Idk, I think he was crucified because he was a political activist that threatened the power of the state and forced people to question the authority of said power, just like the Romans crucified all political activists that were critical of the Roman Empire.
There was a whole section in the Bible about how the local Roman leadership didn’t really care enough about crucifying Jesus and that they were just doing what the Jews told him to. Of course, a great many Bible passages are anti-Roman propaganda, so it should be taken with a bit of salt, but if you do believe in the Bible, the Roman Empire didn’t really seem to care that much.
The whole thing that made the Roman Empire relatively stable was the “you worship your gods and do your weird rituals, just do what we say and maybe take part of a ritual once or twice a year to show your Roman-ness and you will be good” ideals. Several gods in conquered areas were even inserted into the local Roman pantheon. I don’t really think Tiberius could give a shit about Jesus, if he even knew who he was. Treating Jesus as an actual threat makes little sense to me, unless Pilate was being manipulated into thinking so, because of the actual threat to his rule by another Roman rival trying to replace him.
There are some that think Jesus was crucified for leading a revolt (being dubbed “King of the Jews” and all), but in revolts Romans usually applied collective punishment (see also: executing the people digging for the arc of the covenant), so that doesn’t seem very likely to me. Whole groups of early Christians would’ve been executed alongside Jesus.
I have a feeling the Jewish/Christian population saw the way Romans kind of didn’t really care about what religion their conquered areas were following as poor and weak leadership, and used that to paint Pilate as a weak ruler.
Pilate did seem to be pressured by the Jews into crucifying Jesus. Even with the Barrabas incident where they freed a literal murderer to still have Jesus killed.
Yeah, that does seem to be the most likely scenario. But on the other hand, I take the Bible’s take on Romans about as serious as their take on the Babylonians: it’s hard to know what parts to trust and what parts were made up to make the Romans look bad.
The whole Barabbas story is rather questionable; random, unwarranted executions were something Pilate was kicked out for, and there aren’t any independent source backing up the whole “releasing a prisoner at the request of the people” story. I don’t think many scholars believe this story actually happened as described.
Plus, there are the many alternative interpretations, like the idea that Barabbas was not a murderer, but rather the son of Jesus and Maria Magdelena, and that making him a criminal was the work of badmouthing by a Christian sect that believed that Jesus died unmarried and without children, or that Jesus and Barabbas were the same person as some dedicated scholars believe.
I took you seriously until you tried to propose that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, these “scholars” must be mental if they seriously think that.
Also worth mentioning Barabbas’s first name was also Jesus (or Yeshua) which if it were made up, wouldn’t make any sense why a criminal would be given the same name.
I took you seriously until you tried to propose that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene
I don’t think it’s a popular take among religious scholars at all, but from a non-religious view, I don’t see why not. There’s a lot about Jesus’ life that’s been altered throughout the years.
Also worth mentioning Barabbas’s first name was also Jesus (or Yeshua) which if it were made up, wouldn’t make any sense why a criminal would be given the same name.
Barabbas’ name means “son of the father”, which already sounds oddly specific in this context.
Sure, they didn’t invent the first name out of thin air, but given that there is no source outside the bible that this “freeing a prisoner condemned to death” practice had ever been done before, I think it makes a lot more sense.
Are you really trying to equate me stating historical fact to me trying to propagate anti semetism? Even though the Jews in the times of Jesus were completely different to the Jewish people nowadays? That’s like claiming that the Japanese did war crimes in WWII is some form of racism towards the Japanese.
I’m not following you, you just keep appearing with your missionary work in the same places I happen to be. So I’m making the best out of it by having some fun. And by the way, jews killed jesus is a popular antisemitic trope.
Roman leadership didn’t really care enough about crucifying Jesus and that they were just doing what the Jews told him to
And it’s complete bull. If the Jewish authorities wanted Jesus dead he would have been stoned to death - not crucified. The Romans only crucified people they wanted to crucify. This is not anti-Roman propaganda - it’s anti-Jewish propaganda by the Catholic Church to camoflage the fact that it was their imperial progenitors who was responsible for Jesus’ death.
Perhaps that was the historical perspective, but that doesn’t include Jesus definitely performing miracles either. In the perspective where he does do miracles, a.k.a. the Bible, at least according to Christianity.com (which sources itself inline to the bible) a ton of priests and people were angered by Jesus’s claim of being the messiah and son of God. They then invented a bunch of insurrection charges and took to the local governor, who initially refused but went through when they basically threatened to get him fired by questioning his loyalty.
So, I guess I stand corrected that it was not the Romans but the existing religion.
Of fucking course the website of the religion dedicated to worshipping a dead Jewish carpenter is going to say he definitely performed miracles. Dude… we don’t have any actual proof of him doing so though, just attestations from people who either worshipped him or claims from people who stand to benefit from the story being true
Or he was crucified because he was gay (kisses the guy he put in charge of the group’s money around that time, had a beloved disciple reclining on him when feeding same disciple he kisses dipped bread at his last meal before being turned in). That was a capital charge under Jewish law.
In fact, it’s extremely sus that Peter is alleged in his own tradition to deny Jesus three times right around the time Jesus is going through ~3 trials, at least one of which Peter is acknowledged as going back to the guarded area where the trial was taking place to deny him in.
He could have also been killed for promoting atheist ideas at the time, given the earliest Christian ‘heresy’ was Simon Magus who after leaving the early church is talking about an “indivisible point” and later heretics and apocrypha have Jesus seeming to be quoting Lucretius’s naturalism and atomism. This is the same century Rabbi Elazar allegedly said “why do we study the Torah? To know how to answer the Epicurean.” So Jesus promoting Epicurean ideas might not have gone over very well (and might explain why Paul was so adamant Corinth ignore “other versions of Jesus” that they accepted saying things like “everything is permissible” or denying physical resurrection - very Epicurean statements).
Or it could have been the official story, though personally I don’t really buy it. If he was a threat to Rome it’s bizarre he gets such different treatment from the several other messianic upstarts in Josephus who are killed immediately without trial by Roman forces with their followers included. And why would the Sanhedrin be peeved about messianic claims when the other examples of messianic claimants were solely depicted as opposed by Rome?
But possibly gay Jesus teaching evolution and atomism while criticizing dynastic monarchy? Yeah, I can see that dude ending up dead pretty fast in that time and place by Sanhedrin demand and Roman hands.
I remember reading about how investigations into the translations of the Bible support the gay Jesus. (Disclaimer I’m not gay, so I have no affiliated interest in promoting gayness, I just find it historically interesting).
“Washing feet” was a actually a mistranslation of some kind of general “servicing” that had several meanings, including cock sucking or accepting being bottom. Jesus “washed a lot of feet”, but one thing is certain: It didn’t mean literally washing feet. That part was definitely made up according to the people who looked into it.
Anyway, it’s been thousands of years and learning of how cultures and acceptance of certain things can change rapidly, I wouldn’t be surprised.
Keep in mind that Romans were also at war with the Greek shortly before the alleged time of Jesus. We know that the ancient Greeks practiced gay sex not just casually, but even expectedly.
The Romans did not. The empire had an expansion strategy that looked a lot like the Nazis Third Reich: Expansion by breeding.
Personally I find it likely that historical Jesus was killed for a whole lot of other reasons than for claiming to be the king of Jews or for betrayal of the state, and he sure as fuck did not die “for our sins”.
We know that the ancient Greeks practiced gay sex not just casually, but even expectedly.
The Romans did not.
Huh? The Romans were even more extreme with it. The Greeks would court young boys coming of age with a lengthy courting ritual that involved a lot of focus on consent - the Romans were straight up castrating prepubescent children to preserve their femininity.
In fact, it’s probable that the “marriage is between a man and a woman” in the NT was an anachronistic reactionary response to gay marriage having become a legitimate Roman institution in the 60s CE following Nero marrying two men, first playing the role of the bride and then the role of the husband (the latter time with someone who had been castrated when prepubescent).
Even before the empire there were rules related to homosexual senators losing their voting rights if they were the bottom, and they weren’t likely to create a rule for something that didn’t happen.
So I’m not sure where you get the idea Rome didn’t have homosexuality.
“Washing feet” was a actually a mistranslation of some kind of general “servicing” that had several meanings, including cock sucking or accepting being bottom.
I’d really need to see a source for this claim, as it sounds extremely spurious. There’s a lot of literature around Christianity that claims secret coded language use, but generally they are all quite ridiculous claims.
While ‘feet’ or ‘thigh’ as words sometimes have euphemistic meaning for genitals, I’m unaware of any idiomatic use of “washing feet” as reference to sex. You can see some related discussion about the OT usage of a similar phrasing/theory here.
![[ElderCactus] There were worse outcomes](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/5715508f-01e1-4e13-90ad-a098f1bb8f63.jpeg){kind=link}
Idk, I think he was crucified because he was a political activist that threatened the power of the state and forced people to question the authority of said power, just like the Romans crucified all political activists that were critical of the Roman Empire.
Maybe he was killed because an acorn dropped on some chariot. You never know.
There was a whole section in the Bible about how the local Roman leadership didn’t really care enough about crucifying Jesus and that they were just doing what the Jews told him to. Of course, a great many Bible passages are anti-Roman propaganda, so it should be taken with a bit of salt, but if you do believe in the Bible, the Roman Empire didn’t really seem to care that much.
The whole thing that made the Roman Empire relatively stable was the “you worship your gods and do your weird rituals, just do what we say and maybe take part of a ritual once or twice a year to show your Roman-ness and you will be good” ideals. Several gods in conquered areas were even inserted into the local Roman pantheon. I don’t really think Tiberius could give a shit about Jesus, if he even knew who he was. Treating Jesus as an actual threat makes little sense to me, unless Pilate was being manipulated into thinking so, because of the actual threat to his rule by another Roman rival trying to replace him.
There are some that think Jesus was crucified for leading a revolt (being dubbed “King of the Jews” and all), but in revolts Romans usually applied collective punishment (see also: executing the people digging for the arc of the covenant), so that doesn’t seem very likely to me. Whole groups of early Christians would’ve been executed alongside Jesus.
I have a feeling the Jewish/Christian population saw the way Romans kind of didn’t really care about what religion their conquered areas were following as poor and weak leadership, and used that to paint Pilate as a weak ruler.
Pilate did seem to be pressured by the Jews into crucifying Jesus. Even with the Barrabas incident where they freed a literal murderer to still have Jesus killed.
Yeah, that does seem to be the most likely scenario. But on the other hand, I take the Bible’s take on Romans about as serious as their take on the Babylonians: it’s hard to know what parts to trust and what parts were made up to make the Romans look bad.
The whole Barabbas story is rather questionable; random, unwarranted executions were something Pilate was kicked out for, and there aren’t any independent source backing up the whole “releasing a prisoner at the request of the people” story. I don’t think many scholars believe this story actually happened as described.
Plus, there are the many alternative interpretations, like the idea that Barabbas was not a murderer, but rather the son of Jesus and Maria Magdelena, and that making him a criminal was the work of badmouthing by a Christian sect that believed that Jesus died unmarried and without children, or that Jesus and Barabbas were the same person as some dedicated scholars believe.
I took you seriously until you tried to propose that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, these “scholars” must be mental if they seriously think that.
Also worth mentioning Barabbas’s first name was also Jesus (or Yeshua) which if it were made up, wouldn’t make any sense why a criminal would be given the same name.
I don’t think it’s a popular take among religious scholars at all, but from a non-religious view, I don’t see why not. There’s a lot about Jesus’ life that’s been altered throughout the years.
Barabbas’ name means “son of the father”, which already sounds oddly specific in this context.
Was a common name. Even shows up in the talmud
Sure, they didn’t invent the first name out of thin air, but given that there is no source outside the bible that this “freeing a prisoner condemned to death” practice had ever been done before, I think it makes a lot more sense.
We finally arriving at the end of any christian fundamentalist arc - Jews bad. Shorter than expected.
Are you really trying to equate me stating historical fact to me trying to propagate anti semetism? Even though the Jews in the times of Jesus were completely different to the Jewish people nowadays? That’s like claiming that the Japanese did war crimes in WWII is some form of racism towards the Japanese.
Nah, at this point Im just having fun. You are like a really fascinating animal at the zoo for me.
Then why do you keep following me about?
I’m not following you, you just keep appearing with your missionary work in the same places I happen to be. So I’m making the best out of it by having some fun. And by the way, jews killed jesus is a popular antisemitic trope.
It’s people killed Jesus. Judaism was kinda like Christianity at the time. Nobody’s emphasizing that it’s the fault of Judaism.
And it’s complete bull. If the Jewish authorities wanted Jesus dead he would have been stoned to death - not crucified. The Romans only crucified people they wanted to crucify. This is not anti-Roman propaganda - it’s anti-Jewish propaganda by the Catholic Church to camoflage the fact that it was their imperial progenitors who was responsible for Jesus’ death.
Perhaps that was the historical perspective, but that doesn’t include Jesus definitely performing miracles either. In the perspective where he does do miracles, a.k.a. the Bible, at least according to Christianity.com (which sources itself inline to the bible) a ton of priests and people were angered by Jesus’s claim of being the messiah and son of God. They then invented a bunch of insurrection charges and took to the local governor, who initially refused but went through when they basically threatened to get him fired by questioning his loyalty.
So, I guess I stand corrected that it was not the Romans but the existing religion.
Of fucking course the website of the religion dedicated to worshipping a dead Jewish carpenter is going to say he definitely performed miracles. Dude… we don’t have any actual proof of him doing so though, just attestations from people who either worshipped him or claims from people who stand to benefit from the story being true
I think you should reread what I said. In the very first sentence I doubt that what transpired in history was Jesus performing miracles.
Or he was crucified because he was gay (kisses the guy he put in charge of the group’s money around that time, had a beloved disciple reclining on him when feeding same disciple he kisses dipped bread at his last meal before being turned in). That was a capital charge under Jewish law.
In fact, it’s extremely sus that Peter is alleged in his own tradition to deny Jesus three times right around the time Jesus is going through ~3 trials, at least one of which Peter is acknowledged as going back to the guarded area where the trial was taking place to deny him in.
He could have also been killed for promoting atheist ideas at the time, given the earliest Christian ‘heresy’ was Simon Magus who after leaving the early church is talking about an “indivisible point” and later heretics and apocrypha have Jesus seeming to be quoting Lucretius’s naturalism and atomism. This is the same century Rabbi Elazar allegedly said “why do we study the Torah? To know how to answer the Epicurean.” So Jesus promoting Epicurean ideas might not have gone over very well (and might explain why Paul was so adamant Corinth ignore “other versions of Jesus” that they accepted saying things like “everything is permissible” or denying physical resurrection - very Epicurean statements).
Or it could have been the official story, though personally I don’t really buy it. If he was a threat to Rome it’s bizarre he gets such different treatment from the several other messianic upstarts in Josephus who are killed immediately without trial by Roman forces with their followers included. And why would the Sanhedrin be peeved about messianic claims when the other examples of messianic claimants were solely depicted as opposed by Rome?
But possibly gay Jesus teaching evolution and atomism while criticizing dynastic monarchy? Yeah, I can see that dude ending up dead pretty fast in that time and place by Sanhedrin demand and Roman hands.
I remember reading about how investigations into the translations of the Bible support the gay Jesus. (Disclaimer I’m not gay, so I have no affiliated interest in promoting gayness, I just find it historically interesting).
“Washing feet” was a actually a mistranslation of some kind of general “servicing” that had several meanings, including cock sucking or accepting being bottom. Jesus “washed a lot of feet”, but one thing is certain: It didn’t mean literally washing feet. That part was definitely made up according to the people who looked into it.
Anyway, it’s been thousands of years and learning of how cultures and acceptance of certain things can change rapidly, I wouldn’t be surprised.
Keep in mind that Romans were also at war with the Greek shortly before the alleged time of Jesus. We know that the ancient Greeks practiced gay sex not just casually, but even expectedly. The Romans did not. The empire had an expansion strategy that looked a lot like the Nazis Third Reich: Expansion by breeding.
Personally I find it likely that historical Jesus was killed for a whole lot of other reasons than for claiming to be the king of Jews or for betrayal of the state, and he sure as fuck did not die “for our sins”.
Huh? The Romans were even more extreme with it. The Greeks would court young boys coming of age with a lengthy courting ritual that involved a lot of focus on consent - the Romans were straight up castrating prepubescent children to preserve their femininity.
In fact, it’s probable that the “marriage is between a man and a woman” in the NT was an anachronistic reactionary response to gay marriage having become a legitimate Roman institution in the 60s CE following Nero marrying two men, first playing the role of the bride and then the role of the husband (the latter time with someone who had been castrated when prepubescent).
Even before the empire there were rules related to homosexual senators losing their voting rights if they were the bottom, and they weren’t likely to create a rule for something that didn’t happen.
So I’m not sure where you get the idea Rome didn’t have homosexuality.
I’d really need to see a source for this claim, as it sounds extremely spurious. There’s a lot of literature around Christianity that claims secret coded language use, but generally they are all quite ridiculous claims.
While ‘feet’ or ‘thigh’ as words sometimes have euphemistic meaning for genitals, I’m unaware of any idiomatic use of “washing feet” as reference to sex. You can see some related discussion about the OT usage of a similar phrasing/theory here.