Gaius Octavius Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 There is an awful lot here. (Jesus' parents disowned Him.) Where did you get this from? Who's Who In The Roman World. Not in my copy of: "Who Was Who in the Roman World"; Diana Bowder (Editor); WSP, 1980; under the heading"Jesus". To me, it seems that too many of the 'conclusions' on this thread have been drawn from unproven premises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Neil Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 Not in my copy of: "Who Was Who in the Roman World"; Diana Bowder (Editor); WSP, 1980; under the heading"Jesus".To me, it seems that too many of the 'conclusions' on this thread have been drawn from unproven premises. hmm... Just thumbing through my own copy of 'Who's Who', it does actually say: '...he was rejected by his family (who had high expectations of him) and the townspeople of Nazareth...' ...but then, in one of my books somewhere, Nazareth itself is called into question. It is said that it simply wasn't there until the third century, and that 'Jesus of Nazareth' was actually 'Jesus the Nazorean'. Wikipaedia states: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 N.N. & C., are we using the same book and under the entry "Jesus"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Neil Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 N.N. & C., are we using the same book and under the entry "Jesus"? Possibly not - mine is 'Who's Who in the Roman World' John Hazel, Routledge, 2001. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rameses the Great Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 Yes, but that only applies if one follows the 'official' line on Jesus. And the official line comes from Romans cherry picking and altering the scriptures to suit themselves. How could Constantine possibly expect his subjects to accept Christianity, if the Bible stated that Jesus was a focus of rebellion against them, and that a Roman Governor had him mercilessly tortured and killed? Furthermore, the Jews were once again becoming rebellious at the this time. So, blame them for forcing Pilate's hand, and being responsible for killing Jesus. Even as a child at primary school, I used to think: 'why didn't Pilate, who seems not to have wanted to kill Jesus, just tell the jews to get lost, or he'd send in the troops?' The whole story just doesn't bear up. I agree Pilate was forced to decree the crucifiction of Jesus, but this is not the matter here. The Romans set unfair laws yet Jesus always followed them and never argued with it. The Romans were cruel to most of the Jews, just barely tolerating them and Jesus no different. All the scriptures are writted by Jewish people. Much of the scriptures was handled by the councils in Anatolia, more notably the theologians in Alexandria. I don't think there was much tinkering with it seeing how the Romans had little control over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 Instead of going around in circles, this all can be settled once and for all at: http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showto...amp;#entry54620 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladius Hispaniensis Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 The mystery just snowballs!No mystery there. The existence of Nazareth during Jesus's time has been doubted for a long time. As you mentioned earlier no contemporary documents list it. It is unlikely to have existed before the 3rd C.E. Jesus of Nazareth is considered by many to mean a mistranslation of Yeshu ha- Notzrim, or Jesus the Nazorite, presumably the same Nazorite sect that Samson was supposed to be a member of Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 Its been established that there was more than one Nazareth in roman times, and the site popularly assumed to be his origin isn't, at least according to the israeli archaeologist who studied these things. The problem with jesus is that christians want to believe the bible word for word. Thats understandable - its their holy text and belief is the whole point. For me, its the surviving version of a story thats gone through many edits and rewrites. heck, to all intents and purposes there's even been wars fought over which version to read. I think the bible has been a wild goose chase for many archaeologists who try gamely to find evidence that the bible is spot on correct. I don't think its a lost cause as such because the quest could turn up useful information, but the people involved aren't usually objective enough, and when something crops up that doesn't fit their fond belief that the bible can be proven it gets put to one side. Thats wrong. Believe me, if I came across hard provable information that the New Testament is correct I'll stand there and eat my words quite happily. But I cannot accept that a story which was put together from reminisences and romantic/religious fantasy to suit the needs of greedy bishops is any any way a source we can rely on 100%. The bible presents Jesus as a saintly figure who... yes well you already know the story. Thats my point. Its been drummed into us since we started school and its difficult to think of it any other way (especially if you genuinely believe in him I imagine). Nonetheless if you accept that the bible is religious propaganda besides being a moral guide, then you have to look at jesus from another perspective. I try to see him as a real person. There are elements of his story that do fit the jigsaw IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Neil Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 (edited) Yes, but that only applies if one follows the 'official' line on Jesus. And the official line comes from Romans cherry picking and altering the scriptures to suit themselves. How could Constantine possibly expect his subjects to accept Christianity, if the Bible stated that Jesus was a focus of rebellion against them, and that a Roman Governor had him mercilessly tortured and killed? Furthermore, the Jews were once again becoming rebellious at the this time. So, blame them for forcing Pilate's hand, and being responsible for killing Jesus. Even as a child at primary school, I used to think: 'why didn't Pilate, who seems not to have wanted to kill Jesus, just tell the jews to get lost, or he'd send in the troops?' The whole story just doesn't bear up. I agree Pilate was forced to decree the crucifiction of Jesus, but this is not the matter here. No, the point is being missed here. Please re-read carefully my comment, my dear Rameses. I am saying it is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY that Pilate was forced to kill Jesus. This is a later Roman postscript in order to cast the governor in a good light to Roman converts. In reality, Pilate wouldn't have batted an eyelid at executing a troublesome Jewish agitator. And yes, it is part of the matter here. Looking at Colin Mc evedy's 'Penguin Atlas of Mediaeval History' as I write, there is a distribution map of religion in AD 525. Christianity conforms to EXACTLY the area covered by both east and west Roman empires in the preceeding century. Even though the west was gone, the geographical 'shape' of the Empire was still delineated by the areas of Christian populations. Therefore, Christianity was a 'Roman thing'. My comment about Pilate, and the improbable story about his hesitancy over executing Christ, is just one tiny example I have plucked from an immense array of instances in which the Bible was edited to be more palatable to Romans. That this religion was eventually taken up by the Romans explains its meteoric rise after 325. It wouldn't have happened if the scriptures had been kept in their original form. Edited January 31, 2007 by Northern Neil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 (edited) And yes, it is part of the matter here. Looking at Colin Mc evedy's 'Penguin Atlas of Mediaeval History' as I write, there is a distribution map of religion in AD 525. Christianity conforms to EXACTLY the area covered by both east and west Roman empires in the preceeding century. Even though the west was gone, the geographical 'shape' of the Empire was still delineated by the areas of Christian populations. Therefore, Christianity was a 'Roman thing'. Missed Goa in India. (St. Thomas) Edited January 31, 2007 by Gaius Octavius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Neil Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 Missed Goa in India. (St. Thomas) Yes - the atlas only goes as far as Persia. There were also enclaves in Persia and Arabia, but the Atlas I think is trying to show the dominant religions in the area. By the way, have you got this atlas and its companion, the Penguin Atlas of Ancient History? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 By the way, have you got this atlas and its companion, the Penguin Atlas of Ancient History? Yup, both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.