RomanArmyTalk

Full Version: Jesus discussion
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
**EDITED from "Roman Textile Find" thread in History and Archaeology -- Danno Ulpius**

What sources say that Jesus was a "Judean rebel". This is interesting since he never led an armed rebellion...
Thanks,
Johnny
The bible itself states that Jesus his teachings were in the eyes of the Sanhedrin rebellious, blasphemic and unlawful.

Josephus writes (in the arabic translation of the Jewish wars, which is slightly more accurate than the greek one since that was written by a christian) about a man called Jesus, who some THOUGHT to be the messias, who was executed by pilatvs for crimes against Rome.

so i am not talking about the mystified Jesus here.



M.VIB.M.
I assume this is from the version you would disagree:

Antiquities XVIII, iii, 3,
About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day.

I would be glad to have a private email discussion with you about the Christ. Let me know if you are interested.

Johnny
Jesus can be portrayed as both a violent rebel or a pacificist proponent of brotherly love, using the ancient sources. We know his followers carried (and used) swords (which I believe was forbidden by Roman law for civilians), and I think it is in the book of Luke, chapter 22 that Jesus tells his disciples to "sell their cloaks to buy swords". I believe some researchers have made good arguments that at least some of the disciples may have been Zealots. Rather than a "prince of peace", Jesus is portrayed as an avenging war god in Revelations, fighting demons and dragons stolen from Zoroastrian mythology.

But I hope you are not implying that I am "insulting Christianity" by stating that it is probably "wishful thinking" on the Vatican's part that these are early Christian martyrs. This is simply human nature to want such things, just as every RAT member probably hoped that a mass of skeletons found at Cannae were casualities from that battle, when they turned out to be Medieval skeletons instead, as I recall.

Dan
Well spoken Dan!

and Johnny, that indeed is the passage i meant, however it is the Greek translation !!

TESTIMONIvM FLAVIANvM

GREEK TRANSLATION

Josephus, Antiquities 18.63, probably in a Christian redaction
Tr. I. H. Feldman, Loeb Classical Library, vol. 9, pp. 49ff.

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not cease. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life. For the prophets of God had prophesied these and myriads of other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still up to now, not disappeared.


ARABIC TRANSLATION

Arabic summary, presumably of Antiquities 18.63. From Agapios' Kitab al-'Unwan ("Book of the Title," 10th c.).
The translation belongs to Shlomo Pines. See also James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism.

Similarly Josephus the Hebrew. For he says in the treatises that he has written on the governance of the Jews:
At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to themafter his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.

R. Eisler's Reconstruction
Same text, in a less complementary modern scholarly reconstruction.
R. Eisler, The Messiah Jesus, (tr. A. H. Krappe), 1931, p. 61. Quoted from the Loeb Classical Library , vol. 9, p. 48.

Now about this time arose an occasion for new disturbances, a certain Jesus, a wizard of a man, if indeed he may be called a man, who was the most monstrous of men, whom his disciples call a son of God, as having done wonders such as no man has ever done.... He was in fact a teacher of astonishing tricks to such men as accept the abnormal with delight.... And he seduced many Jews and many also of the Greek nation, and was regarded by them as the Messiah.... And when, on the indictment of the principal men among us, Pilate had sentenced him to the cross, still those who before had admired him did not cease to rave. For it seemed to them that having been dead for three days, he had appeared to them alive again, as the divinely-inspired prophets had foretold -- these and ten thousand other wonderful things -- concerning him. And even now the race of those who are called 'Messianists' after him is not extinct.

and last but not least!

The only usually undisputed allusion to Jesus in Josephus is actually only a passing reference in the context of the trial of James. James is identified, not as James son of ???? as one would normally expect but as brother of Jesus. While this passage is more likely to be authentic than the one above, it is not without problems. Origen knows and cites this passage, and is unaware of the 'Testimonium Flavianum' above, providing some evidence for its presence in the Antiquities before its Christian reworking. On the other hand, Origen's version contains the unlikely addition in which Josephus also says that it is as punishment for the execution of James that Jerusalem and the temple are destroyed. The possibility suggests itself that even Origen's Josephus has undergone Christian reworking, simply of a different variety, in which, perhaps, the insulting Testimonium has been expunged, and James has been introduced as a pious Jewish hero.

Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1

Since Ananus was that kind of person, and because he perceived an opportunity with Festus having died and Albinus not yet arrived, he called a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought James, the brother of Jesus (who is called 'Messiah') along with some others. He accused them of transgressing the law, and handed them over for stoning.

With many thanx to the website i copied from
since i couldnt find the book that quickly.

By the way!!!!!!!! follow this link to find some really tantalising and tempting stories as old as the Mishna, and some of the Sanhedrin court files about the person calle Yeshu(a)
that have many parallels, and provide a very interesting view on the new testament as we know it!!!

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/humm/Topics/JewishJesus/



M.VIB.M.
Dan,
The passage where Jesus ordered his Apostles to "sell their cloaks and buy swords" has puzzled students of the Bible for ages. I think there are a few things we can understand:
Jesus did not come to overthrow an earthly kingdom. "My Kingdom is not of the world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight..." JN 18:36. Also, in Luke 17:20: "..The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Niether shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." Jesus did not come to raise a physical army to establish an Earthly kingdom: So no swords needed! In 2 Corinthians 10:4 we read,"(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holdsWink". I think most people can conclude that Jesus did not command his servants to use swords to propagate the gospel. When Peter did draw his sword and strike the servant of the high priest, Jesus ordered him to stop(he that lives by the sword shall die by the sword). Also, Jesus said 2 swords were enough. I think more than 2 swords would be needed to bring the Roman world to its knees..!

Johnny

PS-I was not referring to you at all about "insulting Christianity"...
Quote:Jesus can be portrayed as both a violent rebel or a pacificist proponent of brotherly love, using the ancient sources. We know his followers carried (and used) swords (which I believe was forbidden by Roman law for civilians), and I think it is in the book of Luke, chapter 22 that Jesus tells his disciples to "sell their cloaks to buy swords". I believe some researchers have made good arguments that at least some of the disciples may have been Zealots.

A case can certainly be made for Jesus' message being a lot more political than modern Christianity likes to admit - aimed at the Romans and their aristocratic Jewish collaborators. It's a bit harder to make a strong case that he himself was violent or advocated violence, but that doesn't mean his followers may not have or may once have. In Luke, after his (rather enigmatic) reported saying about selling your cloak to buy a sword, the disciples say "See, Lord, here are two swords." to which he is depicted as replying "That is enough", or perhaps "That will suffice".

It's a bit hard to know what to make of this episode. Defenders of 'Jesus the Pacifist' interpret his reply as a rebuke. Christian advocates of the right to bear arms take it almost as an endorsement of the NRA.

Whatever it means, the gospels certainly do depict some of Jesus' followers as being armed and, later in the same chapter of Luke, they put up a fight to defend him when he's arrested. The gospel then has Jesus put a stop to this by saying "No more of this!", though it's hard to tell if that's historical or simply the gospel writer following the theological tradition that Jesus intended to be arrested and executed all along.

Quote:Rather than a "prince of peace", Jesus is portrayed as an avenging war god in Revelations, fighting demons and dragons stolen from Zoroastrian mythology.

Yes, but in his (future) role as the Annointed of the Most High descending to visit judgement on the wicked etc. That's not incompatible with him as the 'Prince of Peace' since that title refers to the 'peace' that would reign after the Apocalypse. The question of Jesus as a 'rebel', an apocalyptic prophet or a prototype of the mild mannered village vicar is more about what his attitude to violence was during his 'earthly career'. He is reported as having quite a bit to say about the violent end of the 'wicked' and the 'sons of darkness' when the 'Kingdom of God' came, but he seems have been happy to leave the smiting to God, rather than inciting some Earthly smiting as a precursor to the Godly smiting.

Then again, the gospel accounts seem pretty keen to whitewash his image and remove anything which could be interpreted as rebel sympathies - since that was poor PR for Christians after the Jewish War, when Jewish rebels weren't exactly flavour of the month in the Roman Empire. So who knows.

Quote:But I hope you are not implying that I am "insulting Christianity" by stating that it is probably "wishful thinking" on the Vatican's part that these are early Christian martyrs.

It may be, but the presence of uncremated, high ranking bodies in First Century Rome does present that conclusion as a possibility. Or there could be other explanations. I can't see anything in the reports I've read so far that rules out the idea that these are the bodies of Christians, but there's also nothing to clearly indicate that they definitely are.
This is just your friendly neighbourhood watch reminding you that discussion of period religion is ok, but refrain from comments on modern religions and beliefs. No such thing happened as yet, and I hope it will not.
We will never know what Joesphus actually said about Jesus until an original copy of his works is found through archaeology that predates the "Christian takeover". Even the Muslim version cannot be regarded as any more authentic as we can be sure it was based on a later version of Josephus' writings after Christianity became the state religion.

I strongly suspect however, that he would not have written such a glowing account that we have today, given he lived in a time when the official government stance on Christianity was decidedly not an endearing one. It also seems that while Jesus may have been originally acclaimed as the Messiah, many of his ideas when fully understood, were considered highly blasphemous and sacrilegious, and Josephus, being of the priestly caste, must certainly have known this.

There is some evidence that the early Christians may have indeed started the great fire in Rome, or at least, may have helped it along, because they believed the Apocolypse would occur in their own generation. In this new religion, the government of Rome itself was seen as the embodiment of Satan, as we clearly see in Revelations and there is no reason to doubt that this same attitude was prevelant among Christians in the reign of Nero. So by burning Rome, they may have believed they were "helping" Jesus establish his kingdom on earth.
Dan, could you elaborate on what you are saying about the Fire in Rome?

you say there is some evidence, what is the evidence?

interesting!

M.VIB.M.
Jasper can you elaborate why no comments should be made about the modern views on religion in present day?

or are you perhaps afraid of any anti muslim remarks?

now that wont happen, but i will defend my right of free speech.

When i say Islam is a mixture of Judaeic and Arabic beliefs, which came about about 600 AD, i am stating a historical and scientifically proven fact!

Salaam al eik um is exactly!! the same as the Hebrew Shalom el eishem!!!

Thats why in my view, Allah is the same god as Jehova, Jaweh, and the Christian god, or as the Jewish religion says, he whose name is not to be pronounced ie "the name".

Also if i say that in modern times Christian religion has less to do with what really happened during the Roman era, it is also a fact.

now why is that dangerous or not allowed?

M.VIB.M.
Henk-Jan.
The rules of this forum, to which you agreed upon signing up, state in rule 1:
Quote:No modern politics, religion (discussion of period religion and religious things are okay, but NO proselytizing or attacking another religion)
The reason this rule is in place is that RAT is simply not the place for such discussions and it has caused trouble in the past. That has nothing to do with your freedom of expression and everything with the fact that RAT is about the ancient Roman army and its enemies.
Ah okay!!!!! enough elaboration! will abide.....

greets!

M.VIB.M.
Quote:There is some evidence that the early Christians may have indeed started the great fire in Rome, or at least, may have helped it along, because they believed the Apocolypse would occur in their own generation. In this new religion, the government of Rome itself was seen as the embodiment of Satan, as we clearly see in Revelations and there is no reason to doubt that this same attitude was prevelant among Christians in the reign of Nero. So by burning Rome, they may have believed they were "helping" Jesus establish his kingdom on earth.

I would like to learn more about this. Can you direct me to where I can read more about this?

Personally, I wonder if the motives were less about helping the Apocalypse along and more about fighting back against what they viewed as a government that was violent toward them? It's pure speculation though, unless their motives were actually recorded somehow.

Still, I would love to learn more about this. Are there any documents or books I can read up on?
Quote:Jesus can be portrayed as both a violent rebel or a pacificist proponent of brotherly love, using the ancient sources. We know his followers carried (and used) swords (which I believe was forbidden by Roman law for civilians), and I think it is in the book of Luke, chapter 22 that Jesus tells his disciples to "sell their cloaks to buy swords". I believe some researchers have made good arguments that at least some of the disciples may have been Zealots. Rather than a "prince of peace", Jesus is portrayed as an avenging war god in Revelations, fighting demons and dragons stolen from Zoroastrian mythology.

But I hope you are not implying that I am "insulting Christianity" by stating that it is probably "wishful thinking" on the Vatican's part that these are early Christian martyrs. This is simply human nature to want such things, just as every RAT member probably hoped that a mass of skeletons found at Cannae were casualities from that battle, when they turned out to be Medieval skeletons instead, as I recall.

Dan
It's been written that the name Judah Iscariotes derived from Sicariotes, from Sicarius, the bearer of a sica.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8