Story of Jesus Fabricated Claims US scholar Joseph Atwill



D

Deleted member 45466

Roman Intelligence conceives the greatest story ever told in the hope that'll pacify rowdy yarmulkes?

I think the Romans would have much preferred more direct measures for dealing with troublemakers.

(Arguably the Romans were milder conquerors than some of the other brutes that blazed their chariots across the region.)
 

jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
42,316
Roman Intelligence conceives the greatest story ever told in the hope that'll pacify rowdy yarmulkes?
No. That's a highly simplistic description. What happened after the wars in Judea was a demolition of Jewish society. Judaism went from an outward looking and proselytising religion looking for converts to a very inward looking religion. It also fragmented. Some of this was due to the way that the Jewish state and people people were spread all over the Roman empire due to slavery and due to people moving away.

The state Roman religion was encountering problems and this was a few hundred years after the time of Jesus. The Christian religion was highly useful politically and this is why it was adopted as the state religion. It also had the bonus of installing a Roman agent in every town (the local priest or bishop).

I think the Romans would have much preferred more direct measures for dealing with troublemakers.
The Romans were quite efficient in dealing with problems and they did so quite brutally at times. The situation in Judea depended on client kings and local governors but it gave the Temple and the "official" Jewish heirarchy a limited autonomy.
 
D

Deleted member 45466

No. That's a highly simplistic description. What happened after the wars in Judea was a demolition of Jewish society. Judaism went from an outward looking and proselytising religion looking for converts to a very inward looking religion. It also fragmented. Some of this was due to the way that the Jewish state and people people were spread all over the Roman empire due to slavery and due to people moving away.

The state Roman religion was encountering problems and this was a few hundred years after the time of Jesus. The Christian religion was highly useful politically and this is why it was adopted as the state religion. It also had the bonus of installing a Roman agent in every town (the local priest or bishop).

The Romans were quite efficient in dealing with problems and they did so quite brutally at times. The situation in Judea depended on client kings and local governors but it gave the Temple and the "official" Jewish heirarchy a limited autonomy.
Hold on a second, which wars are we talking about? 70AD or 135AD? Despite only leaving the wailing, wall Rome didn't completely destroy Judaism in 70AD. It survived until the Star of Jacob decided that he was the messiah circe 135AD.

Jews were always inward looking; Judaism is a religion that teaches its adherents to reflect, introspect and seek commune with the Lord. That's one of the legacies it passed on to Christianity and Islam.

I agree with the bit in bold.

As for the Romans conceiving and writing the NT: is there any evidence from primary Roman sources? That type of sophisticated psyop occurring 2,000 years ago is very unlikely.

Even the Passover plot has more credibility!
 

jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
42,316
Hold on a second, which wars are we talking about? 70AD or 135AD? Despite only leaving the wailing, wall Rome didn't completely destroy Judaism in 70AD. It survived until the Star of Jacob decided that he was the messiah circe 135AD.
The Temple provided a kind of focus and a hierarchy. Take that out of the equation and you get an Al Queada/ISIS style fragmentation (or a post Reformation fragmentation of sects). It is necessary to look at it as a continuum rather than distinct events.

Jews were always inward looking; Judaism is a religion that teaches its adherents to reflect, introspect and seek commune with the Lord. That's one of the legacies it passed on to Christianity and Islam.
Inward looking in that it stopped trying to convert people to the religion rather than in terms of philosophies.

As for the Romans conceiving and writing the NT: is there any evidence from primary Roman sources? That type of sophisticated psyop occurring 2,000 years ago is very unlikely.
It is not beyond belief that the Romans had their own intelligence operations throughout the empire. I think that there was a kind of intelligence officer post in the Roman army and one of the biggest criticisms of the Teutoburg fiasco was that there was a failure of intelligence. There was a book published a few years ago (The Gospel of Judas) that claimed that the religion/philosophy of Jesus and his followers was very far from the sunshine and lollipops one of Christianity. And this kind of sect wasn't unusual in 0 AD Judea. Even the account of the capture of Jesus with a large number of Auxilliaries being sent to capture him shows that this was a serious political player and violence was anticipated and overwhelming force was available. The official Christianity led by James (the brother of Jesus, apparently) lost out to Pauline (Roman) Christianity. Saul/Paul was always a Roman citizen and there were disputes with the official Christian sect about bringing the religion to the Gentiles.

The Romans were good at divide and conquer. It would not be unusual if they aided a more peaceful and less angtagonistic version of Christianity but this Christianity, rather than the original format, became the Roman state religion.
 

JimmyFoley

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Messages
9,475
The Temple provided a kind of focus and a hierarchy. Take that out of the equation and you get an Al Queada/ISIS style fragmentation (or a post Reformation fragmentation of sects). It is necessary to look at it as a continuum rather than distinct events.

Inward looking in that it stopped trying to convert people to the religion rather than in terms of philosophies.

It is not beyond belief that the Romans had their own intelligence operations throughout the empire. I think that there was a kind of intelligence officer post in the Roman army and one of the biggest criticisms of the Teutoburg fiasco was that there was a failure of intelligence. There was a book published a few years ago (The Gospel of Judas) that claimed that the religion/philosophy of Jesus and his followers was very far from the sunshine and lollipops one of Christianity. And this kind of sect wasn't unusual in 0 AD Judea. Even the account of the capture of Jesus with a large number of Auxilliaries being sent to capture him shows that this was a serious political player and violence was anticipated and overwhelming force was available. The official Christianity led by James (the brother of Jesus, apparently) lost out to Pauline (Roman) Christianity. Saul/Paul was always a Roman citizen and there were disputes with the official Christian sect about bringing the religion to the Gentiles.

The Romans were good at divide and conquer. It would not be unusual if they aided a more peaceful and less angtagonistic version of Christianity but this Christianity, rather than the original format, became the Roman state religion.
So what are you saying exactly? That the Romans came up with what? And when?
 

jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
42,316
So what are you saying exactly? That the Romans came up with what? And when?
With the destruction of the Temple, the Romans effectively shattered hierarchical Jewish religion as a single religion with a few fringe small sects. Rather than having to deal with the might of a unified religion, it could pick off the sects that were posing a problem to the governance of a province or the empire.
 

JimmyFoley

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Messages
9,475
With the destruction of the Temple, the Romans effectively shattered hierarchical Jewish religion as a single religion with a few fringe small sects. Rather than having to deal with the might of a unified religion, it could pick off the sects that were posing a problem to the governance of a province or the empire.
But I still don't get what point you're making re Christianity.
 

JimmyFoley

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Messages
9,475
the Romans were in a position to influence which Christianity sect survived.
But, eh, the Romans sporadically persecuted Christians like.

And they didn't seem to know what it was about; e.g. Pliny TY.
 

jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
42,316
But, eh, the Romans sporadically persecuted Christians like.
Sporadically. Which sect do you think would have been more dangerous for Roman interests?

And they didn't seem to know what it was about; e.g. Pliny TY.
Most of the local Roman military intelligence records would not have made it into Pliny's works or that of other writers of the time. And one of the main sources on Judea at the time was Josephus. (I think that he made a mention of the Chistians but it is a long time since I read his work.)
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,040
Twitter
No
Joe worked on commission from whoever was paying him. And there was a certain notorious bishop who is known to be a fabricator and enthusiastic editor who produced the clearly edited version of Josephus with the mention of xtians and jimmy christ in it.

Philo of Alexandria was actually a contemporary of said Jimmy's and liked to produce literary sketches of the cities he visited, down to the marketplaces, people and so on- an early travel writer if you like.

And he doesn't mention Jimmy, or the skies darkening over Jerusalem or the ground shaking or any of the other momentous events scheduled out in the bible around the alleged crucifixion.

Philo was contemporary- Old Joe was writing his original version of events 70 years later and then had a new version edited by a notorious christian bishop produced much later than that. The latter being the prime 'proof' offered to and by xtians.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top