Clivedurdle

How?

Might the Pharisees preaching justice and equality have been a major threat to the Romans - a slave society with 25% of the population being slaves - by allowing people to think for themselves?

A coming together of politics, the stars and religious traditions?

This haphazard falling together of disparate pieces feels far more like history as I understand it! Big bang Jesus is ridiculous!

spamandham

The idea is, that the Jews (the Zealots in particular) became emboldened due to thinking the Messiah was imminent and that it was their time, as a result of the 70 weeks prediction in Daniel.

I'm not saying the Zealots would not have otherwise existed, but instead, that the Messianic expectation is what gave their cry for rebellion weight among the three other major Jewish sects (Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes), who might otherwise have just submitted to the abuses of Caligula and Gessius Florus.

...again, not developed enough to count as a theory. For entertainment value only.

Possibly, but the Zealots themselves led the revolt of 66. My guess is, Rome wouldn't have cared about the Pharisees as long as the Jews obeyed Roman authority.

Clivedurdle

But the gospels are incredibly anti pharisaic - the group historically who were the radical humanist ones. Very interesting, why the propaganda?

The tie ins to Rome are there - they have not been teased out properly because the basic assumption is that the "christian" (cf "allied" ) view of history is correct, but we only have that via Eusebius.

mountainman

christianity is presented as a slave religion

Christianity according to its own corpus of literature is
viewed as a slave religion by its authors ...

* Acts of Philip: christian angels slays 40 jewish priests.
* Acts of Thomas: Jesus the slave-master sells thomas as slave.
* Acts of Paul: Pauls considers himself a slave of jesus.
* Various Acts: crossing yourself destroys entire armies.

The big question of course, is when the christian authors
actually wrote. Chronology in biblical studies is as accurate
as the Age of Pisces.

Joe is the cat amongst the pigeons.
And the pigeons are fat with conjecture.


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

Nag Hammadi codices, some of the more recent Syriac documents such as the narrative summary (in one act) of "The Acts of Philip", the Bazaar of Heraclietes in the Syriac (found 1890?) determined to be authored by the targetted ex-archbishop of Constantinople, Nestorius, famous for the controversy named after him. (He acknowledged that many people of the time thought the new testament was fiction; bullshit, docetic all the way)

It has only been examined from the christian viewpoint. What about the pagan viewpoint? What metamorphoses happened to the three books of the Emperor Julian "Against the Galilaeans"? Christian fire.

The true account of the history of christian origins has two sides. The christian side, which we all know, since the christians were the victors over the pagans, and the pagan side. Biblical history is a moebius strip account. We need the two sides.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown
\

mountainman

IMO ..

The event was an expected event. They were written 312-324 CE in expectation that the Boss would become "El Supremo" over the forces of the Healer-SNAKE Asclepius. Starting with the "Acts of Philip" the pagan priesthood attempted to ridicule Constantine's fiction. But the emperor cult was in the emperor's court. Nag Hammadi evidences the "christianisation" of pagan literature c.350.

It was a real Arian controversy. Hilary of Poitiers De Synodis evidences the public opinion poll results on the fiction of Constantine's god. What were the words of Arius? They are at the top of public opinion.

It was a dark time. We think of the "Top 40" as peace and love. In the fourth century, the "Top 40" were a list of herecies against the majesty of the mafia thug emperors, by which a civilian could get hauled into court. Land tax had tripled in living memory, and "the highways were covered with galloping bishops".


the Logos.

Best wishes


Pete Brown

spin

Christians and Pharisees probably vied for converts in the 2nd c. Remember the gospel jibe about the Pharisees and their efforts to get one convert. The Romans made laws against Jewish proselytism.


spin

schilling.klaus

The fathers of the Roman Catholic church who authored the Canonical gospels needed the Old Testaments for proving themselves as God's chosen people, thus the real Jews to whom the promises of the Tanakh had been made originally were in their way and needed to be discredited.

Klaus Schilling

Amaleq13

When?

Is that in Josephus?

spin

No, it's later. Hadrian was attributed with a ban on circumcision (Historia Augusta), while Antoninus Pius permitted Jews to circumcise their sons, but no-one else, which effectively would have made proselytism very difficult.


spin