Romans didn’t kill him his own religion did, with special emphasis that he wasn’t their messiah.
Rome specifically washed their hands of the whole incident since he didn’t break any standing laws. They imprisoned him for the reason you called out and specifically didn’t touch him for the same.
The two reasons I called out were why he was killed. There are even Roman records to the fact.
It kinda feels like you’re pushing an anti-Semitic narrative here instead of trying to argue the history.
The Jewish people were not some minor cult. The story does go that the Jewish authorities did argue for Jesus to be executed, part of it definitely being because of his “king of the Jews” thing. Judaism as a religion and The Jewish people are not 1 and the same in context, Jesus famously was not anti-Roman and argued his teachings were of the mind.
The Romans were famous for incorporating local government structures and religions as long as you paid and served.
Yes according to the myth the Jewish Authorities ( again, integrated and part of the Roman governing of the area) pushed for him to be executed for claiming to be the king of the Jews (political) which would upset Roman rule.
Again, this is of course assuming you believe the myth that actually isn’t written about or recorded at all until a couple generations later.
There aren’t Roman records of the event until later, after the fact. From people who weren’t there, but heard about it from people who were or heard it from folks who were … etc.
Christianity was a minor Jewish cult at the time, and only really expanded due to Greek Egyptians latching onto it prior to Constantine.
The Jews in were major figures in the Roman Provence which is why they were able to kill someone who was troubling them.
I get that this comes off as anti-Jewish but it’s really anti-religion. An ingroup killed an outgroup cause it was politically convenient; religion is just one more ingrouping.
As to the lack of contemporary sources you can thank both Constantine and Theodosius. This is why I upvoted your first comment.
I get that this comes off as anti-Jewish but it’s really anti-religion.
This is the problem when your world view is guided by hating a thing. It make you biased and bigoted. Ok so you’re bigoted against all religions, but when you talk about a specific religion your logic perfectly aligns with those that are only bigoted against that particular religion.
So does being bigoted towards all religions make you a better person than someone that’s bigoted towards only a single religion? You’re both using identical rationalizations, does does applying bigoted rationalizations more broadly make you more or less of a bigot?
I simply know my bias. I don’t like religion and make no bones about it. I do see some historical value to various religions but this bias also lets me see the cost.
I simply know my bias. I don’t like religion and make no bones about it. I do see some historical value to various religions but this bias also lets me see the cost.
So you admit to being a bigot? That’s what bigotry is, having a bias against people and seeing everything through the lens of that bias to perpetually confirm that bias.
They’re being accurate to one take of a mythology which happens to have caste the Jewish people in a bad light for millennia.
There is no record of this story happening past word of mouth.
I could make up an equally plausible story right now for why the competing religious faith would caste the other predominant faith in a bad light but not want to raise the Ire of the governing authority, “Roman’s didn’t do it, it was the other religion?‽!!”
If we do a venn diagram their hatred of the Jewish religion (antisemitism) is completely enclosed within the larger circle of hating all religion. Does drawing a larger circle around the smaller circle fundamentally change the smaller circle?
It’s the old “I’m not racist because I hate everyone equally” statement. But somehow I doubt they actually hate all people. Just those that are different from them.
In the end it’s splitting hairs. They are promoting the same ideas that are promoted by the antisemitic crowd. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, how much effort should we make debating over whether it’s a duck simply because the duck has more enemies than a normal duck?
They spoke about a particular religion because that particular religion was the one relevant to the conversation already taking place. You are reaching REALLY hard to try to claim they’re being antisemitic here.
A lot of people dislike religion for reasons that are pretty understandable. I’m not anti-religion myself but I can absolutely understand why some people are because like it or not religion has hurt a lot of people because of how often it’s been used to abuse and oppress others including other religious groups.
The “it wasn’t the romans it was the Jews” is a long held antisemitic argument.
It’s super easy when someone is trying to push that narrative.
There are no contemporary records of the event ever occurring. It’s a story. How the precision of “nah it was the Jews who did it” comes out seems weird, don’t you think?
The person who is saying it here may not be intending to push the antisemitic narrative but they are just the same pushing the millennia old narrative that casts the Jewish people in a bad light and washes the hands of the “white Roman western authority who otherwise didn’t care”
Historically speaking the narrative they are pushing is an antisemitic one, when you couple the absolute lack of contemporary records of the event (but oh trust me bro it’s just these records were burned so take my FAITH that they existed!)
Again, it’s adding color to a mythological historical event that has no contemporary records of happening. When you insert specifics like that there is reason.
These two ideas are arguably very similar. Claiming religious or political standing is both claiming an air of uniqueness and a threat to the status quo, and to my understanding this guy was doing both. ☺️
The argument made is that the Romans saw no threat. The Romans didn’t give a fuck about the religious part. As far as they were concerned he was no threat.
That’s how the story goes at least, a story rewritten over and over by Romans so why would they make themselves look bad?
There is a lot of anti-Semitic history in the retelling of this myth so sometimes it’s hard to understand where people are coming from.
Judaism was not compatible with the polytheistic religions of the time, it specifically had a militaristic bend to it which is part of why they were persecuted and chased off time and again and also fought hard for their land. It was a seed change in ideas, suddenly your god was a problem because this god said no others.
That inherently isn’t bad, human nature and whatnot.
The Roman’s didn’t give a fuck beyond enforcing the local peace and getting their due. Their whole system relied on being pragmatic and open to the local religions.
Who decided that this mythological person needed to be executed is here-say, whether it even happened is here-say.
What is easy to pick out is the push for the narrative to be at the hands of the evil bad guys which is where things get kinda gross.
With no records of the event why are we saying one side did it over the other.
Absolutely not. He was claiming to be the King of the Jews. He was literally claiming political power. He wasn’t just saying “hey I’m a super cool religious figure.”
i have amended my statement i guess the way i phrased it made a lot of people upset so i apologize, that was definitely not my intent and still not sure why that happened.
would love to hear your thoughts on my edited statement if you have them :)
There’s a sort of old Twitter esque, “Everything must be challenged and I’ve been having this argument with other people for 4 days straight” energy here, yeah.
As someone who didn’t use Twitter, I would always get in these weird arguments with my friends that were crazily out of proportion. Then when they would cool down later I would predictably learn they were coming fresh off a Twitter debate where everything everyone says is in bad faith.
It’s kinda fun getting that experience now tho, I feel like I missed out a bit!
You refuted what others said, and we aren’t obliged to just accept you twisting words and misrepresenting other’s statements. Sorry that comes off as toxic to YOU when others found your comment bad in the first place.
People deserve to maintain the character and context of their comments, and you don’t deserve to high horse once you wade in. You chose to mince words, and people disagreed with you. Thats not toxic, that’s adults disagreeing.
No…they killed him because he represented a risk to the standing power structure.
They strung him up next to common criminals to lower his status, to make his whole idea seem insignificant.
No comment on weather he was supernatural.
I don’t think he did any magic tricks with the weather
I think he calmed a storm one time, but I might be thinking of Thor.
Sea of galilea, I think.
Am I praying to the wrong god to make it rain when I hit the casino?
Romans didn’t kill him his own religion did, with special emphasis that he wasn’t their messiah.
Rome specifically washed their hands of the whole incident since he didn’t break any standing laws. They imprisoned him for the reason you called out and specifically didn’t touch him for the same.
The two reasons I called out were why he was killed. There are even Roman records to the fact.
… kiiiiiiiiinda
Best response.
It kinda feels like you’re pushing an anti-Semitic narrative here instead of trying to argue the history.
The Jewish people were not some minor cult. The story does go that the Jewish authorities did argue for Jesus to be executed, part of it definitely being because of his “king of the Jews” thing. Judaism as a religion and The Jewish people are not 1 and the same in context, Jesus famously was not anti-Roman and argued his teachings were of the mind.
The Romans were famous for incorporating local government structures and religions as long as you paid and served.
Yes according to the myth the Jewish Authorities ( again, integrated and part of the Roman governing of the area) pushed for him to be executed for claiming to be the king of the Jews (political) which would upset Roman rule.
Again, this is of course assuming you believe the myth that actually isn’t written about or recorded at all until a couple generations later.
There aren’t Roman records of the event until later, after the fact. From people who weren’t there, but heard about it from people who were or heard it from folks who were … etc.
Christianity was a minor Jewish cult at the time, and only really expanded due to Greek Egyptians latching onto it prior to Constantine.
The Jews in were major figures in the Roman Provence which is why they were able to kill someone who was troubling them.
I get that this comes off as anti-Jewish but it’s really anti-religion. An ingroup killed an outgroup cause it was politically convenient; religion is just one more ingrouping.
As to the lack of contemporary sources you can thank both Constantine and Theodosius. This is why I upvoted your first comment.
This is the problem when your world view is guided by hating a thing. It make you biased and bigoted. Ok so you’re bigoted against all religions, but when you talk about a specific religion your logic perfectly aligns with those that are only bigoted against that particular religion.
So does being bigoted towards all religions make you a better person than someone that’s bigoted towards only a single religion? You’re both using identical rationalizations, does does applying bigoted rationalizations more broadly make you more or less of a bigot?
I simply know my bias. I don’t like religion and make no bones about it. I do see some historical value to various religions but this bias also lets me see the cost.
So you admit to being a bigot? That’s what bigotry is, having a bias against people and seeing everything through the lens of that bias to perpetually confirm that bias.
The person you replied to said nothing anti -Semitic or anti religion and I’m not sure why they suggested that they did.
I think they were just trying to be historically accurate.
They’re not being historically accurate.
They’re being accurate to one take of a mythology which happens to have caste the Jewish people in a bad light for millennia.
There is no record of this story happening past word of mouth.
I could make up an equally plausible story right now for why the competing religious faith would caste the other predominant faith in a bad light but not want to raise the Ire of the governing authority, “Roman’s didn’t do it, it was the other religion?‽!!”
If we do a venn diagram their hatred of the Jewish religion (antisemitism) is completely enclosed within the larger circle of hating all religion. Does drawing a larger circle around the smaller circle fundamentally change the smaller circle?
It’s the old “I’m not racist because I hate everyone equally” statement. But somehow I doubt they actually hate all people. Just those that are different from them.
In the end it’s splitting hairs. They are promoting the same ideas that are promoted by the antisemitic crowd. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, how much effort should we make debating over whether it’s a duck simply because the duck has more enemies than a normal duck?
They spoke about a particular religion because that particular religion was the one relevant to the conversation already taking place. You are reaching REALLY hard to try to claim they’re being antisemitic here.
A lot of people dislike religion for reasons that are pretty understandable. I’m not anti-religion myself but I can absolutely understand why some people are because like it or not religion has hurt a lot of people because of how often it’s been used to abuse and oppress others including other religious groups.
The “it wasn’t the romans it was the Jews” is a long held antisemitic argument.
It’s super easy when someone is trying to push that narrative.
There are no contemporary records of the event ever occurring. It’s a story. How the precision of “nah it was the Jews who did it” comes out seems weird, don’t you think?
The person who is saying it here may not be intending to push the antisemitic narrative but they are just the same pushing the millennia old narrative that casts the Jewish people in a bad light and washes the hands of the “white Roman western authority who otherwise didn’t care”
Historically speaking the narrative they are pushing is an antisemitic one, when you couple the absolute lack of contemporary records of the event (but oh trust me bro it’s just these records were burned so take my FAITH that they existed!)
Again, it’s adding color to a mythological historical event that has no contemporary records of happening. When you insert specifics like that there is reason.
When didi use the word Roman?
Who killed him, Jews recorded by Romans. Roman records are why we know a minor Jewish sect existed.
Not an answer
Either you are too stupid to understand or being facetious; either way the point is made.
Uncivil and wrong. I never said that shit and you tried to put words in my mouth.
Rhetoric and correct. Either you didn’t understand or you understood. Civility never played a part for either response only mutual contempt.
You called me stupid, which is uncivil, which is against lemmy.world rules.
There is no contemporary record of Jesus or his crucifixion.
See response to other commenter.
Existing … see previous response.
… by that logic there is no existing proof that Jesus and his boys rode dinosaurs into battle. Yet you’re out here arguing his raptor had no feathers.
Hitchens razor and whatnot but why would logic come into play with your myths?
Yeah and the Romans were always 100% accurate in their historical accounts, right?
Non personal accounts probably. Roman editorialism was mostly personal, for everything else blame Theodosius the Arsonist.
These two ideas are arguably very similar. Claiming religious or political standing is both claiming an air of uniqueness and a threat to the status quo, and to my understanding this guy was doing both. ☺️
The argument made is that the Romans saw no threat. The Romans didn’t give a fuck about the religious part. As far as they were concerned he was no threat.
That’s how the story goes at least, a story rewritten over and over by Romans so why would they make themselves look bad?
I agree! :)
I think you’re misunderstanding a bit what I mean.
The Roman people have every reason to change the narrative to make it the others who killed him.
No I think I totally agree and understand exactly what you mean. 🙃🙃
I promise my comment is only saying what it said, face value. No subtext lol :)
There is a lot of anti-Semitic history in the retelling of this myth so sometimes it’s hard to understand where people are coming from.
Judaism was not compatible with the polytheistic religions of the time, it specifically had a militaristic bend to it which is part of why they were persecuted and chased off time and again and also fought hard for their land. It was a seed change in ideas, suddenly your god was a problem because this god said no others.
That inherently isn’t bad, human nature and whatnot.
The Roman’s didn’t give a fuck beyond enforcing the local peace and getting their due. Their whole system relied on being pragmatic and open to the local religions.
Who decided that this mythological person needed to be executed is here-say, whether it even happened is here-say.
What is easy to pick out is the push for the narrative to be at the hands of the evil bad guys which is where things get kinda gross.
With no records of the event why are we saying one side did it over the other.
understood! yeah sorry if i gave any impression of the opposing position. that’s not at all the case.
Yeah that’s fair.
Why not both.
deleted by creator
Absolutely not. He was claiming to be the King of the Jews. He was literally claiming political power. He wasn’t just saying “hey I’m a super cool religious figure.”
The argument actually is that he was making a religious argument, his kingdom was of the mind.
There is an effort to make that point: “give to the Roman’s that which is theirs”
A lot of the argument was about the tacit acceptance that the theology of the day dictated how you ought to live and it had been twisted.
The power structure that he was upsetting was that of the ruling Jewish political body because it called their theology into question.
The Roman’s were 100% in charge and didn’t give a fuck he could be the king of the space dolphins as long as they paid their taxes too.
i have amended my statement i guess the way i phrased it made a lot of people upset so i apologize, that was definitely not my intent and still not sure why that happened.
would love to hear your thoughts on my edited statement if you have them :)
It just says “deleted” for me. No worries dude, it’s just an internet argument :P
oops here
deleted by creator
There’s a sort of old Twitter esque, “Everything must be challenged and I’ve been having this argument with other people for 4 days straight” energy here, yeah.
As someone who didn’t use Twitter, I would always get in these weird arguments with my friends that were crazily out of proportion. Then when they would cool down later I would predictably learn they were coming fresh off a Twitter debate where everything everyone says is in bad faith.
It’s kinda fun getting that experience now tho, I feel like I missed out a bit!
need to have a new rule that you don’t get to comment unless you’d be willing to give the other person a hug or at least a firm handshake
hate being shouted down literally because the other person gets a rush of dopamine
No, you just said something that made no sense and got called on it. That’s not toxic, it’s just clear speech.
deleted by creator
No one is trapping you here.
You refuted what others said, and we aren’t obliged to just accept you twisting words and misrepresenting other’s statements. Sorry that comes off as toxic to YOU when others found your comment bad in the first place.
People deserve to maintain the character and context of their comments, and you don’t deserve to high horse once you wade in. You chose to mince words, and people disagreed with you. Thats not toxic, that’s adults disagreeing.
deleted by creator
I mean, you’re flailing cause adults called you out.
Now you’re trying to paint it as people who stood up for their words are the ones in the wrong.
Essentially “it’s just a prank bro!” Energy.
Just own it and move on.