IamJoseph

So the only thing you question is that Berenice was first with Vespasian, and that Titus condoned the display of concubines while slaughtering the families of men on crosses - which of course is all normal fare for goold old Romam tradition against those bad insolent Jews. Everything else you accept - am I correct?

Why do I suspect that even if factual proof was tended - it would mean nothing! Its all the fault of those bad Jews refusing to worship images of Roman brutes - even after they were warned not to behave badly!

semiopen

I thought the 19th blessing of the Amidah was later than this, but this view has some merit.

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Pra...t_haminim.html

If the chazan (the reader) fucks this up he can be removed and excommunicated... cool.

I'm not sure if IAJ is contradicting his previous statements that Christianity was completely European in origin here.

credoconsolans

So, that means you're not going to provide any links or references, right? OK, thought you might not.

rlogan

Not consistent with the evidence, so I don't assume it. In fact, your procedure is backwards.

Another reason to question the pre-70 beginnings of Christianity if you are asserting Jewish roots. Then post-70 makes a lot more sense. After the destruction of the Temple your religion isn't looking too good. And the people took these kinds of signs that they were not following God properly.

You don't start by assuming a date and then find things that happened around then. If your theory is that you need these landmark events as engines for religious innovations then you start with the most catastrophic events, and that gives you the dates to look at.


And when we ask why this CE 70 date keeps cropping up, it is because the author of Mark wanted to insert a prophecy about the destruction of the temple. Not because there was such a prophecy.

And furthermore this business of the Jews having blown it with their own scripture is absolutely essential to Christianity. The proof they blew it is their destruction.

So no matter how you slice it, post-70 looks far better than pre-70. It would be the impetus for an internal Jewish innovation. Externally, the best way to hijack a religion is when it is in chaos. It is much easier post-70 to run off with your own interpretation of their scriptures. The field has already been vanquished.

dragoon

Sigh!!

I really expect no good to come from this, but OK, here goes:

Why do you think I copied your post Joe?
The whole thing Joe, I think the whole thing desperately needs you to reference all those highly extraordinary statements.


I'll tell you what Joe, why don't you start with this for now and then we can discuss the dozen or so other things later:



Good Luck!!

Tybalt

If what you're saying is true, that's how they did things.

Criminals were fed to Lions in the arena, and people were made slaves.

The poor and slave castes were crucified. Did you think Jesus was the only person who was crucified? Spartacus was crucified.

If you are an emperor who is so smitten with himself that he demands people worship him because his great grandfather was the adopted son of a god, and a certain people didn't, would you not see it as insurrection?

Now, if there were some people who were going against you, and there were others who did not like you but did not as of yet have the strength or will to go against you, what would you do?

You would squelch the rebellion as to make an example.

Now, what to do with the populace? Take into account it's ancient Rome.

Obviously you sell many as slaves to get money for the war you just fought. After their slaves, they don't need their land rights or belongings any more, and since all Roman Legionaries were to be given land for serving, well, you've got more land.

Now what do you do with the criminals who opposed you? Well, since they're criminals, there's one thing to do, you put them in a triumph for your victory. You show the people of Rome a good time of what they want, blood sports. People trying to fight Lions, gladiators, mock naval battles, et cetera.

That's what they did. That was Roman life.

Honestly, what do you think Julius Caesar did with the Gauls?

Waning Moon Conrad

Some of us here study history, classics and latin as a serious discipline.

I would be interested to find this information on Vespasian and Titus and read it for myself. Very interested.

Are you willing to provide references? Not necessarily page numbers and the like, but names of authors and titles of monographs? It's not a lot to ask really.

Waning Moon Conrad

So that would be the same Herod II, otherwise known as Herod Antipas, who reigned from 4 BC to 39 AD?

It would have to be, because Pontius Pilate was Governor of Judaea from 26-36 AD.

This tells us that the Roman emperor at the time was Tiberius who reigned from 14 AD to 37 AD.

Caligula reigned from 37 AD and lasted a few years, to be replaced by Claudius.

No he didn't. You can't ignore the decrees of someone who wasn't born until at least fifteen years after you died. Herod the Great died in 4 BC. Caligula wasn't born until 12 AD.

bacht

The Jews had a complex relationship with Rome. In the 1st C bce they were allowed to continue their unique monotheism in Palestine and in the diaspora (see Josephus' account of J Caesar's and M Anthony's eastern campaigns). Worship of living emperors began I think with Tiberius, and the Jews were exempt from this. Other nations neither needed nor sought such special status. I suspect the cult of emperor worship was as much a political tool as a religious one, a kind of loyalty test.

Traditional Jews had been resisting syncretism with pagan religion since the Maccabees in the 160s bce. They refused to equate Jupiter or any other pagan god with the God of Israel. Their iconoclastic style meant that images or statues of pagan gods were forbidden anywhere near the temple.

The Jews in Palestine might have been spared some their agony if they hadn't been living in strategically important territory near the border with Parthia. A small group of idiosyncratic monotheists in some non-descript location like northern Spain might've avoided a full military reprisal.

Both Nero and Claudius had negative dealings with the Jews, but their religious freedom remained intact until the 1st revolt in the 60s. As far as Vespasian's rise to the throne I doubt anyone could've predicted the outcome of the "year of four emperors" after Nero's death. This marked the end of Augustus' direct line of descendants, and the beginning of a more rational selection process for the princeps.

IamJoseph

A reasonably good description. However, because of the mis-rep from Christianity and Islam, the Jewish defense of the right to freedom of belief, which was flaunted by Rome, and impacting only on one nation - remains unrecognised and distorted. This sublime right of humanity was nowhere defended better than by the Jews in 70 CE. The event of 70 CE should be made a pivotal honoring by the world, but is falsely antithetised due to competing agendas.