modern times. As things stand, that was done at a time of mass violence and oppression, when Judea was at its most nationalistic, racist and generally intolerant. The NT was particularly atypical of its time, and certainly doesn't fit into a historical pattern of developing concepts of morality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

The relationship people have with God is not that of a parent to a child, it is unique. All it means is there is someone out there that is stronger and smarter than you, unless you're the strongest and smartest person in the world that's going to be true anyway.



Both the OT and NT God raise up the poor, promote justice and some sense of equality etc. At the same time they both destroy empires, punish peoples with terrible afflictions, and carry out (or at least promise) mass killings. The different focus in the NT is because God has come down in the form of man to show how people should live humbly and without sin before God, and ultimately to die for theirs sins.



That might make sense if the NT was written and compiled in fairly modern times. As things stand, that was done at a time of mass violence and oppression, when Judea was at its most nationalistic, racist and generally intolerant. The NT was particularly atypical of its time, and certainly doesn't fit into a historical pattern of developing concepts of morality.

---

Interesting view.

I don't know if I agree that it doesn't fit in the historical pattern though. The religion spread in the Roman Empire, that around this time had huge problems with slaves and violence. Spartacus caused mayhem just one or two generations before Jesus spread his message, as an example.

Because it WAS a time of mass violence and oppression, as you mention, there are bound to be a force in society that want to end it. And as always, the more force one side of the equation have, generally a equally strong diametrically opposite force will arise.

This in history is at least in Swedish terms known as the historical whiplash effect.

IE. Pretty much all of the world before WW2 were into racial thinking and ranking. After world war 2 you can barely say that negroes are the best runners without having a wall of political correctness hitting you.

So shall we look at the world in the 30's - 40's and say that it had horrible racial views, or should we look at it and say that it was the birth of a world wide anti-racism project?

I'm not well read on what they did preach, but that time was unusually crowded with profets. A comparation between those would tell quite a bit on how unusual the message was at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Because it WAS a time of mass violence and oppression, as you mention, there are bound to be a force in society that want to end it. And as always, the more force one side of the equation have, generally a equally strong diametrically opposite force will arise.

---

If there was such a force then it was minimal in Jesus' Judea - as testified to by both his treatment at the hands of his fellow Jews, and the failure of Christianity to take root in the Judean population. Where it did take off was with the more Hellenized diaspora - attitudes may have been different there, but then Jesus wasn't a product of the Hellenic world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

If there was such a force then it was minimal in Jesus' Judea - as testified to by both his treatment at the hands of his fellow Jews, and the failure of Christianity to take root in the Judean population. Where it did take off was with the more Hellenized diaspora - attitudes may have been different there, but then Jesus wasn't a product of the Hellenic world.

---

But surely, with historical eyes, Jesus ideas and surroundings are of minor importance compared to what ideas spread and where. But then with religious eyes Jesus original idea is of course the paramount thing.

But then again, find two Christians with some centuries in between them, who have the same view on what those ideas were. What is written has imho always come second hand to how people interpret it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

But surely, with historical eyes, Jesus ideas and surroundings are of minor importance compared to what ideas spread and where.

---

Of course, but not if you want to understand where Jesus and the earliest Christians' views came from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

But then with religious eyes Jesus original idea is of course the paramount thing.

---

Not necessarily, that just happens to be true for fundamentalists like myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

But then again, find two Christians with some centuries in between them, who have the same view on what those ideas were. What is written has imho always come second hand to how people interpret it.

---

Well Catholicism hasn't change that much since Aquinas, and I know a lot of Protestants that would have fitted in nicely in Calvin's Geneva or Puritan England. I also know a lot of people that are bordering on Amish standards when it comes to the modern world. Of course I'm aware the circle of people I have around my isn't typical , but these people do exist. Also, given the nature of Protestantism as a movement to return to scriptural teachings, I would like to think some modern Prods that resemble believers of at least Pauline-era Christendom. I think they would also share the belief of the earliest Jewish Christians that surrounded Jesus, although they would operate a lot differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

The gospels were written from oral traditions, and were edited by their authors. It's possible that there was a man who called himself Jesus of Nazareth traipsing around Judea with a list of Messiah requirements knocking them off one by one. It's also possible that it was a group of men using Jesus of Nazareth like Red Hood, an identity used by all of the group at different times to pull off the Messiah miracles (some of which experimental Archaeologists have pulled off with first century Jewish knowledge). Short of a time machine it's not possible to know for sure if Jesus was a real individual person. It requires faith, something I'm not capable of. So I cannot believe he was real.

---

Most of this is common misinformation - the worst part being the idea that he was called Jesus and he was from Nazareth. His name was Yeshua or Yeshu, a variant of "Joshua" which is the name of the prophet who led the people of Israel to the promised land and conquered it for God. Nor was he from "Nazareth" - the place only appears in accounts by that name long after his death, but he was a "Nazarine" a member of a particular Rabbinic tradition.

So was Yeshua the Nazarine Rabbi a real individual?

Almost certainly - the details about his life, his death, and also what he said are all far too sharply observed. The Canonial Gospels are far from reliable sources, and the apocryphal ones less so, but they contain certain circumstantial details which suggest he really existed. For example, the Gospel of John shows quite detaled knowledge of the internal geography of the City of Jerusalem during Christ's lifetime, despite being written after the city was sacked and ilargely rebuilt by the Romans, and at great geographic remove as well.

Another interesting point is that Jesus quotes from apocrypha and little-known texts, this is a man showing his knowledge rather than one pegging himself to the most popular pieces of scripture.

Ten you have the fact that any other explanation is needlessly complex.

Which is more likely? That there was a real man called Yeshua who was executed by the religious authorities for heresy, or that the character was made up and then believed to have existed, or that a Cabal of Rabbis invented a single figure and alternated pretending to be him?

In fact, the last is the least compelling - because it's a stupid plan that won't work! Why have four men pretend to be the Son of God when you can just pick the most charismatic and have him to it full time?

If you don't believe Jesus existed - take a lok at more modern cults and how they got started. Any cult (and Christianity is one, technically speaking, requires a charismatic leader with drive to get it off the ground.

How many successful cults can you think of that were administered by committee?

Quote:

---

What a horrifying way to live. :no:

---

Many atheists are scared of religion, I'm not sure why.

I think you are childish, you demand autonomy and the right to unfettered self-determination according to your own Conscience but a wise and mature person recognises he is ignorant and looks up to those older and wiser than himself.

Well, nobody could be older or iser than God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I like it quiet, understated, and kind of boring. A good old fashioned lecture. I think its kind of ironic that I found that style of Sermon at an Episcopalian service, which is otherwise full of hymns, chanting, kneeling, standing, and so forth.

---

Not surprising really, or it shouldn't be, the foundation of Anglicanism is an appeal to historic authority combined with reasoned interpretation of Holy Scripture.

I'm not scared of religion nor do I think it has a negative impact.

I simply can't bring myself to have faith and refuse to fake it

I actually hate the New Atheism movement, the smugness and hubris that comes out of it is suffocating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

I'm not scared of religion nor do I think it has a negative impact.

I simply can't bring myself to have faith and refuse to fake it

I actually hate the New Atheism movement, the smugness and hubris that comes out of it is suffocating.

---

Much more of that and I'll have to give you a hug.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Much more of that and I'll have to give you a hug.

---

Then thank the post!

I'll freely admit I still hold a Christian world view

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Much more of that and I'll have to give you a hug.

---

Don't be beta.

Gotta be alpha bro srs.

LOL, look at you telling Phil to go Alpha

I bet you've never even beaten a child at chess

You're beta to the max brosiden

I'm the alpha male of the Backroom, I smash more chicks in one Friday night than Kad does in a lifetime at the ski resort.

And that makes me frickin alpha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

LOL, look at you telling Phil to go Alpha

I bet you've never even beaten a child at chess

You're beta to the max brosiden

---

See, you CAN be funny :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

If there was such a force then it was minimal in Jesus' Judea - as testified to by both his treatment at the hands of his fellow Jews, and the failure of Christianity to take root in the Judean population. Where it did take off was with the more Hellenized diaspora - attitudes may have been different there, but then Jesus wasn't a product of the Hellenic world.

---

If there was such a force, it was the orthodox Jews (as opposed to the newfangled Jew-cult-communes-later-to-be-known-as-Christians) wot done it. That's to say, when it came to religious matters the Jews were allowed to do largely as they pleased based on what Tacitus called the antiquity of their traditions (i.e. Judaism). The Romans shook their heads and went on with life, that is until the Christians started exhibiting worrying tendencies to rock the boat and/or the other Jews started complaining.


On the other hand: Jesus probably was very much a product of the Hellenic and Roman world in that the focus on the "messiah" and in particular emphasis on "salvation" is something which developed during the constant wars in Palestine during Hellenistic and Roman times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

I'm the alpha male of the Backroom, I smash more chicks in one Friday night than Kad does in a lifetime at the ski resort.

And that makes me frickin alpha.

---

Kukri's back - we're all Betas, get over it, I know I am.

Anyway, you're a lifter - that's a sissy sport.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

I'm the alpha male of the Backroom, I smash more chicks in one Friday night than Kad does in a lifetime at the ski resort.

And that makes me frickin alpha.

---

I´m confused for a moment.....is this the backroom or the Joe Rogan forum?
because if so...I can post pron!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

I bet you've never even beaten a child at chess

---

:laugh4:

I just got the reference after I seen Kad's post there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Kukri's back.

---

Where?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Most of this is common misinformation - the worst part being the idea that he was called Jesus and he was from Nazareth. His name was Yeshua or Yeshu, a variant of "Joshua" which is the name of the prophet who led the people of Israel to the promised land and conquered it for God. Nor was he from "Nazareth" - the place only appears in accounts by that name long after his death, but he was a "Nazarine" a member of a particular Rabbinic tradition.

So was Yeshua the Nazarine Rabbi a real individual?

Almost certainly - the details about his life, his death, and also what he said are all far too sharply observed. The Canonial Gospels are far from reliable sources, and the apocryphal ones less so, but they contain certain circumstantial details which suggest he really existed. For example, the Gospel of John shows quite detaled knowledge of the internal geography of the City of Jerusalem during Christ's lifetime, despite being written after the city was sacked and ilargely rebuilt by the Romans, and at great geographic remove as well.

Another interesting point is that Jesus quotes from apocrypha and little-known texts, this is a man showing his knowledge rather than one pegging himself to the most popular pieces of scripture.

Ten you have the fact that any other explanation is needlessly complex.

Which is more likely? That there was a real man called Yeshua who was executed by the religious authorities for heresy, or that the character was made up and then believed to have existed, or that a Cabal of Rabbis invented a single figure and alternated pretending to be him?

In fact, the last is the least compelling - because it's a stupid plan that won't work! Why have four men pretend to be the Son of God when you can just pick the most charismatic and have him to it full time?

If you don't believe Jesus existed - take a lok at more modern cults and how they got started. Any cult (and Christianity is one, technically speaking, requires a charismatic leader with drive to get it off the ground.

How many successful cults can you think of that were administered by committee?

---

I only threw out 2 options. I could conceive of many others that are not ridiculous. I'm going to keep using "Jesus of Nazareth" as a descriptor, for no other reason than convenience. You bring up the detailed information in the gospels about the area at the time. But those first/second century writers would have had access to works that have been lost to us in the intervening 2000 years. So John could have simply copied a work about 1st century the little details Jerusalem into his book. Most of our assumptions about the origins of the Christ cult are based on nothing more than taking the gospels at near face value. Which is really wrong-headed. Considering the Torah is full of out and out propaganda, revisionist histories, and fables. Which we know thanks to modern archeology. And the gospels are probably near as bad. The character "Jesus of Nazareth" could have been based on one person. But I doubt it. More than likely he's an aggregate character compiled from the stories of the leaders of several Messiah cults that existed in first century Judea by the gospel writers. The Christians persecuted by Nero may not be the same cult who's beliefs you and I were raised in.


Now you ask why would a Messiah group create a "Jesus of Nazareth" identity and share it? Easy, if Herod was even a quarter of the tyrant histories make him out to be is why. The actual leader of that cult has the idea that keep to confound the authorities is too have them all play the part of their cults leader in different places. I never insinuated that the cult was led by committee at that level. But that the true leader kept himself hidden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Many atheists are scared of religion, I'm not sure why.

I think you are childish, you demand autonomy and the right to unfettered self-determination according to your own Conscience but a wise and mature person recognises he is ignorant and looks up to those older and wiser than himself.

Well, nobody could be older or iser than God.

---

Don't mistake fear for anger. That some magical king sky faerie is always watching me for his amusement like a rat in a maze makes me very angry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

I only threw out 2 options. I could conceive of many others that are not ridiculous. I'm going to keep using "Jesus of Nazareth" as a descriptor, for no other reason than convenience. You bring up the detailed information in the gospels about the area at the time. But those first/second century writers would have had access to works that have been lost to us in the intervening 2000 years. So John could have simply copied a work about 1st century the little details Jerusalem into his book. Most of our assumptions about the origins of the Christ cult are based on nothing more than taking the gospels at near face value. Which is really wrong-headed. Considering the Torah is full of out and out propaganda, revisionist histories, and fables. Which we know thanks to modern archeology. And the gospels are probably near as bad. The character "Jesus of Nazareth" could have been based on one person. But I doubt it. More than likely he's an aggregate character compiled from the stories of the leaders of several Messiah cults that existed in first century Judea by the gospel writers. The Christians persecuted by Nero may not be the same cult who's beliefs you and I were raised in.

Now you ask why would a Messiah group create a "Jesus of Nazareth" identity and share it? Easy, if Herod was even a quarter of the tyrant histories make him out to be is why. The actual leader of that cult has the idea that keep to confound the authorities is too have them all play the part of their cults leader in different places. I never insinuated that the cult was led by committee at that level. But that the true leader kept himself hidden.

---

Apply Ockham's Razor - your explanations are needlessly complex.

There is good reason to believe that Jesus was not a divine prophet (it is statistically unlikely he was) but there is no reason to believe the man himself did not exist.

What you are doing is engaging in a very clever way of being stupid.

Quote:

---

Don't mistake fear for anger. That some magical king sky faerie is always watching me for his amusement like a rat in a maze makes me very angry.

---

In my experience fear is the major driver of anger - which implies you fear God despite claiming not to believe in him. This is consistent with your claim that Jesus was not real, because if he is not real then he can't have been the Son of God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Apply Ockham's Razor - your explanations are needlessly complex.

There is good reason to believe that Jesus was not a divine prophet (it is statistically unlikely he was) but there is no reason to believe the man himself did not exist.

What you are doing is engaging in a very clever way of being stupid.

---

Ockham's razor can't apply here. The dearth of reliable accounts of the place and time and the thousands of years of medelling from persons with an agenda of Jesus being real and divine make a simple explanation impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

In my experience fear is the major driver of anger - which implies you fear God despite claiming not to believe in him. This is consistent with your claim that Jesus was not real, because if he is not real then he can't have been the Son of God.

---

Not this time. Frustration is not fear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Ockham's razor can't apply here. The dearth of reliable accounts of the place and time and the thousands of years of medelling from persons with an agenda of Jesus being real and divine make a simple explanation impossible.

Not this time. Frustration is not fear.

---

I think actual historical sources leans towards it having been a character roughly fitting the more mundane descriptions of Jesus.

Of course, one would have thought that actual historical sources of the COMING OF THE SON OF GOD would leave a bigger historical imprint, than say, the 12th emperors 4th wife.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Ockham's razor can't apply here. The dearth of reliable accounts of the place and time and the thousands of years of medelling from persons with an agenda of Jesus being real and divine make a simple explanation impossible.

---

One can apply Ockham's Razor to explanations of him not being a prophet - needlessly complex explanations are silly.

...and pointless.

Thousands of years?

Don't you think you're massively overstating things?

I don't expect you know anything about the Gospels outside the rubbish on the History Channel.

Test completed

The closest thing you can come to freedom when it comes to power structures (that are needed for any larger organisation, like society), is to ensure that those in power own that position because of those below him and knows it. So close contact and high mobility (at least the potential for it) are good ideas, as is the will to remove those who break this contract.

I sense a bit of sarcasm in Rhyfs OP. That he takes an obscure reference from Paul at face value but debunk the ordinance of baptism which permeates the whole of NT is quite funny. At least I lol'ed.

Discussing Christianity in a mixed group of heterodenominal subscribers and atheists is quite entertaining as each individual will explain "Christianity" with their particular colours.

Was Jesus/Yesuha/Eashoa a real historic figure? Why not.. Can't see the threat there. Was he the son of God? Well his teaching suggests that he considered himself as one. (Could be he considered all mankind sons and daughters of God - he did mention; mine father and your father a few times)
Josephus a Jewish historian in the first century AD mentioned Jesus or a person such named and what befell him.
But more importantly he spent some pages on the subject of Christianity and mentioned James as the head of the movement. At least he thought that James ran the show after the death of their leader.

Those who argue that Christianity is just copying mythlore, hasn't quite understood the claim Christianity put forth. The lore is not that some God suddenly appeared in our universe, displacing any other older gods making a new fresh start about 2000 years ago.
The claim is, of the original religion given to a created world by its creator. This means, any other religion that derive from the original given the first man, is the copycat.
So... the true Christian religion was given to Adam, who passed it along to his progeny, was given to Enoch who was saved with his entire city while still living, was given to Noah who saved his family from utter annihilation, was given to Abraham who passed it on to an entire nation, was given to Moses, but was reverted because of the people's unrighteousness, and was given something else as a temporary law until it would be given again with the coming of the Son.

That Christianity is similar to older but yet younger than the original given the first man is understandable. At least viewed in this fashion. The argument of similarity is easily countered with originality.

I read somewhere but I can’t remember the reference, and stand in danger of quoting disputed originality. Anyway it goes along the claim of Pharao , the son of Egyptus, the wife of Noah’s son who founded the nation of Egypt. He didn’t have the priesthood authority given the sons of Adam.
He was in the wrong lineage. But he was a righteous man and fashioned his kingdom after the order of Adam.
Meaning – Adam fashioned his community after the order of God. A theocracy. So in this claim, Egypt was fashioned as a theocracy after the order of Adam, which was the original order of God. But he hadn’t the authority and was thus just copying – See where this is going?

And this I realized is a perfect argument against any similarity argument, past present or even future undiscovered similar religions.

Put a big IF outside the brackets of religion, THEN they would naturally be similar. That would be a big qualifier for a truth claim of Christianity; one that those who believe should look more into IMHO.

Disregard my last post in here, I was testing how long it actually takes to copy pasta 700 words of gibberish and then highlight random segments of it, followed by a random passage from the bible. It actually took me longer than I thought.

It always takes time to make your pointless.

I agree with Sigurd that's it's really interesting seeing how various people interpret the bible from their different perspectives.

I read the arguments for mythicism but it always felt like an extra step was missing. Also it contradicts Ockhams razor, ironically.
I also tried reading some apologetic works like Lee Strobel to provide a kind of balance but they were painfully bad.

Though if people are interested in the subject I really recommend Bart Ehrman's books. Because I used to be a Christian I had no idea what I was supposed to believe about Jesus when I no longer was, but Ehrman gives a clear and to the point explanation of the mainstream historical position and most importantly why scholars accept it. Was like a breath of fresh air from all the spin being used by atheists and theists with an agenda.

Don't believe in Jesus, a Holy Ghost or run of the mill Casper the Ghost.

From my point of view I don't see it as an absence, I just don't have any compelling facts.

Sure one day I might see a genetically engineered offspring of a narwhal and a horse to make a unicorn.

But just like Mayan end of the world, fairies, ghosts, St Nick or the coke a cola red Santa, or devils, angels or any other such entity ill wait until I see the next black swan event before I believe in them.

Sure there might have been a person who belived he was the son of god. There were plenty who deitified roman emperors. They are equivalent in there likelihood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Don't believe in Jesus, a Holy Ghost or run of the mill Casper the Ghost.

From my point of view I don't see it as an absence, I just don't have any compelling facts.

Sure one day I might see a genetically engineered offspring of a narwhal and a horse to make a unicorn.

But just like Mayan end of the world, fairies, ghosts, St Nick or the coke a cola red Santa, or devils, angels or any other such entity ill wait until I see the next black swan event before I believe in them.

Sure there might have been a person who belived he was the son of god. There were plenty who deitified roman emperors. They are equivalent in there likelihood.

---

Well - how important was Constantine?

There's a few different issues - Was he real? Was he important? Was he the Son of God?

Three separate questions, although they are related.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Well - how important was Constantine?

There's a few different issues - Was he real? Was he important? Was he the Son of God?

Three separate questions, although they are related.

---

Was there a carpenter named Jesus. Probably.
Was he the Son of God. Probably not.

Was he important. Yes and No. The stories of him are important the same way any great story is. The stories reveal much about the authors desires and intentions and even more so in the fans of the stories.

So it is nice that we have a more elegant set of instructions in the NT over the OT. Simplifying the Ten Commandments to the golden rule. Getting away from the complexities of what to sacrifice for which sin, and also simplification of ones dietary requirements. So the NT is a far more elegant set of solutions.

Interesting? Yes
Important? Yes
Real? Probably not.

Yes, and the golden rule appears in different forms and translations in most successful societies.

However the antithesis of the golden rule is becoming all too rampant: "He that holds the gold makes the rules."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

More and more i find myself turning to my faith for comfort. The old me would have scoffed.

---

That's fine and all, but I have to ask why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

That's fine and all, but I have to ask why.

---

There are no atheists in a foxhole? :sneaky:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Good question. Wish i had a good answer.

---

Disappointment in how society develops perhaps?

I might misremember, but I get the feeling that your opinions are leaning more to the left and are also more cynical nowadays.
You could do much worse than having Jesus as a role model.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Ockham's razor can't apply here. The dearth of reliable accounts of the place and time and the thousands of years of medelling from persons with an agenda of Jesus being real and divine make a simple explanation impossible.

---

these supposedly "reliable" accounts weren´t even written by anyone who knew him or lived during his time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

That the fledgling cult managed to spread so far and so wide is the shocking bit, regardless of how much of the tales are true or not.

---

By that logic religions that have more followers than Christianity would have to be more "valid"......number of practitioners doesn´t equal validity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Jesus didn't have a very big impact in his lifetime, or even in the immediate years following. He was the leader of a heretical jewish sect, and he got killed by the Romans for stirring up trouble. That much seems plausible and indeed probable from a purely secular historical viewpoint.

That the fledgling cult managed to spread so far and so wide is the shocking bit, regardless of how much of the tales are true or not.

---

According to the new testament, Pilates initially didn't want to execute him because he didn't see what he had done wrong. But he caved in to pressure from the (jewish) mob. This view was later used by the Roman clerical authorities to promote the view that the jews, and not the Romans, were responsible for Jesus' death.

I often wondered how plausbible that account was; AFAIK according to Roman records Pilates was a rather ham-handed ruler with little tact or patience for the sensibilities of his jewish subjects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

According to the new testament, Pilates initially didn't want to execute him because he didn't see what he had done wrong. But he caved in to pressure from the (jewish) mob. This view was later used by the Roman clerical authorities to promote the view that the jews, and not the Romans, were responsible for Jesus' death.

I often wondered how plausbible that account was; AFAIK according to Roman records Pilates was a rather ham-handed ruler with little tact or patience for the sensibilities of his jewish subjects.

---

Still, Pilate himself had no reason to execute Jesus other than to please the mob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Most of this is common misinformation - the worst part being the idea that he was called Jesus and he was from Nazareth. His name was Yeshua or Yeshu, a variant of "Joshua" which is the name of the prophet who led the people of Israel to the promised land and conquered it for God. Nor was he from "Nazareth" - the place only appears in accounts by that name long after his death, but he was a "Nazarine" a member of a particular Rabbinic tradition.

So was Yeshua the Nazarine Rabbi a real individual?

Almost certainly - the details about his life, his death, and also what he said are all far too sharply observed. The Canonial Gospels are far from reliable sources, and the apocryphal ones less so, but they contain certain circumstantial details which suggest he really existed. For example, the Gospel of John shows quite detaled knowledge of the internal geography of the City of Jerusalem during Christ's lifetime, despite being written after the city was sacked and ilargely rebuilt by the Romans, and at great geographic remove as well.

---

There are some sources that point to the existence of a Jewish fundamentalist rabbi called Joshua. However many of the other available records of the time have no mention of him. Also some of the standard NT bible stories aren't backed up by historical evidence, yet are very much present in folklore and myth of the time or earlier (born in a barn, 3 wise men, etc).

It does seem fairly pointless to contest that there was no Jesus, and yet it is probably folly to assume that all the stories ascribed to him actually originate from the same historical figure.

Interestingly enough the same is true of Mohammed. The official biographies, accepted in the Islamic world were cooked up hundreds of years later. Documents of the time are few and far between, and pretty much all are second hand stories.

“Still, Pilate himself had no reason to execute Jesus other than to please the mob.” He had a legal obligation to impose Rome order. Except the Jews and the Zoroastrians (dual: Mazda & Ahriman), all others populations under Roman Laws were polytheists. The Jews had an exemption regarding honouring Roman Emperor as Gods (see problem with Caligula’s Statue in the Temple) so Jesus, declining to be a Jew, was against the Law. Rebelling against the Roman law is the Cross. Then he also claimed to be the King of the Jews: all the people doing this finished on the Cross for sedition as enemies of Rome.

The REAL question is why the Governor of Judea (the same who put the Roman Standard in the Temple, a direct insult to the sanctity of the Temple) will have to “please” the population of Judea that never stop to rebel. When the Jews protested, he killed them. Sent a legion or two if they are unhappy, and job done…

WWPD?

Playing Rome Total War and a random event comes up in Palestine. Either it rebels or you can kill the rebel leader.

I know in STW2 I use my Metsuke to put away or execute enemy dissenters all the time least I face a rebel army.

WWPD?

Playing Rome Total War and a random event comes up in Palestine. Either it rebels or you can kill the rebel leader.

I know in STW2 I use my Metsuke to put away or execute enemy dissenters all the time least I face a rebel army.

Starting a discussion of Christianity with Christmas gives a 99.5% chance that you are not actually Christian.

re: the thread title the first thing I thought of was the book Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. It is the transcript of a series of radio lectures he gave to the British while they were in the midst of the blitz. It was very relatable for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

WWPD?

---

What Would Pilate do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

The REAL question is why the Governor of Judea (the same who put the Roman Standard in the Temple, a direct insult to the sanctity of the Temple) will have to “please” the population of Judea that never stop to rebel. When the Jews protested, he killed them. Sent a legion or two if they are unhappy, and job done…

---

Pilate was brutal, but he wasn't stupid. Rebellions in the province reflected poorly on him as a governor. To put down a rebellion he'd have to risk the lives of his men and mount an expensive military campaign. That would cost money for which he would be held accountable. If executing a native offered even a remote chance of pleasing the mob and staving off the rebellion, it would be worth it, even if he did not consider the man to be guilty. He would never send a Roman citizen onto the cross in such a manner, but Jesus wasn't a citizen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

What Would Pilate do?

---

Correct, he was always a flexible man :smoking:

“To put down a rebellion he'd have to risk the lives of his men and mount an expensive military campaign.” So it was easier to kill the potential rebel, in this case Christ.
And the cost of a campaign would have been covered by slaves, pillage and others income solutions. Roman Governors never shy away of fight and even provoked them (i.e. England, Boadicea). The political aim to crush a rebellion was always favoured by the Roman Empire.
The Bar Kokhba revolt in 132 is just an example of how the Romans were dealing with Rebels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

The Bar Kokhba revolt in 132 is just an example of how the Romans were dealing with Rebels.

---

Romans were good at putting down the rebellions. That however does not mean that they were purposefully instigating them. They did not look forward to fighting insurrections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“To put down a rebellion he'd have to risk the lives of his men and mount an expensive military campaign.” So it was easier to kill the potential rebel, in this case Christ.
And the cost of a campaign would have been covered by slaves, pillage and others income solutions. Roman Governors never shy away of fight and even provoked them (i.e. England, Boadicea). The political aim to crush a rebellion was always favoured by the Roman Empire.
The Bar Kokhba revolt in 132 is just an example of how the Romans were dealing with Rebels.

---

Um, no. Rebellions interrupted the flow of taxes and cost money. The treatment of Boadicca was considered a scandal, given that she was a Roman Citizen, one of the many instances of Nero seizing the property of dead Romans.

Both the Roman authorities and the Temple Priests had an interest in seeing the Nazarene Rabbi disposed of because he threatened the established order.

The pronouncement of Vatican II that the Jews were not responsible is simply the result of Holocaust guilt.