MrMalone

Malachi: I am new here and I'm sure there are plenty of discussions already about giant roman conspiracy theories. The reality is that there is a religion based on a figure named Jesus. He exists, if nothing else, in accounts that are supposedly based on his life. All we can do is examine, from these accounts, what is actually said about him. That said, we can talk about him based on the fact that there are ancient authors that refer to him. I'm sure there is excellent theories to discuss regarding his non-existence. For the purpose of this post, we'll just examine what is said about his life regardless.

You pose an interesting question. Why would a rather educated man preach Christ crucified when there was no Christ figure or a crucifixion event to preach about? Perhaps you have insight into this.

You are also right that the Romans would have had nothing to worry about regarding a Jesus figure, however real he would be. Jesus would have been insignificant and relatively common place Jew. The so called betrayal of Judas would be the only thing that would draw Roman attention to him in the first place. What could that possibly be? If the Romans had thought him a threat, they don't need help finding him. It was critical information or a particular accusation of Judas (as the story goes) that caused the Romans to arrest him. Thus the reason why the Romans would have publically snuffed him out.

jjramsey

Not necessarily. Passover was a time when Jerusalem was packed, and the Jews probably felt the irony of celebrating the end of foreign oppression while being under what in their view was foreign oppression. It would be relatively easy for a ranter to spark a riot under those circumstances, even if the ranter himself was not armed and was not deliberately sparking an insurrection.

aa5874

And it is written that at least one of his followers was armed, see Matt 26:51, Mk 14:47, Lk 22:50 and Jhn 18:10.

Clivedurdle

Typical denial of the clear alchemic and magical thinking all over these writings. Tertullian was not a 21st century thinker. He thought the world was made of the four elements, he believed in gods and spirits doing things to this stuff to make things happen. He actually writes put wood and clay together and make a god.

Is the new testament a technical manual to make gods? All of us? By believing on a cross, eating some bread and wine, getting baptised and repeating some mumbo jumbo?

Jabu Khan

I think there was also the message that Rome had the authority to carry out earthly justice even with regards to the son of Yaweh. If they made a mistake and condemned the innocent it did not matter because all would be balanced in the afterlife.

It served as a way to give more legitimacy to Roman rule because even god did not intervene in the sentencing to death of his own son.

rlogan

A large portion of the whole "passion" garbage is mined from the Hebrew Bible, most particularly Isaiah and Psalms.

Isaiah 53 lines out the most essential stupidity of this religious theory - that Christ needs to be sacrificed for the sins of everyone else. Read the whole chapter, but 53:12 sums it up:

He's going to be killed alongside criminals. Despised and rejected. Buried in a rich man's tomb. The vinegar. Mark has the main elements, but Matthew is over the top with the HB mining.

I can't say whether "pierced my hands and feet" as a Septuigint mistranslation out of Psalms 22 played a hand in selecting crucifixion. Regardless, crucifixion is the obvious form of "sacrifice" given the utter humiliation called for in Isaiah.



So no, it isn't because "that's what happened", and it isn't the most parsimonious explanation. That "explanation" requires the most ludicrous contradictory "just so" story-telling in order to explain the record we have.

The simplest, and most powerful explanation is that this whole religious theory was inspired particularly by Isaiah, but by mining the HB scripture in general, and that what began as spiritual mumbo-jumbo about "Christ Crucified" became historicized as the battle over power culminated in a claim of linear descent from Jesus to apostles to the nascent catholic church.

jjramsey

One doesn't need to be a 21st century thinker to know that a clay model of reasonable size needs a frame or skeleton.

Clivedurdle

You are misunderstanding the argument. Tertullian is agreeing with the idea of creating gods by putting clay on wood, he is only stating his example - the clay of Jesus on the cross is the platonic ideal, the real one!

He is not disagreeing with the process!

jjramsey

This doesn't follow. Tertullian never likens Jesus here to clay covering a cross. Rather, he ends his argument with this jab, "You are ashamed, I suppose, to worship unadorned and simple crosses." He is saying, "Hey, you mock us for worshipping crosses, but you do what you mock us for doing. You just cover your crosses with clay or cloth. We don't." This isn't arguing from alchemy.

Clivedurdle

Are you denying Tertullian did not believe in the elements? He could not help but think in alchemic ways! Actually, it is very difficult for any of us to avoid magical thinking - the existence of religion is clear evidence of that!