Romans Made Up Jesus as Wartime Propaganda to Pacify Jews, US Scholar Claims

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: gflyg

If I’m right there are a couple vauge mentions by Josephus.. and I think they would have been living at the same time..


That said Josephus barely mentions him (like literally one line) and considers him a fraud if memory serves.

Josephus was not contemporary, and many (not all) scholars believe the reference attributed to Josephus was, in fact, an edit by a scribe, after the fact.

It is suspect, at best IMO.

a reply to: Drakon

Oh I think the gospels show it was the later roman converts who were anti-jew..


In mark the romans were the bad guy...


By John the Jews are..


Because mark was probably written by a Jew, or from the account of a Jew, which judging by the time period if surfaced, was AT LEAST in the right time and place to have been an eye witness.


If I’m right copies of mark pop up like 50 years later.. and since they had to be copied by hand, I think it is fair to assume could easily be from 50 years earlier. ... or maybe 45.




If you go by Marks account, and only marks account.. it is quite a different story.. a lot of the supernatural is removed..


It is pretty much just the story of a faith healer , who bucked the system by healing the poor and infirm for free... while pointing out the establishment was charging for what should have been free..


So the establishment wanted him gone for pointing out their corruptions, and the romans wanted him dead because they looked at him as just another militant revolutionary.




It is all right there.. executed for claiming to be the “king of the Jews” when Rome picks the king of the Jews... not some poor fisherman.

a reply to: Drakon

The proper way to phrase that would be more appropriately stated Jesus was a real Jew but were the Jews?
Just like in the days of Moses few Jews actually did things right in the eyes of God...
They often misunderstood the Lord, Jesus didn’t alter anything just explained the misunderstandings that Jews felt so sure about...

a reply to: JustJohnny

All 12 disciples were Jewish and is was the Jews who got him that title hung above his head to mock and shame him after he claimed to be the messiah and they found him guilty of blasphemy. It was typical to have signs above those crucified listing the crimes they were being put to death for as dire warning to all others...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

I don't see how you can say Jesus didn't change anything.

He changed Everything. A few examples:

Jews - Eye for an Eye (still the Jewish operendi) -

Jesus - Forgive those who hurt you. Turn the other Cheek.

Jews - A woman who has illicit sex must be stoned to death. (the Muslims still do this)

Jesus - Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.

Jesus ignored Jewish dietary laws. This enraged the Pharisees

Jesus worked and preached on the Sabbath. This was against Jewish law.

Jehovah demanded blood sacrifice in the temple.

Jesus was dead set against blood sacrifice. He went into the temple at Passover and freed all the animals there to be sacrificed. The Jews had him crucified the next day for this blasphemy.

The list goes on and on. If you really think about it. Christianity has very little basis in Judaism at all. That's why scholars have puzzled over why Jesus preached a completely different religion. Historians say Jesus must have gone to India during the `Lost 12 Years'. I have come to doubt that Jesus was even Jewish.

But I don't doubt that Jesus lived. In fact there were many Christs. Many who sacrificed to save mankind from the Satanic bloodsuckers who ruled much of the world then and whose power is now re-emerging.

`Saint' Paul `saw the light' and was sent to lay claim to the rapidly growing new religion of Christianity. In the following 2,000 years most of the core of Christ's teachings have been stripped out and replaced with Jewish lore.

The Bible - 1,000 pages

Jesus actual teachings in red - approx 100 pages. Only 10%. Why?

a reply to: Drakon

Like I said he just pointed out their misrepresentations, and the work he did was not for money it was serving mankind
What’s most important though is he is God.
To someone like you who does not realize the Bible is comprised of over 400 books and separated by the Old Testament
and New Testament I suppose that could be a real question for you. What I can’t understand is how you fail to realize a lot of that Old Testament
Is directly relating to Jesus and that Jesus fulfilled every prophecy contained in except for those which deal with final judgement of mankind...
I think you should do some more research and gain some real insight into just how much Jesus is in the Bible especially the Old Testament because it has eluded you altogether.
Did you know in the original Hebrew the first words of genesis that the characters depicted the entire life of Jesus and how he would die for mankind?

a reply to: JustJohnny "Oh I think the gospels show it was the later roman converts who were anti-jew."

Well you would have to re-write the Gospels then. Because the Gospels make it crystal clear of the murderous hatred the Jews had for Jesus literally from his birth.

Remember Herod killing all the infants in Bethlehem under the age of 2yrs, just to kill Jesus?

Jesus was from Galilee which the Gospels call 'LAND OF THE GENTILES'.

After he started his ministry Jesus could not go to Jerusalem because `The JEWS WANTED TO KILL HIM'.

And they did. When Jesus went at Passover. It was the Jewish Sanhedrin who condemned Jesus to be crucified. Then went to Pilate and DEMANDED he be killed.

Then there are those quotes by Jesus re Jewish priests - "You are of your father who was the Father of Lies from the Beginning...etc." Pretty telling.

You must know this so how can you say the Gospels show it was later Roman converts who were anti-Jewish?

a reply to: Drakon

In mark it says that???

Because the mainstream consensus is that mark is the only book that actually goes back to within a lifetime of the crucifixion and the other 3 used mark as a source, and who knows where the hell they got the additions and changes..

So the only thing I personally put ANY historical credence in is Mark..


The Jews didn’t want to kill him... MAYBE a faction of the pharocies(?)

(Jewish religious bigwigs...according to modern Jewish scholars they had a wait and see approach.... so even that is questionable If Jesus was A messiah, then he would fulfill the checklist.. if not, he wouldn’t.. no need for them to get crazy over the religious side..

The profit side though....

“Well they were charging for faith healing, and this @$$hole starts giving it out for free to the destitute!?!?!!”)


the average Jew wouldn’t have even known his name... the average Jew likely wasn’t even in jesus’s Section of the ME....






B) yes.. there are 100 ways Mark is totally different than the other books..

For one, Jesus doesn’t know what the hell is going on... he is silent the whole way and only cry’s out once “father , father. Why have you forsaken me!!”


He feels shocked and betrayed because he thought he was a messiah too, but being crucified means that isn’t so..



The other books the narrative changes...

Jesus knows what’s up.. he isn’t sweating it.. even comforts everyone else..

MORAL OF THE STORY!!!!!!


People smoosh the gospels together and pretend they are one account that perfectly agrees... that isn’t the case..

They are 4 totally different accounts by 4 totally different people, and they were writing down the life and times of GOD!!


Do you really think they all said, “well no need to tell that part , since it is in Mathew anyway..”


You have to read each gospel separately and front to back to have ANY hope of pulling out the authors original meaning.. you can’t smoosh them all into one and pretend the others just forgot to mention XY and Z in their book..

a reply to: Drakon

PS im pretty sure no historian thinks That Herod killed all the first born of Jerusalem.

There are 100 inconsistencies between about the birth story and is almost certainly a later edition to justify jesus’s bloodline.

For example the census .. ..

On what planet was everyone in the Roman Empire required to travel back to their ancestral home of 1,000 years previous for a census?!?!


Do you realize how ridiculous that is o it’s face value???

So everyone in Rome had to make a 3 year round trip journey on a whim?!?!

Lol

Even if you pretend it just meant Jerusalem it is still ridiculous..

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Jesus was executed for claiming to be “the king of the Jews”..


That is treason.. a political crime..


Christians consider Jesus to be the “king of the Jews”..

Jesus was executed by the romans for claiming to be “the king of the Jews” when Judea was a vassel of Rome, and Rome chose who got to be king of the Jews.. not some poor Jewish carpenter..

If you run around Gaul after Rome’s subjugation claiming to be “the king of the gual’s!” Guess what Rome is gonna do if they hear about it???


Crucify you...


They did it all the time for rebellion.






I think it is debated if Jesus said that, but that’s irrelevant..

a reply to: JustJohnny

I’m wondering if you are related to a parrot?

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

We are talking about the Romans here if they had a desire to pacify the Jews further it would have been in a murderous rampage resulting in genocide. Get real..

Oh. They did that too!

The Romans were never the sort to rely on just one tactic, though.

Trouble is, Jewish dissidents kept gathering into strongholds out in the desert, or hiding in enclaves of larger cities. There was no way to completely hunt every one down. (Not for want of trying.)

The majority of Jews did not convert to Christianity the followers of Jesus spread out to other parts of the World to spread the story of Jesus. And the second temple was destroyed a couple decades after the death of Jesus due to Jewish uprising not a Christian uprising or a Jewish conversion to Christianity...

You're confusing the propaganda with the real event here.

The story of Jesus as we know it today, didn't get told until several decades after the events had already (allegedly) transpired.

And it didn't get compiled into the Bible as we know it until 60 years after Emperor Constantine decided to give the religion official status.

www.allaboutgod.com...

Many Jews were slaughtered and they no longer had their major place of worship so had to worship more privately and of course were under greater oppression once again...

I'm not questioning why the decision was made. Only pointing out that it lead to illiterate Jews converting the Christianity, because it was the only path to heaven that they could still follow.

This moment in history may well be the reason that Jewish society went on to dominate industries such as banking. The average IQ of the Jews who remained would have been much higher than any other ethnic group, because selecting for literacy would have also meant selecting those who were good at literacy.

Matthew 15:22-28 King James Version (KJV)

22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

26 But he answered and said, It is not meant to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.

28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Canaanite woman not Jewish

Old culture when called a dog is a big bad insult for a dog does not know who its' father was.

I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel... He failed to convert the Jews as they wanted a warrior King to defeat the Romans.

The favorite saying is Jesus was testing her faith.. Yet Christ the son of god was not known for telling lies and comes flat out and says he came for the Jews..

I read the new testament cover to cover when I was overseas in Buddhist country at age 27. When I came to Mathew 24 it made me think hummmm

Buddhist do not believe in a god only a way of living your life to avoid the wheel of reincarnation.

I am not pushing or rejecting either faith as they both have their good and stupid in today's world.

Everyone who is not Christen is supposedly going to hell according to my southern Baptist upbringing. So Mathew 24 and the everyone is going to hell who is not saved and accepts Jesus as their savior ( I have known to many wonderful, caring, non christens who if they are condemned to hell then screw that god and the donkey he rides) kinda put a serious crimp on my bible thumping days.

I am still here as no lightning bolt has struck and I do not fear hell, damnation, or any of the other fear mongering used to keep the faithful faithful !! hahah

All the preachers who used and any other day as a chance to preach and swear we were in the end times along with Jesus is coming are all dead now... I outlived everyone one of them that I personally knew. They spent their whole lives worried about something that they would not have had any control over anyway. What a waste of a life spent in fear IMO

I posted this in another thread where the discussion went into the religious

Looks like science is saying that we humans made it all up as a survival mechanism to reduce the anxiety and fear of a world which is completely unknown to us
by making us calmer with the knowledge that we would be cared for by a loving god no matter what happens

A reason to believe

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Gothmog

What historical record did you mean ?

Recorded history or written history is a historical narrative based on a written record or other documented communication. It contrasts with other narratives of the past, such as mythological, oral or archeological traditions.
en.wikipedia.org...

The historical record that mentions his contemporaries but not the guy who created all the fuss.

Seem to think that Tacitus made reference, I don't think I've seen anyone produce a definitive list of crucifixions carried out in the area with date and name so it's a bit difficult in reality to know what real records would expect to have existed.

a reply to: 727Sky

If this guy would have written the same article about Mohammad he would be in hiding now fearing for his life IMO.

I don't know about fearing for his life, but definitely his credibility. Whatever you think about Mohammed and the documents that are alleged to have been written by him (now that's a completely different story), he's a known historical figure so there is a big difference.

a reply to: 727Sky

Nope, that man is wrong. I don't know how could a "historian" make up such a blatant lie since there is evidence from both Roman "pagan" historians, and Jewish historians that Jesus and his story did exist/occur.

Here is a thread I made showing statements written by various Roman, pagan, historians, and Jewish historians. The one thing Romans created was the claim that the Virgin Mary committed adultery, other versions say she was raped, with a Roman soldier and that he must have been Jesus' father.

Is there evidence that Jesus Christ existed? Yes, there is.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: 727Sky

Interesting theory , it would probably explain why there's no mention of Jesus in the historical record.

Wrong again. There is mention of Jesus by various ancient historians and other evidence.

For example:

Publius Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman historian and Senator who detested both Christians and Jews. He wrote a series of books named "the Annals" which dealt mainly with the fire that nearly burned all of Rome in 64 AD.

In book 15 chapter 44 Tacitus wrote:

In his Annals, Tacitus tells of a fire that swept through Rome in the 60s, for which some were blaming Nero himself...

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

www.mesacc.edu...

The accounts of Pliny the Younger.(63 - 113 A.D)

In the following letter Pliny the Younger admits to torturing Christians, and he mentions how those who denied to be Christian cursed the Christ.

...

Those who denied that they were or ever had been Christians, when they swore before me, called on the gods and offered incense and wine to your image (which I had ordered brought in for this [purpose], along with images of the gods), and also cursed Christ (which, it is said, it is impossible to force those who are real Christians to do) I thought worthy to be acquitted. Others named by an informer, said they had been Christians, but now denied [it]; certainly they had been, but had lapsed, some three years ago, some more; and more than one [lit. not nobody] over twenty years ago. These all worshiped both your image and the images of the gods and cursed Christ.
...

www.tyrannus.com...

There were attempts by early non-Christian authors, including Romans, to discredit Jesus, and false stories were made, including one made by Celsus (circa 178 AD) in which he claimed Jesus' father was a Roman soldier.

...
Celsus was a friend of Lucien of Samosata, who was Syrian rhetorician and satirist.

While none of Celsus' original writings have survived intact, the following passages from Alethès Lógos were quoted by the 3rd century Christian theologian Origen in his eight-volume work Contra Celsum or Katà Kélsou (248 AD), meaning "Against Celsus", for the purpose of refuting Celsus' claims. A copy of Alethès Lógos had been found by Ambrosius and was sent to his friend Origen with a request to refute it.

"Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by working with her hands [spinning]. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthera (i. 32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god."
...

cameltranslations.blogspot.com...

Anyway, we also know that Thalus (who lived around 52AD) himself wrote about the day Jesus was crucified. Although most of his writings are forever gone we do have some fragments of his writings.

Sextus Julius Africanus (180AD-250 AD)wrote about one particular account that Thalus had published, and now we only have some fragments of Thalus' writings.

...
FRAGMENT 18
In Georgius Syncellus, Chron., p. 322 or 256.

On the Circumstances Connected with Our Saviour’s Passion and His Life-Giving Resurrection.

1. As to His works severally, and His cures effected upon body and soul, and the mysteries of His doctrine, and the resurrection from the dead, these have been most authoritatively set forth by His disciples and apostles before us. On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Saviour falls on the day before the passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time but in the interval between the first day of the new moon and the last of the old, that is, at their junction: how then should an eclipse be supposed to happen when the moon is almost diametrically opposite the sun? Let that opinion pass however; let it carry the majority with it; and let this portent of the world be deemed an eclipse of the sun, like others a portent only to the eye. [30] Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Cæsar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth—manifestly that one of which we speak. But what has an eclipse in common with an earthquake, the rending rocks, and the resurrection of the dead, and so great a perturbation throughout the universe? Surely no such event as this is recorded for a long period. But it was a darkness induced by God, because the Lord happened then to suffer. And calculation makes out that the period of 70 weeks, as noted in Daniel, is completed at this time.
...

www.jasoncolavito.com...

Even though these historians wrote about Jesus after he died, some wrote half a decade to a couple hundred years later, they all relied on earlier writings that no longer exist. To discount these accounts you would have to discount everything else that we know was written years to even hundreds of years later by historians about other historical figures.

a reply to: Drakon



I’m guessing you had no good counterpoint??? Lol