gurugeorge

OK, so let's accept for the sake of the argument that the very earliest signs of Christianity we have are in Paul, and that he was writing around circa these dates, maybe a bit later.

Suppose we take the mythical route, and suppose we take Christianity to have started, somehow, and in some form, at that time (and not before). What happened roundabout that time that might have given impetus to a ferment of religious ideas (that could throw up the beginnings of a new religion)?

The notable big event seems to be Caligula's self-deification, and his attempt to have his statue set up in the Temple in 39CE, the subsequent refusal of the Jews to do so, the furore that arose, and the threat by Caligula to destroy the Temple.

Bit of a lucky escape with his death, there! Had he lived, he might well have razed the Temple and killed many Jews.

So the general feeling-tone, for some, would be "God is on our side", tinged with "be prepared". Might it have been perceived as a small victory, perhaps a sign of the beginning of the End of Roman Rule? Caligula defied God - and he died. "Perhaps if we press on now ... "? Perhaps a positive view and/or programme would have been well-received at that time?

What do we know of how those events were actually perceived by Jews (and/or Gentiles) at the time?

ph2ter

John the Baptist?

bacht

Maybe, or maybe there were dates around this time considered significant by apocalyptic types (eg anniversaries of the destruction or re-construction of the temple, or of the Babylonian exile, or the rise of the Maccabees etc)

IamJoseph

Caligula was a depraved, insane person: even Herod never took him seriously and refused to process his decrees that the Jews must worship him. Titus and Vespasian, who destroyed the temple for the same reason - were maniacal Nazi type demons - they laughed with concubines while conducting mass crucifixions. Most of the Roman kings were depraved - their final act of insanity was to sanction christianity - quagmiring the people in a false belief they themselves concocted a century earlier, with the assumption Judaism was dead. The Romans became dead instead.

IamJoseph

The gentiles were polytheistic at this time, and had no problem worshiping Roman emperor's images. Judea, the birthplace of monotheism - had a big problem here.

bacht

Are you sure you're not thinking of the Hasmonean king Alexander Janneus, who crucified hundreds of Pharisees? I don't recall Josephus mentioning that Vespasian or Titus brought their friends on this campaign.

The Romans were pragmatists, not especially creative. Racism was impractical in an int'l empire such as theirs. They probably discriminated by social class more than ethnicity.

DCHindley

Wouldn't Herod have been dead something like 40 years at that time? No wonder he didn't pay any attention to Gaius' decrees.

DCH

IamJoseph

I'm not sure what you are referring to - my stats are historically correct re Titus and Vespasian.

This is the false, historical notions inculcated from christian Europe. Rome can be said to be not racist only on the proviso you agreed to place its emperor's image in your places of worship - a decree initaited by Caligula and re-introduced by Nero: this became Titus' chief goal against the Jews to secure his father's annointing as divine emperor - Jupiter prevails over the God of Israel! But woe unto the heretics if you had a belief which forbids such acts. Does this remind of European medevial church history - you think!?

IamJoseph

Herod 1 was 40 years before Jesus, and Herod 2 was at the time of Jesus. The former ignored Caligula's decree, but this was resurrected by Nero, as a deflection of who caused the fires in Rome. We see from here that Rome had an entrenched history of guile, incitement and deception, inventing false stories of blame on the Jews. Such factors signify how the story of a Roman trial and a Judas figure would have emerged.

dragoon

Wow, I mean just fucking wow!!

I'm sorry Joe, but this is the wildest and most inaccurate miss-telling of history and the wildest and most inaccurate smearing of historical persons I have ever run across in my entire life. If you have ANY evidence from ANY source to back up ANY of this, please enlighten me.