"So, we're hiring soldiers named "Dave" or "David" to execute Jewish holy men?"
"Er, yes, mighty one."
"And we're surprised when that doesn't go well?"
Davi.
For those who are curious: The vocative is the grammatical case used when adressing somebody. In latin, it's pretty much the most simple case: It only really exists in the masculine form and in singular. The declination is as follows:
- names ending with "-ius": "-i"
Julius - Juli, here: Davius - Davi
- names ending with "-us": "-e"
Marcus - Marce, here: Davus - Dave
Edit: Of course, it goes deeper than that, but I'm trying to keep it simple, mainly because readers who didn't learn latin don't really need to know about different declinations to understand the vocative. I also forgot to mention that it doesn't have to be a name: If you want to adress someone by "friend" ("amicus"), for example, the rules of the vocative still apply
The emperor probably had no idea who Jesus was til Christianity actually started spreading when Paul traveled the Mediterranean planting churches. He was beheaded at the order of Nero who as we all know was a swell guy.
Ye, Jesus just barely gets a shout out by Flavious who basically says "there was some hullabaloo about this preacher guy getting executed".
Christianity was originally seen as a "Jewish problem" until Paul and other itinerants started spreading the word to some of the More important coastal trading towns, and even then they were a relatively small minority who were by in large cosmopolitan (though, by necessity). The mid second century is when the spread really expanded rapidly and then it absolutely exploded when the roman government stopped executing them for existing.
I'd argue it spread while the executions were occurring, but once they stopped, everyone stopped hiding it.
"The blood of martyrs is the seed of the church."
Basically, everyone who watched a Christian get mauled by a lion in the Colosseum then went home and looked up what these christians believed, cause surely it was horrific (and don't act like you wouldn't Google it of it happened today). Love thy neighbor, you matter, and be a good person and you get to go to heaven are 3 really appealing messages to tell the plebeians, and the equites were ok with it because it didn't disrupt the current social fabric apart from telling women they also mattered. "Give to Caesar what is Caeser's" and all that. So it grew in the lower classes and among the female half of the upper classes as one of the many mystery cults until it was "decriminalized" after which most people just practiced it openly.
I think there is something there that's true, but some that need further investigation. While it's true that Christianity was actually an incredibly liberating religious concept compared to much of it's contemporaries (I think it still is, but that's because I myself am a Christian... but that is neither here nor there) the roman resistance to it and to Judaism had very little to do with their atual religious fabric, but a lot to do with an inherent rejection of monotheism.
Monotheism, by it's nature, threatened the political order of Rome. While the Christians had no issue paying tithes to Ceaser, they didn't see him as a God incarnate, nor would most of them participate in the many roman festivals. For a society which had so thoroughly integrated pagan syncretism into every level of it's cultural, political and religious landscape. Christians and Jews didn't believe that their God was the greatest God, but that all other claims of deity were inherently false (the almost completely nonchalant way Paul writes about Idols is humorous to the modern reader of course they are just wooden effigies, but would have been utterly scandalous to a first century pagan. A core part of Christianity and Judaism is that paganism is just the worship of man created idols that exist to be worshiped and nothing more.)
That utter rejection of the core assumption was not just culturally galling to the pagans, but legitimately dangerous to the peace and prosperity of the empire. You can't have the blessing of the Gods is you allow such a large group of heretics who refuse to appease the Gods running around.
This is also part of why Jewish persecution was so pervasive and why the Romans were so resisted by the Jews. It's not like the Judeans hadn't been a vassal state before, they had been one for quite some time under the Persian empire and, by in large, were okay with the status you so long as they had reasonable independent autonomy for their cultural affairs and religious freedoms. But you can't syncretize polytheism and monotheism without one of them giving, it simply not possible, and since both the roman religious ideas were fundamentally based in polytheism and Christian and Jewish ideas uncompromisingly monotheist, they were considered an inherent threat to the stability of the empire.
Well he wasn't directly executed by Nero, he was part of a group of Christian martyrs that were blamed for the great fire of Rome. It's not as if Nero knew who he was.
It is not a historical fact. We don’t know for sure what happened to Paul. Legend says Nero beheaded him, while other theories say he went to Spain or to todays Croatia.
Yeah, at the time, I'd bet nothing went further up the chain than Pontius Pilate, the governor in Jerusalem who'd begrudgingly ordered the crucifixion.
He even saw that Christ was innocent of anything actually worthy of execution, and was kinda confused. But to avoid unrest, he left it up to the citizens by giving them a chance to have him pardon Jesus Christ or Jesus Barabbas. The men aiming to see Jesus dead sent a bunch of guys into the crowd to whip them up against Jesus Christ and they demanded Barabbas be pardoned instead.
Whether this particular event actually happened or not is up to debate. Barabbas’ crime is only ever vaguely alluded to in the Gospels. He is stated to be a killer and possibly an Anti-Roman rebel, but that’s about it. Those go hand in hand. There’s also no record of such a festival during Passover where the Governor pardoned criminals in Jerusalem. It may possibly just be very local and went unrecorded, but if we consider that the Gospels were written during (Mark) and between (Matthew, Luke, John) the first two Jewish rebellions, it may have been a liberty taken to drive home a point about Christ and make a remark on the state of Judea. Especially Matthew, as it provides the most detailed account of The Passion and definitely seems to have a bone to pick with the leaders and people of Judea. Almost like he’s trying to shame them (though that’s just how I read it).
Unpopular opinion: Romans (the Emperor especially) didn't really give a shit about Jesus. They didn't care about this internal Jewish squabble. They didn't want to execute him in the first place, but were forced to by a mob. Hence Pontius Pilate washing his hands off the guilt
Isn't that the popular consensus? Pilate apparently struggled to find a convincing reason to execute Jesus, but it seemed to be what the Jewish leaders (and the angry mob) wanted, so it was the politically expedient thing to do.
Pretty much. He was only there in the first place to oversee the Passover celebrations. As for the trial, it was probably Pilate asking Jesus if he really is the so called king to which he said yes (again probably) and then it was just a matter of sentencing. We know the rest from there. From a Roman pov it really was just another Friday.
Pilate did as good a job as he could have if you take religion out of it. The local people wanted this guy dead, who to you was a weird hippie but really execution seemed a bit much. So he said 'look, we have a tradition to free a guy this time of year. I say free the hippie but the alternate is a murderer' thinking surely no way they pick the murderer.
Which of course they did so at that point it was kill the hippy or cause a riot which would look very bad to Rome. And the rest is history.
According to wikipedia, he was an insurrectionary, which lines up with my memory that he was a rebel fighting for Israeli independence from Rome. That might be why he was offered up. "We were going to free one of the rebels we caught last month, but you can choose between the hippie that's done nothing wrong or the rebel that's gotten dozens of your and my people killed."
I think that's either from Roman records or non-biblical knowledge passed down to flesh the story out a little. Either way, not absolute by any means.
Also fun fact: apparently Barabbas' first name was apparently Jesus. Some of the first greek scriptures refer to him as Jesus Barabbas, but it's believed that people started referring to him as Barabbas to avoid confusion and dishonoring of the name Jesus in the Bible.
You see, I was under the impression that the whole “choose who you want” thing was just something that’s as added in over time, but when you put it that way it’s totally possible lmao
What really surprises me is how we Christians tend to make a big dal out of him acting shocked at Jesus claiming to be the son of a god. I've seen professional Bible scholars suggest that maybe he as a Roman just thought that Jesus might be a Hercules-type demigod, but com on bro, who *wouldn't* react like that to someone claiming to be the child of a god!
It’s a popular interpretation based on the Christian Bible and totally at odds with everything we know about Pilate and Roman occupied Judea.
We don’t know a lot about Pilate but we do know that he didn’t give a rat’s ass about Jewish concerns and he liked executing people. If a Jewish mob actually approached him he would have unleashed his soldiers on said mob without a second thought.
But the truth wasn’t palatable to the Romans that early Christians were trying to convert so the gospels came up with an alternate interpretation where an occupied territory somehow ‘makes’ a super power kill one guy. And then to make it super obvious, they have a Jewish crowd literally chant ‘We did this’.
In reality Pilate probably rubber stamped an execution warrant for that week’s list of Jewish rabble rousers that included Jesus and went on about his day without a second thought.
It was Roman policy to let tributary states enforce their own laws as long as it didn't threaten Rome or get in the way of paying tribute. Judea was a particularly troublesome province, and the status quo was paramount to mitigating that.
In this time Judea was not a tributary state but an actual province constantly marred by a cycle of uprisings followed by brutal repression.
Pilate was literally recalled to Rome because he kept antagonizing and murdering the locals.
If you want an example of the gospel blatantly making something up to defend Roman rule look no further than the infamous Passover pardon which is completely absent from Jewish theology and history.
Well, maybe the Emperor had a few words with Pilate. Like, "if you keep killing people, you won't be living too long yourself." So Pilate thinks, "Right. I'll go cold turkey."
Then another uprising threatens to occur. People want this weird hippy dead. Pilate doesn't like either option, bc it won't look good on his resume (or his catacomb). So he tries to satisfy everybody.
And of course, that doesn't work.
Well, let's be frank: the Talmud has a passage that said Jesus should be boiled in his own.....stuff. So I don't think we're going to get any unbiased information any time soon. The pardon could very well have happened, but Jewish writers chose to ignore it.
There's also the fact that nobody outside of a small group of nobodies knew who Jesus was: so nobody would be saying, "Oh, gosh! We gotta write this pardon stuff down!"
What I'm trying to say is that historical recordings of the pardon is a moot point. The fact that Jesus was a nobody back then lends support as to why we wouldn't have any records of it: none of the non-Christians thought it was important enough to write down.
So, outside of the Gospels, we'll never really know what was going on in Pilate's head. Thus, it's not worth debating over did he/didn't he.
I choose to see it like this. Pilate sees that the Jewish leaders want to throw another guy on a cross, but he asks “okay why?” and finds out he’s just a guy who talks a lot. Pilate, being an average human being, goes “seriously? That’s it?” Then, as it was going to happen during an important local holiday season, he decides to do a little Roman PR to show off how nice they were, and offers to spare the guy who he probably doesn’t feel like wasting good lumber on, shrugs when they say no, and tosses him to the wolves.
It was probably embellished a bit after that.
It’s written right into the Bible. Pilate was confused about why this guy who had really just gone around talking at people should die, left it up to the crowd, and went ahead with the requested execution.
That's the biblical narrative which was probably modified to make christianity more appealing to Romans, and to distance Christianity from Judaism during the rise of Roman antisemetism.
IRL the Romans definitely killed him because pretty much messiah claimant was considered a threat.
That’s not unpopular opinion, that’s pretty much accepted fact. And while regional Roman leaders would have known of him, the emperor at the time (likely Tiberius) almost certainly had never heard of Jesus. There would have been no reason to be briefed on it as the impact wasn’t felt until quite some time later. Meme is still funny tho
People forget how small Christianity was during the first centuries. Even in 300 AD, Christianity only accounted for 1-2% of the population of the Roman Empire. In 34 AD it was hardly a blip on the radar.
Really? From what I can tell there's no evidence to support that Jesus was tried by the Great Sanhedren or the Jewish public. The biblical narrative about the Jews being responsible for Jesus's execution is genuinely linked to antisemetism, both during the time it was written and after.
The Sanhedrin was clearly very unhappy with Jesus and they manipulated their power to have Jesus executed by the Romans. The Romans didn’t give a shit about Jesus, they were just doing what the Sanhedrin wanted them to. Acknowledging that isn’t in the slightest bit antisemitic, no matter what narrative any side wants to use.
There's a great book called "how jesus became god" by Bart Ernham that goes into this. Given what we know about Pilate he was more than likely outright hostile to the local Jews under his care, and he showed very little respect for their customs or ways, there's one account of him arriving in Jerusalem and hanging banners with the emperors face around a city where idols were explicitly banned. They Jews in the city complained and were nearly massacred over the incident. More than likely jesus claiming to be a king and also the son of God directly conflicted with the cult of the emperor at the time, where emperors would be diefied and their lineage attributed to the divine. In short jesus was killed because he was a charismatic man with a message that resonated and had the potential to cause a leadership crisis in the far provinces at the very least or possibly the empire as a whole given the opportunity. Not to mention he was making these claims on the passover, a time where rebellious sentient was primed and ready within the Jewish population. Also he upset the cities bankers and money lenders when he threw them out of the temple.
>there's one account of him arriving in Jerusalem and hanging banners with the emperors face around a city where idols were explicitly banned. They Jews in the city complained and were nearly massacred over the incident.
Caligula, self obsessed fool that he was, demanded that a golden statue of himself be placed in the Temple in Jerusalem. Which went predictably well, and nearly set off a Jewish revolt twenty years before the big one.
Before him relations between the Jews and the Romans, had originally been decent, but had been slowly declining after full incorporation in 6CE.
> the cult of the emperor at the time, where emperors would be diefied and their lineage attributed to the divine.
Emperor Vespasians around his death famously said: "Vae, puto deus fio – Dammit, I fear I'm turning into a god.”
That last points especially interesting, however I believe the issue was that because caesar had been deified people were calling Augustus "son of god" and when jesus proclaimed himself also son of God it was a problem.
I read somewhere the main reason Jesus was crucified is because he declared himself King of the Jews which was equal to high treason in the Empire and no one was above the Emperor or something like that..thats how Romans became convinced to kill of the preacher anc until then they weren’t all that interested
That is accepted fact. Nobody outside of Judea would have even known it happened at the time. Rome itself was dealing with Sejanus and would not have given a shit about a random Judean spouting nonsense that could easily be silenced with a crucifix.
The view I espouse is that Jesus pissed off the sadducees when he made a scene at the temple they captured him and because he was an apocalyptic messianic preacher (the Romans had recently put down a messianic rebellion in Judea) Pilate executed him for high treason to stop a problem before it could start
That’s actually exactly what happened. I wouldn’t say it is unpopular either because that is widespread what is taught in Christian theology classes. While the emperor probably had no clue who Jesus was. Pontius Pilate was indifferent to the whole situation, which then lead to his crucifixion. It’s really interesting how, up until the religious swell in the Roman Empire, Christianity was essentially a cult nobody even acknowledged because they just didn’t care.
"This Jesus is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-JESUS!!"
"You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Jesus' stun easily"
Emperor: HOW DARE YOU LIE TO ME!
Soldier: Sire- You literally saw me kill him-!
Emperor: How dare you try to make a fool of me! Execute this dumbass!
Soldier: Well… This is still better than living while Caligula ruled…
Luckily, Dave and his mates not only [sorted out a cover story](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028&version=NIVUK) , but also managed to extract a tidy sum from the chief priests. Not a bad day's work...
>The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. The angel said to the women, ‘Do not be afraid
[I think I know that angel.](https://youtube.com/shorts/pXyYbcQYJf0?feature=share)
The thing about that is the guards were almost certainly not Roman as the penalty for sleeping on the job was death by crucifixion the guards also wouldn't have gone to the priests if they were Roman as they would have no reason to if there were guards they were almost certainly Jewish and this all supposes that Jesus was buried in a tomb at all which is highly unlikely since part of the punishment of crucifixion for treason was to leave the body to rot and be eaten by carrion scavengers
Yes Tiberius thank u for that..and yea thats what I thought…Arguably the most powerful man in the world or even most of the Empire at that time wouldnt’ve been concerned with a local event in Judea
No, because he was too busy being dead at the time. Tiberius was emperor in 32 AD and wasn't even in Rome at the time. Sejanus would have been the one to receive the report if there even needed to be one.
Emperor: "Dave, where's the body of christ?"
Dave: "It's right there in the tomb I put a rock in front of it"
Emperor: "Okay, so go get Christ's body"
Dave: "Oh, now I see the problem"
Emperor: **"OH HO! DO YA!?"**
No Emperor ever gave a damn about some small religious dispute in some backwater province. They were out there dealin with stuff that actually mattered
Modern scholars do believe Jesus was a thing, but the emperor definitely didn’t give a shit about him at the time. It wasn’t till his disciples spread around the empire converting people when it actually became a problem.
Many believe that some Jewish guy named Jesus who was an apocalyptic preacher existed. In the same sense I have no doubt some guy named Bob lived in 1950s America who complained a lot about trains.
It's such a mundane claim that there's not much reason to give it much thought.
This is "american history meme".
The country were 4 people out of 5 believe angels are real. They joke about their war crime, downvote socialist meme and believe the earth is 6400 years old.
You know....
Dumbasses.
try simply searching "jesus myth theory" in the rationalwiki search bar. those forward slashes aren't supposed to be there, and you honestly should've thought of that yourself.
>you honestly should've thought of that yourself
>try simply searching
Why would I? You've already blamed me for your own screw up, as if it's my fault you mistyped the link. Very Christian of you to shift blame actually hahaha
A name on a census (possibly, we still lack any physical proof it existed) and some ancient written references does not equal a religion, and certainly doesn't equal Jesus being the son of a god. All you have is a dude named Jesus once possibly existed, and some people wrote about him. If ancient writings is all it takes, dragons and unicorns and Atlantis would exist. Between 12 years of Catholic school and religious classes in college, I don't need to look it up to know you have very little more than that.
All the different religions, mythologies, and belief systems Christianity has consumed and warped in its creation; it's a collage of dead religions essentially. All your holidays are lies. Your creation myth is older than the religion itself. Most of your saints never existed, or were merged from other sources.
The creation of Jesus is a patchwork of deities from other religions; mostly Buddha, with some Tammuz, Mithras, Horus, Attis, Zeus, and a few others mixed in.
It's bullshit on top of bullshit. So thanks, but no thanks. I have more faith in the existence of my landlord, who I've never seen.
Dude, even most Trumplicans I've spoken with were willing to do a *freaking engine search* when requested to, so the fact that you aren't means that you're even more dogmatic than they are.
I did not mistype anything, I simply copy-pasted it, so I don't know what went wrong.
I don’t deny that. I’m actually a Christian and person of faith.
I’m just saying, for purposes of this sub, the resurrection doesn’t fit. And that is entirely what’s being implied here.
But go on. Tell me more history.
Well even then, religious tals in general seem to qualify as history for the purposes of this sub. perhaps since they as tales are in fact part of history?
Yes there are records of a religious leader named Jesus. He’s even mentioned in the Vedas… it’s the lie about coming back to life that’s the issue. It’s not historical, it’s a myth.
Could you point them out? Because only ones I'm aware of were written good 50+ hears after the fact, talk mostly of his followers and what they said of him and/or have evidence of being modified by christian monks that were rewritting them.
Jesus was a real, historical dude; he almost certainly didn’t have super powers, but it’s accepted that he existed.
Ps. “Caveman”? Major neck beard vibes, there, friendo.
Religious tinfoil hat time: The original jesus died on the cross. The "ressurected" jesus was just some opportunistic guy who took up the position as cult leader.
The disciples did not recognize him upon his return. The guy they gave up everything to travel with.
I wouldn't say it's all fiction but it's definitely a religious text with plenty of mythic elements in it it's basically a collection of folk tails based on pseudo historic characters
ONE OF THE CAESARS OF THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE WAS LITERALLY NAMED DAVID.
The fuck are we even doing anymore if we're bothering trying to say that "David" isn't a Roman name? Is this all we have left?
It would be Pilate asking the question, since he was the one charged with the whole thing. The Emperor wouldn’t even know what all was going on besides some unrest in Judea, since the whole thing was an internal religious matter. After all, Jesus was going around calling out the Jewish leaders for their failures, not organizing rebellions against Rome.
"So, we're hiring soldiers named "Dave" or "David" to execute Jewish holy men?" "Er, yes, mighty one." "And we're surprised when that doesn't go well?"
Davius
Or Davus. In that case, "Dave" would actually be the appropriate vocative form
So would the first one be Davi or Davie?
Davi. For those who are curious: The vocative is the grammatical case used when adressing somebody. In latin, it's pretty much the most simple case: It only really exists in the masculine form and in singular. The declination is as follows: - names ending with "-ius": "-i" Julius - Juli, here: Davius - Davi - names ending with "-us": "-e" Marcus - Marce, here: Davus - Dave Edit: Of course, it goes deeper than that, but I'm trying to keep it simple, mainly because readers who didn't learn latin don't really need to know about different declinations to understand the vocative. I also forgot to mention that it doesn't have to be a name: If you want to adress someone by "friend" ("amicus"), for example, the rules of the vocative still apply
Very good. Now, write it out a hundred times; if it's not done by sunrise, I'll cut your balls off
Yes sir! Hail Caeser and everything sir!
r/unexpectedmontypython
Dave would be pronounced Day-vay though, I believe.
Not Dah-veh?
Or more likely Dah-weh.
True to Caesar.
Just never doo-veh
Davus *ecce Romani flashbacks intensify*
Dickus
"Listen I understand the extenuating circumstances. But this will be reflected on your quarterly review."
I thought it was Bigus Dickus that killed Jesus.
He has a wife you know.
Incontinentia Buttocks?
Stop this waughing and wabble wousing!
[удалено]
Should have hired biggus dickus.
Emperor: Dave, management is not satisfied with your killing skills. You will be put on temporary leave.
Then he got transferred to a Rhine legion and died in a barbarian raid.
"I swear emperor. He was dead. I jabbed him with my spear to make sure."
"He's not dead, dave."
Nobody is dead, Dave.
What about Todhunter?
Dave's not here, man.
Dave’s dead
The emperor probably had no idea who Jesus was til Christianity actually started spreading when Paul traveled the Mediterranean planting churches. He was beheaded at the order of Nero who as we all know was a swell guy.
Ye, Jesus just barely gets a shout out by Flavious who basically says "there was some hullabaloo about this preacher guy getting executed". Christianity was originally seen as a "Jewish problem" until Paul and other itinerants started spreading the word to some of the More important coastal trading towns, and even then they were a relatively small minority who were by in large cosmopolitan (though, by necessity). The mid second century is when the spread really expanded rapidly and then it absolutely exploded when the roman government stopped executing them for existing.
1st Century Rome: "Jesus sucks." 4th century Rome: "Jesus fucks."
I'd argue it spread while the executions were occurring, but once they stopped, everyone stopped hiding it. "The blood of martyrs is the seed of the church." Basically, everyone who watched a Christian get mauled by a lion in the Colosseum then went home and looked up what these christians believed, cause surely it was horrific (and don't act like you wouldn't Google it of it happened today). Love thy neighbor, you matter, and be a good person and you get to go to heaven are 3 really appealing messages to tell the plebeians, and the equites were ok with it because it didn't disrupt the current social fabric apart from telling women they also mattered. "Give to Caesar what is Caeser's" and all that. So it grew in the lower classes and among the female half of the upper classes as one of the many mystery cults until it was "decriminalized" after which most people just practiced it openly.
I think there is something there that's true, but some that need further investigation. While it's true that Christianity was actually an incredibly liberating religious concept compared to much of it's contemporaries (I think it still is, but that's because I myself am a Christian... but that is neither here nor there) the roman resistance to it and to Judaism had very little to do with their atual religious fabric, but a lot to do with an inherent rejection of monotheism. Monotheism, by it's nature, threatened the political order of Rome. While the Christians had no issue paying tithes to Ceaser, they didn't see him as a God incarnate, nor would most of them participate in the many roman festivals. For a society which had so thoroughly integrated pagan syncretism into every level of it's cultural, political and religious landscape. Christians and Jews didn't believe that their God was the greatest God, but that all other claims of deity were inherently false (the almost completely nonchalant way Paul writes about Idols is humorous to the modern reader of course they are just wooden effigies, but would have been utterly scandalous to a first century pagan. A core part of Christianity and Judaism is that paganism is just the worship of man created idols that exist to be worshiped and nothing more.) That utter rejection of the core assumption was not just culturally galling to the pagans, but legitimately dangerous to the peace and prosperity of the empire. You can't have the blessing of the Gods is you allow such a large group of heretics who refuse to appease the Gods running around. This is also part of why Jewish persecution was so pervasive and why the Romans were so resisted by the Jews. It's not like the Judeans hadn't been a vassal state before, they had been one for quite some time under the Persian empire and, by in large, were okay with the status you so long as they had reasonable independent autonomy for their cultural affairs and religious freedoms. But you can't syncretize polytheism and monotheism without one of them giving, it simply not possible, and since both the roman religious ideas were fundamentally based in polytheism and Christian and Jewish ideas uncompromisingly monotheist, they were considered an inherent threat to the stability of the empire.
[удалено]
Well he wasn't directly executed by Nero, he was part of a group of Christian martyrs that were blamed for the great fire of Rome. It's not as if Nero knew who he was.
It is not a historical fact. We don’t know for sure what happened to Paul. Legend says Nero beheaded him, while other theories say he went to Spain or to todays Croatia.
Crazy right? Nero was viciously against Christianity and according to the Bible Paul survived a lot of sketchy situations but Nero had enough
Yeah, at the time, I'd bet nothing went further up the chain than Pontius Pilate, the governor in Jerusalem who'd begrudgingly ordered the crucifixion.
He even saw that Christ was innocent of anything actually worthy of execution, and was kinda confused. But to avoid unrest, he left it up to the citizens by giving them a chance to have him pardon Jesus Christ or Jesus Barabbas. The men aiming to see Jesus dead sent a bunch of guys into the crowd to whip them up against Jesus Christ and they demanded Barabbas be pardoned instead. Whether this particular event actually happened or not is up to debate. Barabbas’ crime is only ever vaguely alluded to in the Gospels. He is stated to be a killer and possibly an Anti-Roman rebel, but that’s about it. Those go hand in hand. There’s also no record of such a festival during Passover where the Governor pardoned criminals in Jerusalem. It may possibly just be very local and went unrecorded, but if we consider that the Gospels were written during (Mark) and between (Matthew, Luke, John) the first two Jewish rebellions, it may have been a liberty taken to drive home a point about Christ and make a remark on the state of Judea. Especially Matthew, as it provides the most detailed account of The Passion and definitely seems to have a bone to pick with the leaders and people of Judea. Almost like he’s trying to shame them (though that’s just how I read it).
Uh I'm pretty sure the emperor reads the newspaper at least.
Unpopular opinion: Romans (the Emperor especially) didn't really give a shit about Jesus. They didn't care about this internal Jewish squabble. They didn't want to execute him in the first place, but were forced to by a mob. Hence Pontius Pilate washing his hands off the guilt
Isn't that the popular consensus? Pilate apparently struggled to find a convincing reason to execute Jesus, but it seemed to be what the Jewish leaders (and the angry mob) wanted, so it was the politically expedient thing to do.
Pretty much. He was only there in the first place to oversee the Passover celebrations. As for the trial, it was probably Pilate asking Jesus if he really is the so called king to which he said yes (again probably) and then it was just a matter of sentencing. We know the rest from there. From a Roman pov it really was just another Friday.
To do list (Friday) \-Sort the Passover celebrations \-Sentence some crims to crucifixion \-Trip to the baths \-Orgy
>This is gonna be a good Friday, I can just feel it.
That was fucking funny
Pilate did as good a job as he could have if you take religion out of it. The local people wanted this guy dead, who to you was a weird hippie but really execution seemed a bit much. So he said 'look, we have a tradition to free a guy this time of year. I say free the hippie but the alternate is a murderer' thinking surely no way they pick the murderer. Which of course they did so at that point it was kill the hippy or cause a riot which would look very bad to Rome. And the rest is history.
According to wikipedia, he was an insurrectionary, which lines up with my memory that he was a rebel fighting for Israeli independence from Rome. That might be why he was offered up. "We were going to free one of the rebels we caught last month, but you can choose between the hippie that's done nothing wrong or the rebel that's gotten dozens of your and my people killed."
Barabbas’s full crimes are never stated outright. Simply that he was a criminal who had killed people.
I think that's either from Roman records or non-biblical knowledge passed down to flesh the story out a little. Either way, not absolute by any means. Also fun fact: apparently Barabbas' first name was apparently Jesus. Some of the first greek scriptures refer to him as Jesus Barabbas, but it's believed that people started referring to him as Barabbas to avoid confusion and dishonoring of the name Jesus in the Bible.
You see, I was under the impression that the whole “choose who you want” thing was just something that’s as added in over time, but when you put it that way it’s totally possible lmao
What really surprises me is how we Christians tend to make a big dal out of him acting shocked at Jesus claiming to be the son of a god. I've seen professional Bible scholars suggest that maybe he as a Roman just thought that Jesus might be a Hercules-type demigod, but com on bro, who *wouldn't* react like that to someone claiming to be the child of a god!
It’s a popular interpretation based on the Christian Bible and totally at odds with everything we know about Pilate and Roman occupied Judea. We don’t know a lot about Pilate but we do know that he didn’t give a rat’s ass about Jewish concerns and he liked executing people. If a Jewish mob actually approached him he would have unleashed his soldiers on said mob without a second thought. But the truth wasn’t palatable to the Romans that early Christians were trying to convert so the gospels came up with an alternate interpretation where an occupied territory somehow ‘makes’ a super power kill one guy. And then to make it super obvious, they have a Jewish crowd literally chant ‘We did this’. In reality Pilate probably rubber stamped an execution warrant for that week’s list of Jewish rabble rousers that included Jesus and went on about his day without a second thought.
It was Roman policy to let tributary states enforce their own laws as long as it didn't threaten Rome or get in the way of paying tribute. Judea was a particularly troublesome province, and the status quo was paramount to mitigating that.
In this time Judea was not a tributary state but an actual province constantly marred by a cycle of uprisings followed by brutal repression. Pilate was literally recalled to Rome because he kept antagonizing and murdering the locals. If you want an example of the gospel blatantly making something up to defend Roman rule look no further than the infamous Passover pardon which is completely absent from Jewish theology and history.
Well, maybe the Emperor had a few words with Pilate. Like, "if you keep killing people, you won't be living too long yourself." So Pilate thinks, "Right. I'll go cold turkey." Then another uprising threatens to occur. People want this weird hippy dead. Pilate doesn't like either option, bc it won't look good on his resume (or his catacomb). So he tries to satisfy everybody. And of course, that doesn't work.
That's just proposing a narrative which might be possible instead of looking into the historical evidence to see what is probable.
Well, let's be frank: the Talmud has a passage that said Jesus should be boiled in his own.....stuff. So I don't think we're going to get any unbiased information any time soon. The pardon could very well have happened, but Jewish writers chose to ignore it. There's also the fact that nobody outside of a small group of nobodies knew who Jesus was: so nobody would be saying, "Oh, gosh! We gotta write this pardon stuff down!"
[удалено]
What I'm trying to say is that historical recordings of the pardon is a moot point. The fact that Jesus was a nobody back then lends support as to why we wouldn't have any records of it: none of the non-Christians thought it was important enough to write down. So, outside of the Gospels, we'll never really know what was going on in Pilate's head. Thus, it's not worth debating over did he/didn't he.
I choose to see it like this. Pilate sees that the Jewish leaders want to throw another guy on a cross, but he asks “okay why?” and finds out he’s just a guy who talks a lot. Pilate, being an average human being, goes “seriously? That’s it?” Then, as it was going to happen during an important local holiday season, he decides to do a little Roman PR to show off how nice they were, and offers to spare the guy who he probably doesn’t feel like wasting good lumber on, shrugs when they say no, and tosses him to the wolves. It was probably embellished a bit after that.
It’s written right into the Bible. Pilate was confused about why this guy who had really just gone around talking at people should die, left it up to the crowd, and went ahead with the requested execution.
And we'll fucking do it again if he came back
That's the biblical narrative which was probably modified to make christianity more appealing to Romans, and to distance Christianity from Judaism during the rise of Roman antisemetism. IRL the Romans definitely killed him because pretty much messiah claimant was considered a threat.
That’s not unpopular opinion, that’s pretty much accepted fact. And while regional Roman leaders would have known of him, the emperor at the time (likely Tiberius) almost certainly had never heard of Jesus. There would have been no reason to be briefed on it as the impact wasn’t felt until quite some time later. Meme is still funny tho
People forget how small Christianity was during the first centuries. Even in 300 AD, Christianity only accounted for 1-2% of the population of the Roman Empire. In 34 AD it was hardly a blip on the radar.
Some people (who know nothing about it) like to say that the Romans killed Jesus, not the Pharisees, because they don’t want to sound antisemitic.
Sadducees
Really? From what I can tell there's no evidence to support that Jesus was tried by the Great Sanhedren or the Jewish public. The biblical narrative about the Jews being responsible for Jesus's execution is genuinely linked to antisemetism, both during the time it was written and after.
It was probably also useful to shift blame away from the Empire after it adopted Christianity.
The Sanhedrin was clearly very unhappy with Jesus and they manipulated their power to have Jesus executed by the Romans. The Romans didn’t give a shit about Jesus, they were just doing what the Sanhedrin wanted them to. Acknowledging that isn’t in the slightest bit antisemitic, no matter what narrative any side wants to use.
Clearly by what accounts?
and I think they were a bid fed up with people from Judaea claiming being the messiah
That’s not even an opinion, the bible is pretty clear about that
There's a great book called "how jesus became god" by Bart Ernham that goes into this. Given what we know about Pilate he was more than likely outright hostile to the local Jews under his care, and he showed very little respect for their customs or ways, there's one account of him arriving in Jerusalem and hanging banners with the emperors face around a city where idols were explicitly banned. They Jews in the city complained and were nearly massacred over the incident. More than likely jesus claiming to be a king and also the son of God directly conflicted with the cult of the emperor at the time, where emperors would be diefied and their lineage attributed to the divine. In short jesus was killed because he was a charismatic man with a message that resonated and had the potential to cause a leadership crisis in the far provinces at the very least or possibly the empire as a whole given the opportunity. Not to mention he was making these claims on the passover, a time where rebellious sentient was primed and ready within the Jewish population. Also he upset the cities bankers and money lenders when he threw them out of the temple.
>there's one account of him arriving in Jerusalem and hanging banners with the emperors face around a city where idols were explicitly banned. They Jews in the city complained and were nearly massacred over the incident. Caligula, self obsessed fool that he was, demanded that a golden statue of himself be placed in the Temple in Jerusalem. Which went predictably well, and nearly set off a Jewish revolt twenty years before the big one. Before him relations between the Jews and the Romans, had originally been decent, but had been slowly declining after full incorporation in 6CE. > the cult of the emperor at the time, where emperors would be diefied and their lineage attributed to the divine. Emperor Vespasians around his death famously said: "Vae, puto deus fio – Dammit, I fear I'm turning into a god.”
That last points especially interesting, however I believe the issue was that because caesar had been deified people were calling Augustus "son of god" and when jesus proclaimed himself also son of God it was a problem.
Why do you think this is an unpopular opinion? Do you think you made this up yourself? It’s THE most accepted view….
That’s pretty much what everyone thinks.
I read somewhere the main reason Jesus was crucified is because he declared himself King of the Jews which was equal to high treason in the Empire and no one was above the Emperor or something like that..thats how Romans became convinced to kill of the preacher anc until then they weren’t all that interested
That's what the Gospels say but they're dubious as a source to say the least.
That is accepted fact. Nobody outside of Judea would have even known it happened at the time. Rome itself was dealing with Sejanus and would not have given a shit about a random Judean spouting nonsense that could easily be silenced with a crucifix.
The view I espouse is that Jesus pissed off the sadducees when he made a scene at the temple they captured him and because he was an apocalyptic messianic preacher (the Romans had recently put down a messianic rebellion in Judea) Pilate executed him for high treason to stop a problem before it could start
That’s actually exactly what happened. I wouldn’t say it is unpopular either because that is widespread what is taught in Christian theology classes. While the emperor probably had no clue who Jesus was. Pontius Pilate was indifferent to the whole situation, which then lead to his crucifixion. It’s really interesting how, up until the religious swell in the Roman Empire, Christianity was essentially a cult nobody even acknowledged because they just didn’t care.
The emperor didn’t order his execution, the governor of Judea did
"This Jesus is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-JESUS!!" "You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Jesus' stun easily"
r/totallyexpectedmontypython
I'm not dead, I feel fine!
Emperor: HOW DARE YOU LIE TO ME! Soldier: Sire- You literally saw me kill him-! Emperor: How dare you try to make a fool of me! Execute this dumbass! Soldier: Well… This is still better than living while Caligula ruled…
Still had 7 years of Tiberius
*Caligula yet to rule if I got the timeline right
Luckily, Dave and his mates not only [sorted out a cover story](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028&version=NIVUK) , but also managed to extract a tidy sum from the chief priests. Not a bad day's work...
>The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. The angel said to the women, ‘Do not be afraid [I think I know that angel.](https://youtube.com/shorts/pXyYbcQYJf0?feature=share)
The thing about that is the guards were almost certainly not Roman as the penalty for sleeping on the job was death by crucifixion the guards also wouldn't have gone to the priests if they were Roman as they would have no reason to if there were guards they were almost certainly Jewish and this all supposes that Jesus was buried in a tomb at all which is highly unlikely since part of the punishment of crucifixion for treason was to leave the body to rot and be eaten by carrion scavengers
Is there any historical accounts which suggest Emperor Augustus knew about Jesus and the crucifixion ?
[удалено]
Yes Tiberius thank u for that..and yea thats what I thought…Arguably the most powerful man in the world or even most of the Empire at that time wouldnt’ve been concerned with a local event in Judea
No, because he was too busy being dead at the time. Tiberius was emperor in 32 AD and wasn't even in Rome at the time. Sejanus would have been the one to receive the report if there even needed to be one.
Augustus would have been dead for about 15 years at the time Jesus was crucified, so he probably didn't know about it.
probably
"Dave I told you thy must never smoke the Devil's lettuce at thy work place"
I'm sorry, now I'm picturing the scene in Episode III with Anakin (the soldier), Dooku (Jesus), and the emperor
JEW IT.
“LET ME TALK TO THE NCO’S REAL QUICK”
I would have loved to see that military report and the reaction of who that went to
I read this as a Mitchell and Webb sketch
Emperor: "Dave, where's the body of christ?" Dave: "It's right there in the tomb I put a rock in front of it" Emperor: "Okay, so go get Christ's body" Dave: "Oh, now I see the problem" Emperor: **"OH HO! DO YA!?"**
No Emperor ever gave a damn about some small religious dispute in some backwater province. They were out there dealin with stuff that actually mattered
Jesus on the cross: "I get knocked down..." Jesus 3 days later: "But I get up again, 'cause you're never gonna take me down."
*Sorts by controversial*
Emperor : "I knew I shouldn't have put an intern for the job"
Y'all know this isn't history right? Just a story.
Modern scholars do believe Jesus was a thing, but the emperor definitely didn’t give a shit about him at the time. It wasn’t till his disciples spread around the empire converting people when it actually became a problem.
Many believe that some Jewish guy named Jesus who was an apocalyptic preacher existed. In the same sense I have no doubt some guy named Bob lived in 1950s America who complained a lot about trains. It's such a mundane claim that there's not much reason to give it much thought.
Finally, someone said it
Lol, mythology
I thought this was “history”?
Cope
This is "american history meme". The country were 4 people out of 5 believe angels are real. They joke about their war crime, downvote socialist meme and believe the earth is 6400 years old. You know.... Dumbasses.
Ah your the the "I'm athiest so im superior" guy. Fucking dumbass
Here is the "men with bird wing" believer
Behold the average copy-paste western-european
Jesus' existence is an accepted historical fact; even rationalwiki acknowledges as much: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus\_myth\_theory
"There is currently no text on this page" so full of facts, pretty funny
that's... not the case. the article is rather long. try refreshing your browser.
[I mean, its day 2 and the link is still empty. Maybe it's a "sign" from above hahahahah](https://i.imgur.com/HXyMC43.png)
try simply searching "jesus myth theory" in the rationalwiki search bar. those forward slashes aren't supposed to be there, and you honestly should've thought of that yourself.
>you honestly should've thought of that yourself >try simply searching Why would I? You've already blamed me for your own screw up, as if it's my fault you mistyped the link. Very Christian of you to shift blame actually hahaha A name on a census (possibly, we still lack any physical proof it existed) and some ancient written references does not equal a religion, and certainly doesn't equal Jesus being the son of a god. All you have is a dude named Jesus once possibly existed, and some people wrote about him. If ancient writings is all it takes, dragons and unicorns and Atlantis would exist. Between 12 years of Catholic school and religious classes in college, I don't need to look it up to know you have very little more than that. All the different religions, mythologies, and belief systems Christianity has consumed and warped in its creation; it's a collage of dead religions essentially. All your holidays are lies. Your creation myth is older than the religion itself. Most of your saints never existed, or were merged from other sources. The creation of Jesus is a patchwork of deities from other religions; mostly Buddha, with some Tammuz, Mithras, Horus, Attis, Zeus, and a few others mixed in. It's bullshit on top of bullshit. So thanks, but no thanks. I have more faith in the existence of my landlord, who I've never seen.
Dude, even most Trumplicans I've spoken with were willing to do a *freaking engine search* when requested to, so the fact that you aren't means that you're even more dogmatic than they are. I did not mistype anything, I simply copy-pasted it, so I don't know what went wrong.
I don’t deny that. I’m actually a Christian and person of faith. I’m just saying, for purposes of this sub, the resurrection doesn’t fit. And that is entirely what’s being implied here. But go on. Tell me more history.
Well even then, religious tals in general seem to qualify as history for the purposes of this sub. perhaps since they as tales are in fact part of history?
2 days later actually. Friday to Sunday. No idea why Christians cannot count but there you are.
[удалено]
tf you mean? we have Roman sources proving he existed
Yes there are records of a religious leader named Jesus. He’s even mentioned in the Vedas… it’s the lie about coming back to life that’s the issue. It’s not historical, it’s a myth.
Could you point them out? Because only ones I'm aware of were written good 50+ hears after the fact, talk mostly of his followers and what they said of him and/or have evidence of being modified by christian monks that were rewritting them.
[удалено]
The vast majority of historians agree Jesus of Nazareth actually existed but I guess you know more than them
This is what happens when a person makes anti-religion contrarianism their whole personality - they, too, begin to deny reality.
[удалено]
Jesus was a real, historical dude; he almost certainly didn’t have super powers, but it’s accepted that he existed. Ps. “Caveman”? Major neck beard vibes, there, friendo.
ratio 🥺
[удалено]
Yessir Also more so finding it funny that you say ChRiStiAniTy iS a MyTh and get downvoted ☺️🥰😌
[удалено]
Random internet words and a demeaning insult all wrapped up into a jumbled mess, classic reddit “I’m mad that I’m wrong” :(
[удалено]
100 degrees out, definitely melting 🥵
[удалено]
What are you even saying at this point 😵💫 edit: awwww someone got mad and deleted their comments 🥺
I wish I had a coin to give you!
Cope
Seethe.
Religious tinfoil hat time: The original jesus died on the cross. The "ressurected" jesus was just some opportunistic guy who took up the position as cult leader. The disciples did not recognize him upon his return. The guy they gave up everything to travel with.
Too bad that whole book is fiction
Not for "history" memes apparently.
Maybe historymemes has become history channel memes when we aren't looking
And by the looks it is more popular this way.... Look at all the downvotes everyone saying it is not history is getting.... Sad day for historians...
Cope
ratio :(
I wouldn't say it's all fiction but it's definitely a religious text with plenty of mythic elements in it it's basically a collection of folk tails based on pseudo historic characters
Jesus is dead but body was stoled.
Dave? No goddamn Roman was called Dave. And the Emperor wasn't called HAL either.
ONE OF THE CAESARS OF THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE WAS LITERALLY NAMED DAVID. The fuck are we even doing anymore if we're bothering trying to say that "David" isn't a Roman name? Is this all we have left?
Time for Revelations, I think.
It is a post about a zombie so we don't have much left.
David is not Dave now is it?
So I am not only one that read that in HAL's voice...
Definitely seems more like a “Doug” thing to do
Jebes
‘Now, Dave, I know we all make mistakes, but IM GONNA CRUCIFY YOU IN HIS PLACE!’
It definitely wasn't the emperor that ordered Jesus' crucifixion. In fact Tiberius Caesar probably didn't even know who Jesus was.
Dead as a door nail.. Weren't those your EXACT words?! Maybe it's a different Jesus?
It would be Pilate asking the question, since he was the one charged with the whole thing. The Emperor wouldn’t even know what all was going on besides some unrest in Judea, since the whole thing was an internal religious matter. After all, Jesus was going around calling out the Jewish leaders for their failures, not organizing rebellions against Rome.