Did Rome create the crusifixtion story to justify murder?

Could Rome have created all the "Jesus died for your sins" stuff after the fact, to justify having murdered one of the few "chosen of God" to walk the earth?


I hope that's not confusing so I'll elaborate.


What if Rome didn't like the way it was being portrayed in the biblical stories so they changed it from. " The Romans killed a chosen (or son) of god" so they added all the Jesus dieing for our sins stuff, to justify it. So now Rome is no longer the bad guy. Now, Rome was just fulfilling a prophecy,. It wasn't there fault they killed Jesus. Hell, it was his (Jesus's) idea. Now romes not the bad guy, They were just Gods "cats paw". They were doing gods work!


This (I think) kinda fits nicely with the "Paul was a creation of Rome" theories.


Thoughts?

Either this or they created the whole shebang. Jesus taught things while alive that contradict his supposed sacrifice on the cross.

a reply to: Entreri06

Well the tale is tall. It includes the Romans finding no fault with the man, too. They even released a real criminal supposedly, instead.

Authoritarian states execute lots of people, they don't tend to look back very much at their mistakes. Thats why they are called Empires, they keep repeating themselves.

That is possible, maybe even probable. Maybe Jesus was conditioned to believe that he was supposed to be killed by writings written beforehand by those who would desire a Messiah to die so they could continue ruling things. This brings up the theory that the devil, or deception, is running the world.

Oh, I hate looking for truth contained in all the deceit we are fed. It makes me feel like a conspiracy theorist. I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am just a person who does not automatically believe things I am told and tries to research them. Deception goes back thousands of years. The societies we live in have long forgot the reasons that they originally deceived us.

I do believe Jesus did live and that he was what they refer to as a Messiah. I believe that Allah was too and possibly even Buddha. I am sure there were others also, I wonder if they were killed or convinced they needed to die? The voice of god communicating to them in their head could make them think they were crazy. Now they have a pill for that.

There is an oft-neglected detail in the story which stamps the tale with authenticity. As part of the crucifixion, Pilate made a sign to hang over Jesus' head, reading "Jesus [of] Nazareth, King [of the] Jews." Four words, in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. Sounds straightforward enough, burt why did the Jews tell Pilate he should have written it as such-and-such, instead of the way he did? Pilate said what he wrote, he wrote. The thing is, if we dig a little deeper, is that the initials of the four Hebrew words (read from right to left, remember) spell out "YHVH" and that is the SAME word which God gave to Moses as His name at the burning bush. A Roman inventing the tale would not know to do that.

BTW, if we dig into the very ancient pictographic meanings of the Hebrew letters, YHVH means "Behold the Hand, Behold the Nail," that is to say, Jesus the Christ. How can you argue against an interlocking double witness?

originally posted by: Lazarus Short
There is an oft-neglected detail in the story which stamps the tale with authenticity. As part of the crucifixion, Pilate made a sign to hang over Jesus' head, reading "Jesus [of] Nazareth, King [of the] Jews." Four words, in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. Sounds straightforward enough, burt why did the Jews tell Pilate he should have written it as such-and-such, instead of the way he did? Pilate said what he wrote, he wrote. The thing is, if we dig a little deeper, is that the initials of the four Hebrew words (read from right to left, remember) spell out "YHVH" and that is the SAME word which God gave to Moses as His name at the burning bush. A Roman inventing the tale would not know to do that.

BTW, if we dig into the very ancient pictographic meanings of the Hebrew letters, YHVH means "Behold the Hand, Behold the Nail," that is to say, Jesus the Christ. How can you argue against an interlocking double witness?

Your forgetting that all of this wasn't recorded until 400 years later... At least we don't have an account from earlier. If I'm right ( and I might not be lol) it was after the council of niciea before the son of god stuff and the died for your sin stuff was "added" or at least the second century copies (Dead Sea scrolls, exc) refer to him as a prophet not the son of god. So looking back they would have had all of this information.

originally posted by: Lazarus Short
The thing is, if we dig a little deeper, is that the initials of the four Hebrew words (read from right to left, remember) spell out "YHVH" and that is the SAME word which God gave to Moses as His name at the burning bush. A Roman inventing the tale would not know to do that.

I think you are underestimating the Roman Empire...

I'm sure some Romans were well versed in the culture and tradition (including the stories), and were able to undertake such a task as a result.

BTW, if we dig into the very ancient pictographic meanings of the Hebrew letters, YHVH means "Behold the Hand, Behold the Nail," that is to say, Jesus the Christ. How can you argue against an interlocking double witness?

You can argue against it by saying that the Roman authorities, being well versed in local customs and aware of the goings on, would have been able to apply such tactics to suit their agenda. They crucified many people, but according to you, they only decided to apply the name 'YHVH' to Jesus, who had undertaken rebellious actions and was considered by some to be the messiah. It isn't out of question then that the Romans may have thought that they could manipulate the situation to bring about and advantageous position through applying the name to a controversial man...

I'm not sure if Christianity is a product of Rome, but between them and Paul, something seems oddly suspicious...

originally posted by: Entreri06

Your forgetting that all of this wasn't recorded until 400 years later... At least we don't have an account from earlier. If I'm right ( and I might not be lol) it was after the council of niciea before the son of god stuff and the died for your sin stuff was "added" or at least the second century copies (Dead Sea scrolls, exc) refer to him as a prophet not the son of god. So looking back they would have had all of this information.

Did you even read my post? I repeat: A detail like I revealed could not have been invented 400 years after the fact by non-Hebrew speakers. First-century origins for the whole NT text is well established, except in the minds of those who seek an alternative to the Truth. Pilate asked "What is truth?" Jesus did not explain, and I won't either.

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: Lazarus Short
The thing is, if we dig a little deeper, is that the initials of the four Hebrew words (read from right to left, remember) spell out "YHVH" and that is the SAME word which God gave to Moses as His name at the burning bush. A Roman inventing the tale would not know to do that.

I think you are underestimating the Roman Empire...

I'm sure some Romans were well versed in the culture and tradition (including the stories), and were able to undertake such a task as a result.

BTW, if we dig into the very ancient pictographic meanings of the Hebrew letters, YHVH means "Behold the Hand, Behold the Nail," that is to say, Jesus the Christ. How can you argue against an interlocking double witness?

You can argue against it by saying that the Roman authorities, being well versed in local customs and aware of the goings on, would have been able to apply such tactics to suit their agenda. They crucified many people, but according to you, they only decided to apply the name 'YHVH' to Jesus, who had undertaken rebellious actions and was considered by some to be the messiah. It isn't out of question then that the Romans may have thought that they could manipulate the situation to bring about and advantageous position through applying the name to a controversial man...

I'm not sure if Christianity is a product of Rome, but between them and Paul, something seems oddly suspicious...

I see no proof, just "Hmmmmm...I wonder if..."

a reply to: Entreri06

No.

originally posted by: Lazarus Short

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: Lazarus Short
The thing is, if we dig a little deeper, is that the initials of the four Hebrew words (read from right to left, remember) spell out "YHVH" and that is the SAME word which God gave to Moses as His name at the burning bush. A Roman inventing the tale would not know to do that.

I think you are underestimating the Roman Empire...

I'm sure some Romans were well versed in the culture and tradition (including the stories), and were able to undertake such a task as a result.

BTW, if we dig into the very ancient pictographic meanings of the Hebrew letters, YHVH means "Behold the Hand, Behold the Nail," that is to say, Jesus the Christ. How can you argue against an interlocking double witness?

You can argue against it by saying that the Roman authorities, being well versed in local customs and aware of the goings on, would have been able to apply such tactics to suit their agenda. They crucified many people, but according to you, they only decided to apply the name 'YHVH' to Jesus, who had undertaken rebellious actions and was considered by some to be the messiah. It isn't out of question then that the Romans may have thought that they could manipulate the situation to bring about and advantageous position through applying the name to a controversial man...

I'm not sure if Christianity is a product of Rome, but between them and Paul, something seems oddly suspicious...

I see no proof, just "Hmmmmm...I wonder if..."

That's funny...

a reply to: Entreri06

This theory holds plausibility knowing what we know about the way governments fabricate information to maintain power.
Paul certainly might have been a fabrication of Rome and if not that at least a charlatan of a high degree.

I have read that the average Roman held little belief in the old gods and that the Empire needed a unifying belief system to help it hold itself together, hence the change from Roman Empire to Holy Roman Empire and Charlemagne and all that big change over that some call conversion.

However, my question, the one that leads me to believe otherwise is this. Why did the Romans limit the writing about Jesus to the little book of the Christians and a few scrolls hidden in the desert. Why did they not present other forged documents and spread them all around. Why is it that the only place we can read about Jesus is in the Bible and only there, excepting a brief hint or wisp of possibility in other writings from that time. One would think that the more wide spread the tales, the stronger the meme which certainly would have been what the Roman leaders would have wanted.

a reply to: Entreri06

Rome carried out the order, but the Jews pushed for the sentence. The Jews incited the crowds to shout 'Crucify Him'!

In my understanding it was the Jewish priesthood that put pressure on Rome to get rid of Jesus and his followers
After all they the priesthood would have toppled

a reply to: Entreri06

I just posted this in another thread with a similar theme. I think I'll post it here too!

a reply to: Shiloh7

I think, ultimately, the image of the Jewish "King of the Jews" suffering on the cross is a direct attack on Judaism. It's a reminder of the 6000 + men that were crucified outside the city wall of Jerusalem during the "Siege", and the final "nail" in the coffin of the Jewish Temple. The fact that the symbolism of a dying culture is the genesis of a "new", better religion that blames Judaism for the death of the Light of the World and the Savior of Mankind, is the Coup de grâce.

originally posted by: Lazarus Short

originally posted by: Entreri06

Your forgetting that all of this wasn't recorded until 400 years later... At least we don't have an account from earlier. If I'm right ( and I might not be lol) it was after the council of niciea before the son of god stuff and the died for your sin stuff was "added" or at least the second century copies (Dead Sea scrolls, exc) refer to him as a prophet not the son of god. So looking back they would have had all of this information.

Did you even read my post? I repeat: A detail like I revealed could not have been invented 400 years after the fact by non-Hebrew speakers. First-century origins for the whole NT text is well established, except in the minds of those who seek an alternative to the Truth. Pilate asked "What is truth?" Jesus did not explain, and I won't either.

The Romans would have had records of Jewish traditions... If we have them today, you can be sure they had them far closer to the creation of the originals. Plus the Romans ruled the Jews for most of that time. So they had access to and prob control of anything they wanted.

a reply to: Entreri06

This (I think) kinda fits nicely with the "Paul was a creation of Rome" theories.

The fact that you call that a theory means you should have some historical evidence supporting it, which I find hard to believe seeing as how Saul's conversion dates back to the beginning.

I don't think what your saying is possible because we know the Gospels were written in the 1st century 20-60 years after Christ. Paul's letters were written even closer than that.

How do we know this people quoted the Gospels in the 1st century. Some of the earliest we have I believe date to 90 AD. The fact that they are quoted means they were already in circulation by 90 AD. So they were written before that.

originally posted by: backcase
a reply to: Entreri06

Rome carried out the order, but the Jews pushed for the sentence. The Jews incited the crowds to shout 'Crucify Him'!

That's the part I'm wondering if Rome didn't change. What if Rome was the major power pushing for crucifixion, but once Christianity took hold, they didn't like being the bad guy in what at that point was a budding major religion? What if to justify there actions they created the "Jesus died for our sins" narrative. At that point they arnt the bad guy. They were just fulfilling gods will. Then throw in a dash of "the Jews made us do it" and vwalla! Romes the good guy again!

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Entreri06

This (I think) kinda fits nicely with the "Paul was a creation of Rome" theories.

The fact that you call that a theory means you should have some historical evidence supporting it, which I find hard to believe seeing as how Saul's conversion dates back to the beginning.

I don't think what your saying is possible because we know the Gospels were written in the 1st century 20-60 years after Christ. Paul's letters were written even closer than that.

How do we know this people quoted the Gospels in the 1st century. Some of the earliest we have I believe date to 90 AD. The fact that they are quoted means they were already in circulation by 90 AD. So they were written before that.

Do we have any copies of Paul's writings from before the council of nicea? I know Paul being a creation of Rome is a very wide spread theory held by quite a few historians.


It's fair of course, but that's the first time I've had a Christian use the whole "theory isn't the same as a hypothesis" argument lol! I'm so used to that one from the evolution vs. creationism debate!!

a reply to: Entreri06
The Christian Church existed hundreds of years before Constantine was even born let alone Rome being in any way associated with Christianity.