aa5874

Along with the theological reasons, the crucifixion by the the Romans, with Pontius Pilate, was a failed attempt to place Jesus in history.

Koyaanisqatsi

Yes, but that reason can only be because Jesus was either "the" leader or "a" prominent leader of an insurrectionist movement against Rome.

There can be absolutly no religious reason for the Romans killing Jesus and absolutely no religious reason "the Jews" would want Jesus killed by the Romans (or any other way for that matter). He is only important to cult members and the reason is obvious.

And Malachi, Paul does not just go around preaching "Christ crucified;" he goes around sowing hatred for "the Jews" for getting Christ crucified; which, again can only make sense in light of Paul being a Roman counter-insurgency operative of some kind, because even if the passion narrative account were true (which is historically impossible), it was still the Romans who killed Jesus.

Paul preaches anti-Judaism and he does so for a reason (two actually):

1. Because the Jewish monotheistic belief structure was too powerful an ideology to break by the Roman conquerors (thus a form of detested detante was struck for many years until an upstart, radical, non-orthodox Rabbi happened to bring a sword, not peace); and
2. because this leader of the growing local insurgency was eventually martyred by the Romans and it had a polarizing effect, thereby increasing the number of terrorists (aka, "freedom fighters") killing Romans "in Jesus' name"

Both of which in turn escalate the problems to the point where the "final solution" of attempted genocide in 70 C.E. is the Romans last resort and in the interim, you have the penultimate solution; a concentrated attempt to turn their religion against them; to turn a martyr for their cause, into a symbol of their disgraceful collusion with the enemy.

Why join them? They killed your messiah.

No other explanation fits all of the information we have to go on; biblical and extrabiblical, IMO.

:huh:

Koyaanisqatsi

Why does my theory always kill these threads? Is it because "you" think it more than plausible; less than plausible; too "far out;" not supported by the historical record?

What?

:huh:

It fits everything (in reality) that can reasonably be applied; sifting fact from obviously Roman influenced myth.

Look at the overall; the progression of the story itself, not the interpretation, just the actual page by page story told. The author of the passion narrative (Mark) written at or around 70 C.E. is clearly not Jewish and the story he tells is of a pro-Roman, "Jewish Messiah" (with all the misplaced, forced "prophesy") that comes to bring a sword, not peace.

Well, hey. To someone in the 60's and 70's who heard the stories told by grandfathers and fathers when they hear the story as it is initially layed out, that sounds like the martyred, fabled leader of the Jewish insurgency movement of the 30's and 40's. What was his message?

Why, his message was that you don't actually have to obey the "old" laws; aka, Jewish law; aka, the law you grew up with, because there's a new Law. What is that new law? Well, some things about divorce and cleanliness and breaking the death sentence of the Sabbath Holiness and that you should hate your family and friends and own life also; that you should "rejoice" in your own daily suffering; that you should render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's; that you should turn the other cheek when a Roman beats you; that you should be happy that you're a subjugated slave, because that means you'll inherit "the Earth" (even though it won't happen on the Earth or in your lifetimes). Love your enemies (your oppressors) and don't do anything to stop them from oppressing you, because when the Romans oppress you, that means you're "blessed." Let him who is without sin cast the first stone (an impossible false dichotomy for honest people to reproach, right?) and suffer your children unto me. IOW, you should break all of the Jewish laws and only obey Roman Law.

Ummm, but, (little Schlomo balked), we were told that the Jesus movement were brave Jewish soldiers fighting against the Roman occupation. The Romans hate us for our freedom and that's why our leader was publicly crucified.

No, no, no (said Paul and Mark); Jesus was the "King of the Jews" and the Jewish Messiah.

Which one? There are severa....

"The" one. And "the Jews," your parents and grandparents secretly knew he was "the" one and they killed him!

WHAT?

Yes, little Schlomo. They killed him!

But I thought the Romans...

No, no, no (said Paul and Mark, again). The Romans did everything they could to save Jesus, because, as you already know, Jesus taught love and forgiveness and turning the other cheek, because suffering under Roman oppression is a good thing; it means you're blessed, because you're God's chosen ones.

We should be so blessed.

Exactly! You love suffering. You've suffered throughout almost your entire Jewy existence, just like all of the depressing relatives you've ever known or heard about ad nauseum since birth. And Jesus came to say that suffering, especially under our....I mean, the Romans' reign was a good thing and your parents and grandparents--"the Jews"--killed him for such honesty and non-violent understanding. So, you see, it is the same parents and grandparents that tell you to hate the Romans and fight back against your oppression that actually killed the one person who stood up for you and died for you, so that your oppression--your blessing--could remain. You want to be blessed right? You want to be God's chosen people as promised right? Well, the only way you can be is to suffer under Roman oppression, little Schlomo, so learn your place; love your place; and shut the fuck up or we'll...they'll do the same thing to you!

But, we were told to fight the infidels in Jesus' name!

And so you should. The Jews--your parents and grandparents, however--are the infidels and they (not the silly Romans, who were just unwitting pawns in God's schemes) are the ones you should be fighting.

Oh...

You must believe as a child would...

We are children.

Yes you are. Children of a Non-Jewish God.

It is, quite literally, textbook counter-insurgency propaganda right at the time of (and just before) the Romans finally said, "Fuck it, let's just kill the bastards, nothing is working, including Paul's and Mark's attempts."

But, let's keep the Jesus myth for those out in the periphery that Paul and Mark reached, because they (and only they) seem to be buying the idea of a pagan tainted, polytheist Judaism in the aftermath of the destruction of the Temple and it is a perfect pro-Roman theology, so long as it is enforced in that aftermath by much more brutal ways than just initial propaganda psy-operatives (hey, let's coin that phrase for generations to come)....

Western Civilization is Roman Civilization and we (America and Europe) have historically employed every single thing I've outlined in this thread against our "enemies" just prior to finally saying, "Fuck it, let's just kill the bastards, nothing is working, including our propaganda techniques."

And what beliefs are subsequently and sequentially imposed upon those we destroy? Roman...ahem...Christian beliefs.

History is prologue.

:huh:

Casper

I agree, and maybe it was the opposite (in a way) of what you propose;

as an offshoot of the emperor worship cults, this was a way to Judaise a roman invention that previously had only cursory ties to Palestine (if any at all). In one fell swoop, they explain 1) the Roman trappings and 2) the Jewish denial.

Casper

Why cannot we assume that it was meant to be both anti-occupational-roman and anti-orthodox-jew? That would also make it explain why it throws a negative light on both, because the judaisers were subjugating a foreing custom by making it an ancient religion that was oppressed.

Kind of like Aliester Crowley and his "ancient" secrets of theosophy.

Just an alternative. You do have a decent argument that it is all a COINTELPRO facade gone haywire over the centuries.

rlogan

Can't answer that question, and didn't notice that was the case.

Not sure if you have followed Atwill and "Caesar's Messiah" - basically the theory that Christianity was a conspiracy of the Flavians along the lines you suggest.

There's been some threads on this...