oops


[This message has been edited by dmvprof (edited March 21, 2001).]

Layman,
Why such the harsh tone?

If you had read my last post, you would have seen that I am stipulating that what you are saying about Paul's letters is true, but that does nothing for me. Can you explain what that is supposed to do for me, because even if they are 100% valid letters handwritten by him himself, they prove nothing to me, regardless of their content. Paul, by the way, was obviously a little touched IMO, whats up with all the killin and torture, dude was wack.

Oh, Not A Thiest, what a bi-partisan statement that was, but it sounds like it is you and layman trying to censor someone by saying this isn't even worth discussing. Koy never claimed this was anything but a hypothesis. Is it your opinion that he shouldn't have floated that idea? Is it not good enough for this board?

David


[This message has been edited by dmvprof (edited March 21, 2001).]

Agreed not_a (though I do have the "authority" to have him deleted). It's just very frustrating to constantly have to address evasions that get the room off topic.

Layman--

Yes, you were being childish and deliberately throwing this room off the topic. Don't even start to respond to this because we both know exactly what you were doing and if you address this rather than just except it, it will serve as further proof that you are only here to sidetrack from the hypothesis.

You have stated you don't feel the hypothesis has any merit. Thank you for your critique.

I have asked you (and others) repeatedly to respect the fact that this is a purely speculative hypothesis for the purposes of exploring/forming a theory and that evidence negating it is not requested at this time. I have no problems deconstructing the hypothesis when (and if) it can first be reasonably supported and yes I am asking for help; hoping that this will be an enlightening and engaging detective story, for lack of a better phrase.

Since you are incapable of respecting that request along with your decision to call us "cowards" for not taking on your agenda, I correctly called what you are doing "childish." If that offended your sensitive ears, I apologize.

Now, do you have anything to post here relevant to my request?

And, by the way, yes there are certain guidelines established here you should be aware of. I think Maverick (one of the moderators) put it best:

If you've read anything I've posted in other forums on this board, you'll know that I'm just as quick to lob in a few cheap shots here and there and I'm certainly not above throwing out an idea that can be considered "off-topic," but in all of those instances, when I was asked to either stick to the topic or stop posting, I did.

I am only asking you to do the same. We've wasted almost two pages now on issues having nothing to do with my original intent (with the exception of legitimate negative issues, which is why I requested we save the deconstruction for after discovering evidentiary support). This post is an infant that you and others are attempting crib death upon purely out of some bizarre transparent fear, as is evidenced in the tone of the negative posts so far and I am merely trying to avoid that bullshit so that a serious discussion can commence!

Let the damn thing live for a few fuckin' seconds before your defensive natures force you to attack, all right? I don't think it is unreasonable at all for me to request that you respect the guidelines I've set for my post.


(edited for Maverick's letter - Koy)




[This message has been edited by Koyaanisqatsi (edited March 21, 2001).]

The post of Maverick which you cited was a specific reference to the Secular Lifestyle and Support Forum (where it was indeed appropriate and necessary), not to the Board in general. (With exegesis like that no wonder you come up with your odd theories.)

I come here to debate theists and atheists, not as some sort of vacation spot. I don't want theists feeling as if they can't speak their minds in the Philosophical Forums. I want Jim Mitchell and his ilk (with whom I DO NOT group Layman) to speak their minds in the Philosophical Forums. I can't get enough of them. I love sinking my teeth into them. (If you don't believe me, look up my posts where I sink my teeth into Jim Mitchell and perspicuity). Layman's voice here isn't preventing you from getting your positive evidence. In fact, it should encourage others to jump in and lend you a hand.



[This message has been edited by not a theist (edited March 21, 2001).]

All right, if you can stomache him then I've misjudged his tone. Sorry, I've butted heads against Jim Mitchell and MAS and Nomad so many times that I may be "trigger" happy.

Layman, I apologize and welcome your detraction, especially since no one seems to be taking up this theory with any kind of zeal and you're definitely adding spice to the stew, so, if you accept my apology, let's have at it the good old fashioned way.

Why is the New Testemant clearly anti-Jewish and has historically resulted in a deepening schism between Jews and non-Jews when it purports to be the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy? Jesus is supposed to be the actual "King of the Jews;" their Elijah or Emmanuel who would deliver the Jews out of bondage to their enemies (the Romans).

Historically, we know this did not happen.

Why?

Because some of the early Christians were smart enough to know that explicitly offending the Roman Empire would be fatal to their cause. Rome did persecute them, but probably not so on so grand a scale as some have in the past believed. The persecution was probably also more sporadic than has sometime been suggested. (I think Nomad has even argued this position in his redating the NT thread.) If the early Christians had been too explicitly anti-Roman, and if Rome had seen this as a threat, Christianity's survival would have been much more doubtful. Some of the NT writers are at pains to point out that Jesus death was the responsibility of the Jews not the Romans. Most likely it was. Whatever his ultimate charge, it is unlikely that he would have attracted the attention of the Roman authorities so soon without the instigation of some Jewish leaders. He was not a political revolutionary, or if he was, he was rather low key about it (even instructing his followers to downplay that aspect). Perhaps there was a certain resentment in some of the early Christians over this. Even so, certain writers of the NT do have some nasty things to say about Rome (the Whore of Babylon, etc.) It could be argued that this was a response to persecution, but that would still demonstrate that the relationship wasn't particularly cozy. It really appears that the Christians wanted a better relationship with Rome (for obvious reasons) than Rome wanted with the Christians. The (questionably) pro-Roman stance of the NT is much more the responsibility of the Christians than of Roman authorities. Even so, it didn't accomplish much until nearly 300 years had passed.

You sure you're not a troll, not a theist (not atheist)?

So that gives them license to alter the words of God and/or the factual accounts of Jesus and his disciples? That gives them license to lie or misdirect; the fact that they had to "live" with the Romans means they will obfuscate or downplay anti-Roman sentiment in the supposedly factual account of God on Earth??

What you've just claimed is "smart" translates as cowards without conviction in their own beliefs. Sorry, it just doesn't wash. Remember, these people were not "Christians," they were Jews and Gentiles and their prophesied Messiah was to come to deliver them from their enemies (the Romans)!

That's what the Old Testament and Elijah/Emmanuel was all about, delivering the Jews, not subverting their covenant and breaking their laws, creating division and schism.

Look at it as objectively as possible and you'll see that what you've claimed fits my hypothesis much more so than it does the cult mindset.

And what about, "I came not to bring peace, but a sword?" (let's not start the apologetics bullshit, here; anyone making this statement to a bunch of Middle Eastern Jews under the brutal oppression of the Romans did not mean it metaphorically!)

So, a sword against whom? Fellow Jews? No! Jesus was a Jew and the enemy was the Roman State.

Again, this is why I feel a closer scrutiny based on the speculation that Rome deliberately concocted the Christian myth (as opposed to the already existing Jesus cult, which was in turn based on the Sayings Gospel Q, mind you, and had nothing to do with Jesus' divinity or trinity by the way) is in order.



That's just further evidence, then, that the "persecution" stories were just that, stories designed to give authenticity; like fellow police officers setting up a phony bust so their undercover operatives' cover stories are believable.

Again, this is speculation. If you're squeamish about taking flights of fancy without providing evidence to back them up then this is not the room for you.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled ramblings...



More evidence of cowardice and flies directly in the face of the "mission" of Christians through Jesus. What you're saying is that God came down to a select group of people in a remote, oppressed region proclaiming that the Kingdom of God is at hand.

Think seriously about that for one second. The Creator of All Existence makes himself known in flesh to a handful of people telling them that they are the chosen ones and then these people fear exposure to the Romans so much that they change their records of the event??

That's just patently absurd. What possible threat would Rome (or even death) be to someone who had just touched God?

Or, the reverse, if the early Christians were so afraid of the Romans after all they allegedly had been through, then you're claiming the Romans held more sway over them than meeting the One True God Of All Existence. "Christianity's survival?" God appeared on Earth. There should be no question whatsoever of there "survival."

Also, Rome supposedly did see Jesus as enough of a threat to have him crucified. The New Testament makes it seem as if the Romans are murdering this innocent man (Pilate and Herod not only proclaim his innocence but do everything they can to not murder him) as, what, a favor to the Jews?

"Our Law finds this man innocent, but the religious kooks we ritually oppress and occasionally slaughter en masse and will go to war withwant him to suffer our most heinous sentence, because he claims to be the 'King of the Jews,' a title that does not exist (nor is he the 'King of the Jews'), so, even though we have found him guilty of absolutely no crime whatsoever and allegedly officially proclaimed this several times now over the course of many days (considering the journeys taken from Pilate to Herod to Pilate again), we're going to 'wash our hands' of the whole thing in his blood by killing him for you for no reason at all; just because you 'asked' us to."

The story doesn't wash.



This is why I suspect you're a Christian troll, not a. Where do you get this from? The New Testament.

The synoptics, especially, are very clear that the Romans do the (alleged) actual crucifixion. It is then implied (ridiculously) that the Romans are just doing the Jews a favor of some kind (even though the Romans go through a whole drawn out trial process wherein Jesus is interrogated by Pilate, then Herod, then thrown back to Pilate, etc.) A trial is held and Jesus is found innocent.

So what is Rome's possible motivation to murder a man that they have found to be innocent of all (non) charges against him?

One of the Sanhedrin had some compromising sketches of Pilate?

What is more likely (yes, speculation land again) is that, if Jesus (the man) existed and was indeed going around and stirring up the locals preaching a new religion (or variations on a theme), Pilate, being the cruel and bloodthirsty man Josephus makes him out to be, may well have murdered Jesus for sedition against the State. That, in fact, would have been the only reason Rome would have crucified Jesus, unless Jesus was instead a thief and a murderer?

The Jesus cult does not die, however, and the Romans see that Pilate's action only makes the seditionist a martyr, more popular and more destabilizing after his death.

In other words, it is Pilate who is the fuck up here and caused more tangible problems for the Roman State by destabilizing an already unstable region (after all, think of Pilate's fate and how closely it follows this scenario and the subsequent war that follows a generation later).

It's too late to do anything about it, so at some point down the line (WARNING: Speculation Zone), the Romans see how the cult continues to grow and how its factions differ strongly from the Jewish cult (who the Roman's are at war with), so someone up high sees an opportunity to take over control of the minor cult and put the concerted effort of an organization much more powerful than a group of crazed, wandering nomads claiming they touched God into action (a black op, like I've been hypothesizing all along).

This is, by the way, exactly how Jerry Falwell rose to power; the Catholic Church rose to power; Henry the 8th regained his power; etc.,etc.,etc.

Political subversion was not created with Richard Nixon, madame et monsieur.

Then of course, there's the speculation that Jesus was a Roman spy, but let's let that one sit fat for a moment, shall we? I don't want Nomad to pop a vein.



His "ultimate" charge did not exist and he was (allegedly) found innocent according to the synoptic accounts. Regardless, we have absolutely no way of knowing anything at all about what Rome's official position toward a man who claimed to be God Incarnate was, which they then entered into an illegal and unorthodox agreement with their enemies in order to crucify for no legitimate or legal reason whatsoever.

Don't you at least find that to be suspect? Especially since every mention of Jesus in existing Roman literature has either been fabricated at a later date, or, like Old Testament "prophesies," isn't really talking about Jesus at all?

Not to mention the fact that the Sanhedrin could have killed him at any time they wished (stoned him to death for blasphemy). This lie that the Sanhedrin had no mechanisms in place for authorizing capital punishment must end now. The Sanhedrin would have no problem at all murdering a blasphemer and they sure as shit wouldn't go to the people who ritually slaughtered them for a "favor." The Jews in that region were not ineffectual, pious individuals squeamish at the idea of killing someone (especially if they believed him to be a blasphemer). They were at war either directly or indirectly with Rome, remember?

It does not wash.



Where are you getting your speculation from, again ?. Well, if I'm all over the place with my speculation, I certainly can't fault you for yours

The only problem is, of course, he wouldn't need to be a "political" revolutionary for the Romans to have him crucified for sedition; all he'd have to have been is a "disturber of the peace," which even the synoptics illustrate quite nicely.



And nothing "nasty" to say about the eventual murderers of their God, except for a sort of laissez faire, reluctant but not accusatory, indifferent acquiescence the Romans had toward the wishes of the Sanhedrin to murder a proclaimed innocent man; their Messiah?

No washie.



That's possible, but I don't really see the argument. Please expound on this.

Possible washie.



No, it does not appear that way. It appears (it is) that Rome had little to nothing to do with the whole affair and that the entire crucifixion of Jesus was the direct responsibility of the Jews; the Romans merely acted as the indifferent mechanism for Jesus' death.

There's absolutely no "wiggle" room on this one: the New Testament makes it painfully clear that the Jews killed their own Messiah; their own God, implying to future generations that they did so because he was their own God!

That's the message of the NT and it makes no sense at all from the standpoint of a second testament to the saga of the Jews; God's "chosen" people.

It makes perfect sense, however, from the standpoint of a Roman usurpation of the Jewish religion's fanatical stronghold and "braver than death" convictions of its followers.

Even Nomad will have to agree that that's a pretty odd message for a Testament that purports to tell the story of the prophesied deliverer of the Jews from their long standing suffrage, yes? In fact, I would contend, it is the exact opposite of the prophecies of the Old Testament, but, again, that's just my speculation

Has anybody here ever been to Jerusalem or read a newspaper at any point in their lives? The Jewish force in that region are widely regarded as the toughest fighting force on this planet (don't go by me, ask any military buddies you might have, or turn to the Roman-Jewish war in 70 CE! Tough motherfuckers).



I don't find this marginallization warranted from the speculation you've provided, here. In fact, most of what you have argued actually goes more toward supporting my hypothesis than anything else.

There were no true "Christians" in the sense we historically mean until after everyone here argues the books were written and no one has any idea who the authors were or how they were connected.

What's more, given that the stories in the NT are myths--stories about people that are not any kind of actual, living God by any means, yet they deliberately pretend that this is the case--then you've really got something to speculate about.

This makes Paul the more likely Roman spy, by the way...hmmm. Now we're getting somewhere!

Yes, well, this is why I originally requested we set aside current speculation in favor of a new "base" speculation.

Scholars say this and scholars say that and the "majority" say this and the "majority" say that and this happened here, no it actually happened here, no we have no real idea when this happened, ad nauseam...Were Josephus' writings tampered with? The "majority" of scholars say, "yes." The "majority" of scholars say, "no."

Do we know who the authors of the NT were? Some say yes, others say no, others say, sort of. Do we know for certain when the various books were written? No (no matter what Nomad wishes to claim).

I'm sorry, but this is why I asked for speculation and any evidence to support the speculation before sloughing through the "evidence" negating it. This forum was supposed to be a land of pure speculation segueing then into the gathering of evidentiary support and then deconstruction. In other words, help me support my hypothesis and flesh it out before we destroy it; a modest if unorthodox request.

And I continue to ask it.

(edited for formatting - Koy)


[This message has been edited by Koyaanisqatsi (edited March 22, 2001).]

Right, I'm a troll, that's why I'm wearing myself out in the 'What Happened' thread arguing with Nomad that Jesus didn't even die on the cross. That's a Christian belief, right? No, I'm an ex-Christian who realizes that just because not all of the Bible is reliable, not all is lies either. It's much more complex than that.


Different writers downplayed or played up different things for different reasons. We would have to discuss specific examples.

And he didn't. Instead he got crucified. They had no choice but to reinterpret thier understanding of the Messiah.

Right. That's why they had him crucified.

Just in case you didn't understand the first time, I'M AN ATHEIST!

Right.


Pilate knew what a pain in the ass the Jewish leaders were and was covering his ass. He was afraid that they would send back bad reports to Rome about him.

Suspect what you want. The Christians I've debated here know better.


Pilate was in a very sensitive position. If he was sent to Palestine in the first place, he probably wasn't very well liked. He wanted things to go smooth.[/quote]

No, it was just easier to crucify him just to get the Jews to settle down. Easier to pacify them than deal with possible repurcussions. If he crucified an innocent man, he probably wouldn't get into to much trouble with Rome, but if he let a guilty one free it could be his head on a platter.
Any damn reason he felt like.

Pilate obviously was wrong about Jesus' influence and had no reason to think that a resurrection myth would start.

Right.
Rome doesn't fear in any way those piss-ant Jews. When it decides it's had enough of them, it's not a war, it's a slaughter.
In 300 CE, yes.

Right, he didn't even show up on their radar. They didn't regard him as important. Only when his cult starts to spread do they take notice.

Right. That is what happened. He got the Jewish leaders upset therefore he disturbed the peace.

There was a whole Roman world of potential converts out there and Christianity wasn't taking very well with the Jews. Plus, they knew who stirred up the Romans.
Right. That's what I'm saying.

Rome was not afraid of the Jews.

It was nothing compared to Rome.

Some.
We know the maximum dates of most of the books. and all were written before 200 CE, most likely even before 150 CE. We have pieces of John dated to 125-150 CE. Pauls genuine letters (of which we have at least 5-7) are certainly from around 50-70 CE.
Someone give Koy some evidence.



[This message has been edited by not a theist (edited March 22, 2001).]

I've seen the evidence and there is nothing certain about it.

Interesting response, though. You've brought out another contradiction in the "Rome didn't fear Jews" aspects that I'd like to get into later (but it's five o'clock and I'm getting the fuck out of work, so I'll respond in kind tomorrow).

This is an interesting issue. But I think you are overlooking an important point. The pressure on the early church would have driven them to remain Jewish, rather than branch out on their own. You see, the Jews were protected by Roman law. Although it was exclusive, a trait Roman authorities found subserive, Judaism was also ancient. Moreover, the Romans did not want to start another revolution. So, Jews, peculiar among those times, were given special status under the law. Their religion was recognized and they were not required to worship pagan gods.

At first, Christians were assumed to be just another Jewish sect. So long as the Romans retained that perception, they were also protected by Roman law. But as the schism between Jews and Christians grew, it became more and more apparent to the Roman authorities that they had a new religion, rather than a new sect, on their hands. That is when the Roman persecutions began (although these ebbed and flowed).

I think that this suggests that the schism was theological in nature, resulting from the two movements recognizing that they were theologically irreconcilable. I recently posted a piece on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Therein, I discuss this very issue. I'll bring it up to the top for your to read if you desire.