Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The whole point to place Rome as the Kingdom of God with Titus as its divine ruler.
.
I gave this some thought and I am left wondering why a Roman serving author of the fake gospel stories of Jesus, would have several times put words in Jesus' mouth where he explains that his Kingdom of Heaven is "not of this earth." It was always clear that the coming Kingdom was to be a complete replacement for temporal life, not simply a social reordering of life as they knew it.
If the Roman goal was to establish the Kingdom of Heaven with a Roman as the major god, that would be an earthly kingdom. Should not the protaginist of the story be making that clear rather than suggesting something entirely different?
I'm not expecting you to mount a defense, just wondering if the author dealt with this contradiction in any manner.
I haven't seen any more scientific research in this thread.
Quote:
You also offered a "counter" that did not even "counter" anything I have actually said on the topic.
Don't view what I said as anti-Jesus - I'm not interested enough in this subject to have my own opinion.
Quote:
While I do not consider wikipedia a legitimate source it does provide a general framework of a topic and in most cases extensive citations to primary sources that the article was taken from.
That's what I'm telling you. If it was published - it's good for Wiki. No comments necessary...
And don't forget about a quotation trap - when a few (sometimes a lot) authors are only quoting each other, as if the quote is quoting the primary source.
Quote:
You have also extensively quoted the Russian wiki article on topics that are just as controversial as the historicity of Jesus...well, at least they are to Russians.
Which means that I'm no better.
Quote:
So, I need to ask, what makes Russian wiki's better then English wiki's?
It's no better, but is great to quickly check an English article for BSing.
I gave this some thought and I am left wondering why a Roman serving author of the fake gospel stories of Jesus, would have several times put words in Jesus' mouth where he explains that his Kingdom of Heaven is "not of this earth." It was always clear that the coming Kingdom was to be a complete replacement for temporal life, not simply a social reordering of life as they knew it.
If the Roman goal was to establish the Kingdom of Heaven with a Roman as the major god, that would be an earthly kingdom. Should not the protaginist of the story be making that clear rather than suggesting something entirely different?
I'm not expecting you to mount a defense, just wondering if the author dealt with this contradiction in any manner.
If you were building a religion to control the "lower classes" and rebellious Jews that preached meekness, obedience and pacifism would you not throw them a carrot that all of that meekness, obedience and turning the other cheek would payoff when they died? What other reason would people have to follow such a religion?
It's also not as if the Romans are shown in a negative light anywhere in the Bible. Roman soldiers are often depicted as good, charitable and godly people. You need to give unto Caesar. The destruction of Jesus is demanded by the Jews, merely accomodated by the Romans where the soldiers become some of the first believers and honor the sacrifice by not breaking the bones of Jesus, etc. Throughout the entire Bible, in an age where the Jews were in near constant rebellion against the Romans and there are dozens of Messiahs running around, we end up with a Messiah that says the Romans are good guys and everyone should just be meek and obedient and eventually they'll get rewarded? Seems a little odd.
Atwill also presents the works of the poet Juvenal. He uses them to illustrate that patrician Romans and the emperors simply didn't take religion seriously, it was a tool to control the lower classes. None of them really believed in it, hence why they enjoyed Juvenal satirizing the gods. It then becomes a supreme joke to make the lower classes believe that there is a salvation in the afterlife and all they need to do to get there is be good slaves. The whole "Kingdom of Heaven" is pretty much a punchline in an intricately woven satire.
If you were building a religion to control the "lower classes" and rebellious Jews that preached meekness, obedience and pacifism would you not throw them a carrot that all of that meekness, obedience and turning the other cheek would payoff when they died? What other reason would people have to follow such a religion?
I understood all that, then you introduced the idea that they were trying to get the Jews to embrace the idea that while there was one god, just as they believed, that god was actually Caesar. That would be a temporal continuation dynamic, not a replacement Kingdom. The Caesar as god business does not fit with the "none of this matters, it will be the afterlife which counts" message. It could be one or the other, but how could it be both?
Quote:
, we end up with a Messiah that says the Romans are good guys and everyone should just be meek and obedient and eventually they'll get rewarded? Seems a little odd.
Well now Goat, the gospel Jesus doesn't go around saying the Romans are good guys, does he? He goes around saying that they are irelevant because they are but a part of the temporary order which is soon to be overthrown. "There is no point in hating them" is not the same thing as "they are good guys."
Further, the Romans do not always come across as looking all that great in the gospels, do they? Pilate signs off on the death of the Messiah, largely because it seems like the quickest way to get the whole Jesus problem out of his hair. The Roman soldiers mock Jesus during the march to his execution, they demonstrate cruelty with their crown of thorns and cold indifference when they gamble for his garments.
Finally, the absense of Jesus speaking against the Romans makes sense without the need to explain it as Roman controlled propaganda. Palestine was occupied, subdued, what would have been the consequence of Jesus adding an anti-Roman message to his ministry other than the rapid Roman termination of his career? Rome was notoriously intolerant of such sentiments. If Jesus had called for the overthrow of Roman rule, he would have never made it to Jerusalem to be crucified, he would have been found floating in the Sea of Galilee with a spear sticking out the back of his neck. The apostles would have been chained together, dumped in one of their fishing boats and towed out miles from shore where the boat would be hulled.
How does promoting a cult which was based on the idea that the world would be ending within the lifetimes of those spreading the cult's beliefs, square with the idea of overthrowing and replacing the Roman civil structure?
The idea behind early Christianity, taken directly from the teachings of the founder, was that the temporal world was without true importance beyond the opportunity to show yourself worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven which was to emerge after the world was destroyed.
You have it as a scheme to take over the corporal, temporal world. That does not make a lick of sense.
You are taking what the later institutionalized form of Christianity was used for, and attempting to establish that it was always planned to be corrupted in this manner. Do you have any evidence for this, I mean beyond simply throwing out assertions such as you do above?
They did not want to destroy Rome, they wanted a Christian Rome, absolute power. Disregard the message, utterly idiotic and demential, and pay attention to the ends. Analyze mouvements like early Islam, Fundamentalisms, etc, they always pursue the same thing. Power.
I do believe that it was always planned to be a corrupt religion (as all religions) whose only end was "religare" desperate people first, and later was adapted to please the Roman world at large.
In other words, had it be convenient that Jesus would return to the world transformed into a talking donkey or a crocodile, an ox or whatever, we would be adoring stuffed crocodiles.
As to the rejection of matter and the pursuit of eternal life, it's something as old as humans.
Evidence that it was a gigantic hoax? Just study gnostic writings and bibles and you will see that Christianism is a myth invented by Peter and Paul. After all, even if we believe what little we know of historical Jesus, Christianity must be one of the most unchristian things there are.
They did not want to destroy Rome, they wanted a Christian Rome, absolute power. Disregard the message, utterly idiotic and demential, and pay attention to the ends. Analyze mouvements like early Islam, Fundamentalisms, etc, they always pursue the same thing. Power.
I do believe that it was always planned to be a corrupt religion (as all religions) whose only end was "religare" desperate people first, and later was adapted to please the Roman world at large.
In other words, had it be convenient that Jesus would return to the world transformed into a talking donkey or a crocodile, an ox or whatever, we would be adoring stuffed crocodiles.
As to the rejection of matter and the pursuit of eternal life, it's something as old as humans.
Evidence that it was a gigantic hoax? Just study gnostic writings and bibles and you will see that Christianism is a myth invented by Peter and Paul. After all, even if we believe what little we know of historical Jesus, Christianity must be one of the most unchristian things there are.
Were one to embrace all that you argue above, it still would not eliminate the possibility of an actual historical character whose life inspired the scheme.
I understood all that, then you introduced the idea that they were trying to get the Jews to embrace the idea that while there was one god, just as they believed, that god was actually Caesar. That would be a temporal continuation dynamic, not a replacement Kingdom. The Caesar as god business does not fit with the "none of this matters, it will be the afterlife which counts" message. It could be one or the other, but how could it be both?
Well now Goat, the gospel Jesus doesn't go around saying the Romans are good guys, does he? He goes around saying that they are irelevant because they are but a part of the temporary order which is soon to be overthrown. "There is no point in hating them" is not the same thing as "they are good guys."
Further, the Romans do not always come across as looking all that great in the gospels, do they? Pilate signs off on the death of the Messiah, largely because it seems like the quickest way to get the whole Jesus problem out of his hair. The Roman soldiers mock Jesus during the march to his execution, they demonstrate cruelty with their crown of thorns and cold indifference when they gamble for his garments.
Finally, the absense of Jesus speaking against the Romans makes sense without the need to explain it as Roman controlled propaganda. Palestine was occupied, subdued, what would have been the consequence of Jesus adding an anti-Roman message to his ministry other than the rapid Roman termination of his career? Rome was notoriously intolerant of such sentiments. If Jesus had called for the overthrow of Roman rule, he would have never made it to Jerusalem to be crucified, he would have been found floating in the Sea of Galilee with a spear sticking out the back of his neck. The apostles would have been chained together, dumped in one of their fishing boats and towed out miles from shore where the boat would be hulled.
GS, I took some time to read through more of the book. I misstated the general theory a little bit...
Basically Jesus predicts the campaign of Titus and these predictions come true based on the War of the Jews. Jesus does not equal Caesar, he is basically a Messianic Jewish rebel "character", Atwill makes a connection that Jesus and Lazarus are actually one in the same, but that would require reading the book to fully understand the theory.
Jesus predicts that the "Son of Man" will bring "God's Kingdom" to Judea. The "Son of Man" is Titus and "God's Kingdom" is the Roman Empire. Everything Jesus is talking about is the preparation to enter "God's Kingdom", there are constant parallels between the wicked who will not enter and the righteous that will. Basically, submit to Roman rule and you will enter the "Kingdom of God". Continue to resist and you will not be allowed to enter "God's Kingdom". The whole business about Jesus stating that "his Kingdom is not of this Earth" is basically a joke reiterating that rebels like Jesus have no place in "God's Kingdom".
Ultimately, like I said before, I don't subscribe to the theory, merely find it interesting as I find most of these theories, like the ones stating Christianity is just an evolution of the cult of Julius Caesar. I've tried to summarize and defend Atwill's thesis and ideas as much as I could, but they are rather complex and I feel I've done a relatively poor job. Basically, when you read the book, it makes more sense then my attempt to explain it and he addresses many of the issues you are raising, but only through understanding the entire context of what he is talking about.
The whole business about Jesus stating that "his Kingdom is not of this Earth" is basically a joke reiterating that rebels like Jesus have no place in "God's Kingdom".
.
So the Romans would have risked blowing the entire elaborate, subtle scheme for the sake of throwing in a joke?
I'm not holding you responsible for these logical gaps, you made it clear that you are presenting but not championing the theory. Perhaps I would see it differently after reading the work, but my impression based on your description is that it would be the Romans hanging their hopes on something with a very low probability of producing the effect that they wanted. (And in fact, if there was such a plan, it clearly failed.)
I don't understand why if the Jesus myth was constructed in order to create a desired behavior on the part of the Palestine residents, why there is a Roman citizen named Paul who is going about directing his message at the gentile world.
I don't understand why if "Q" was Josephus or some other Roman at work, why the emphasis in that original source was very much on the replacement nature of the Kingdom of Heaven. That is precisely what was left after the Q scholars eliminated the passages that they found suspect as agenda driven additions...the story of a man telling everyone in earshot that the world was about to end and that they had better start preparing themselves for what comes next. (For an exhaustive explanation of the above, read Bart D. Ehrman's "Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium", his 1999 book which collects all of the scholarship on Q and walks us through what the source must have contained.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
