Bede

What are you talking about? Arianism was supported by several Roman Emporers in the fourth century and was extremely politically adept. And how is it better that Catholicism? An Arian bishop of Alexandria, George of Cappodocia, was so unpopular due to his activities that a pagan mob tore him apart when given a chance by Emperor Julian.

So please explain your statement with reference to history.

Thanks

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Mike(ATL)

I also find the evidence presented to me thus far very unconvincing. When you say well this person wasn't speaking exactly as he was in this other writing and this writing came after that writing and mentioned some of the same people and some different people this all sounds very very weak to me. This is taking very limited data and jumping to huge assumptions then taking that assumption and using it to jump to another assumption. If you could point out to me the convincing data and leave out the unconvincing stuff that would be swell

But assuming all of that is true, I think I'm hearing that the story of Jesus was invented (or created from already existing myths) by the Romans to control the conquered Hebrew people? This seems an elaborate farce. Why not do this to all the other nations they conquered? And if they were inventing a religion to control the people wouldn't they have the religion grant some kind of divine authority to them specifically like the Egyptian Pharaohs or the upper echelons of a caste system? The teachings of Jesus grant no allegiance whatsoever to the Romans. By the teachings of Jesus whoever happens to be governing whatever nation you're from doesn't matter. The authority of God trumps all of them. In fact there was quite a bit of animosity towards the Roman authorities because they initially were trying to appease the Hebrew people that hated Christians by imprisoning and doing all kinds of things to anyone spreading the Christian teachings. If the Christian religion was invented to give the Romans power it was not very good at it. Their superior military was a much more effective tool.

Asha'man

You didn’t ask about the actual historical evidence, so it hasn’t really been addressed. Your question was about motivation, which is always a speculative realm.

That is one of many possible motivations, and probably one of the easiest to spot, but by no means the only motivation.

Besides, the story of Jesus essentially failed to destroy the Jewish faith, or to transform them into better citizens of the empire. The story was re-targeted at the gentiles, the existing citizens of the empire, and demonstrated much greater success. In fact, the power structure established by the early church still exists today.
The Jews may have been the only conquered nation that did not assimilate with the Roman pantheism. The maintained a separate identity and religion, as well as a separate governing body.
The Jewish religion was strongly resistant to that type of idea. Any modification to the Jewish beliefs had to be gradual and build upon pre-existing beliefs. It just wouldn’t work.
A superior military does nothing for long-term occupation, this has been clearly demonstrated by current events around the world. The only long-term strategy that works is assimilation.

And for the purposes of the Romans (and thousands of other governing bodies), Christianity worked just fine. The population was given an escape from the drudgery of life, and had less motivation to fight the existing power structure. The success of this system is demonstrated by the continued existance of the Catholic Church.

But again, taming the population on behalf of the government was not the only motivation, nor was it likely to have been even the primary motivation. All the other motivations for human actions were probably involved, including the extremely basic lust for personal power and recognition.

premjan

i think the political angle is present right in jesus's own teachings; in the metaphor of the 'kingdom of god' he was evidently evoking the roman empire. it is not surprising that his followers ended up creating a vatican structured that mirrored the empire. the concept was virtually built in from the start.

Koyaanisqatsi

Not to mention the fact that history is all hindsight. At the time, however, such an experiment would have been dynamic and frought with some victories and some failures.

The passion narrative, for example, from Mark, which is supposedly the first time the Trial is detailed, corresponds conveniently (and allegedly) with the first Jewish Uprisings.

Think like a Roman counter-intelligence officer. Your military is about to finally engage in brutal genocide against a fierce group of "freedom fighters" (no doubt called "terrorists" in Latin back then) who have been causing no end of resistance for decades in the region (possibly lead by a martyred Rabbi named "Jesus," who was killed for his insurrectionist acts by crucifixion and thereby turned into a killing word, to borrow from Dune; i.e., they killed and acted "in Jesus' name").

From decades of occupation, they know that the local people are fanatics who are literally incapable of separating themselves from their beliefs. The Jewish religion is the only one that I know of, anyway, where people actually think it's a race of people and not just human beings who follow Judaism.

Further, it is their beliefs that make them such fiercely impossible to kill people (as history, unfortunately, has proved again and again and again; unfortunate in the sense that it's been tried so many times). So, it wouldn't take a genius to figure out that the only way to kill "the Jews" would be to also kill their religion.

So, the Roman intelligentsia are set to task and perhaps the very first "counter intelligence" agency is formed (I'm not up on my covert intelligence agency origins, so forgive the speculation). Certainly they had military strategists--the best in the world, by many accounts--so it's not unreasonable to assume that they had been analyzing the problem of the Jewish resistance to their occupation.

Conclusion? Their beliefs make it impossible to assimilate them. Solution? Find a way to either destroy their beliefs (can't be done) or alter their beliefs significantly in some manner.

Judaism is a top down hierarchy. The elders/Rabbis of the synagogues are sacrosanct and followed unquestionably by the entire community. If the Rabbi says jump, the congregation says, "Oy vey ."

They believe that they are the "chosen" people of a monotheist theology; a "One True God" who is greater than all other gods. They also believe that their god will one day send them a savior who will vanquish their enemies and pave the way for a new holy paradise on Earth (a "Holy Empire" perhaps?).

All you have to do is read Mark. It is clearly not written by anyone who has the most basic understanding (from within) of Jewish dogma. It reads like a systematic (almost military) destruction of orthodoxy, deifying a man in a way that no Jew would have done. Jesus, contradicting what the actual Moshiach would do, teaches his sheep to be docile toward authority and to consider themselves blessed to be oppressed. Instead of tales of him fighting against the evil Roman occupation--which is what was probably happening, if indeed the guy was ever real and crucified by the Romans, since they typically crucified people only for murder or sedition as an example to all--you are told of how he was betrayed by his own people; by the entire Sanhedrin and "makers of the laws" (not any one elder in specific, but the entire ruling elite of the Jewish community in the center of Jewish existence).

All Judaism flowed from the only Temple in existence (in Jerusalem). So, you turn a martyr against Rome into a Messiah killed by the Sanhedrin, just prior to sending in your own troops to mass slaughter the more militant resistance fighters.

S.O.P.

Was it a broad net? Yes. Did it work? No. But it did on some of the more "fringe" groups (the Hellenized Jews) and on some of the gentiles in the outer lying regions; areas farther away both in time and space to any actual events.

What didn't work on the primary target works on the tertiary targets and it grows into a slave control theology (which is precisely what it is and nothing else) until it works so well and has grown so large as to be officially co-opted by the Empire that originally created it as a means to destabilize a specific group prior to military action against that group.

In other words, Roman citizens took to it, because they already had a slave mentality. Suffer now and you'll be rewarded once you die and go to a place no Jew ever believed in or conceived of? Great!

A militarily dying empire, stretched to its limits thereby recognizes a way to control human minds without the need for military force and borders no longer mean anything.

The Roman Empire never died. It simply transitioned into the Holy Roman Empire, which, in turn, simply evolved into the Catholic Church, which, in case nobody's been watching, still commands the allegiance of hundreds of millions of people throughout the world, with assets into the untold billions of dollars.

It's not rocket science and it is, by the way, exactly what we did to the Native American Indians. Destroy their religion and their minds will follow. That it didn't work on the target group (in the case of the Romans vs. the Jews, now on pay-per-view) is a testament (pun intended) to the Jews and a confirmation that the NT crap is the greatest fraud ever to have been pulled off.

OFF TOPIC: Is that Nomad I spy with my little eye?
Welcome back, sir! Bede's been keeping your brand of crazy alive valiantly, but he's been overworked of late .

Amos

Interesting. The flip side of this would be "to create the religion and their minds will follow" and upon this truism was the Roman empire renewed to become the greatest ever.

This fraud would only be possible if Judaims provided the opportunity and the NT writers challenged the rest of the world to do this very same thing with "the gates of hell shall not prevail against her."

Koyaanisqatsi

True. If you define oppression through the manipulation of human beliefs (often at sword point) to be "great."

Please, Amos. You know very well that people are, unfortunately, rather easily manipulated into believing all kinds of things. So, here's what. Let's settle this right now. Let's ask the only real authority on Jewish Messiahs--the Jews--whether or not Jesus was their Mosiach, yes?

We can end all speculation right then and there.

Biff the unclean

But assuming all of that is true, I think I'm hearing that the story of Jesus was invented (or created from already existing myths) by the Romans to control the conquered Hebrew people?
Creating gods for political purposes was not original to Jesus. Serapis is a prime example. He was created by the Greeks to use in conquered Egypt. The image of bearded, long haired, Serapis with his left hand slightly raised, fingers slightly extended in greeting became the Roman (and still ours) image of Jesus.

But I don't think he was created to control the Jews. It comes too late for one thing. Israel had already been wiped off the face of the Earth. All the Jewish religious and civil authorities are bad guys in the story. The Christian stories are all anti-Semetic but Christianity doesn't become recognizable as what we know as Christianity until the fourth century.

This seems an elaborate farce.
So? It worked. Fooled you, didn't it?

Why not do this to all the other nations they conquered?
Because everyone else was a polytheist. If you read Julius Caesar's The Battle for Gaul he talks about the Celtic gods but calls them by their Roman names as he saw them as beliefs held in common.
This was not the case with the Jews or the Mithrains.

And if they were inventing a religion to control the people wouldn't they have the religion grant some kind of divine authority to them specifically like the Egyptian Pharaohs or the upper echelons of a caste system?
It does. That's where the divine right of kings comes from.

The teachings of Jesus grant no allegiance whatsoever to the Romans.
Give unto Caesar that which is Caesars

By the teachings of Jesus whoever happens to be governing whatever nation you're from doesn't matter. The authority of God trumps all of them.
And the One Universal and Catholic Church, the ONLY way to contact God and not be damned is the ROMAN Catholic Church.

After Theodosius the Great everyone in the empire was required to become a Christian on pain of death. All Christians had to confess their sins of thought, word and deed to a priest or be damned. All priests were appointed by the imperial government. Has any dictator ever had as sweet a deal as that?!

In fact there was quite a bit of animosity towards the Roman authorities because they initially were trying to appease the Hebrew people that hated Christians by imprisoning and doing all kinds of things to anyone spreading the Christian teachings.
There is no record from the time that says that this ever happened. These stories first surface in the 500s.

If the Christian religion was invented to give the Romans power it was not very good at it. Their superior military was a much more effective tool.
The Christian religion enabled Constantine, who was in charge of the legions of Britain to incorporate the legions of his late father and wage a civil war that united the Empire under his sole authority. "In this sign shall thee conquer."

CX

Have you been reading Pagels again? As I recall isn't that nearly the entire thesis of her book "Beyond Belief"?

mike_decock

I'm about halfway through Beyond Belief right now. I really enjoy her writing as she brings the world of early Christianity to life.

Simply put: John is the only one to disparage Thomas. This only really makes sense if the stories are in response to a group or gospel claiming to follow apostolic authority of Thomas.

I also think it would go against the grain for a group or gospel to claim Thomas as an authoritative apostle if he was already known to be second-rate.

I think Christianity makes the most sense if you start with a historic Jesus, the motivations of early Christians arguing over what he really said and did and their writings being embodiments of those arguments. I agree with Vinnie that arguing complete fabrication requires more special pleading and massaging of the evidence than assuming that there was some HJ as an impetus for all that follows.

Just the opinions of a newbie .

-Mike...