You must log in or register to comment.
deleted by creator
No…they killed him because he represented a risk to the standing power structure.
They strung him up next to common criminals to lower his status, to make his whole idea seem insignificant.
No comment on weather he was supernatural.
I don’t think he did any magic tricks with the weather
I think he calmed a storm one time, but I might be thinking of Thor.
Sea of galilea, I think.
Am I praying to the wrong god to make it rain when I hit the casino?
deleted by creator
There are even Roman records to the fact.
… kiiiiiiiiinda
deleted by creator
It kinda feels like you’re pushing an anti-Semitic narrative here instead of trying to argue the history.
The Jewish people were not some minor cult. The story does go that the Jewish authorities did argue for Jesus to be executed, part of it definitely being because of his “king of the Jews” thing. Judaism as a religion and The Jewish people are not 1 and the same in context, Jesus famously was not anti-Roman and argued his teachings were of the mind.
The Romans were famous for incorporating local government structures and religions as long as you paid and served.
Yes according to the myth the Jewish Authorities ( again, integrated and part of the Roman governing of the area) pushed for him to be executed for claiming to be the king of the Jews (political) which would upset Roman rule.
Again, this is of course assuming you believe the myth that actually isn’t written about or recorded at all until a couple generations later.
There aren’t Roman records of the event until later, after the fact. From people who weren’t there, but heard about it from people who were or heard it from folks who were … etc.
deleted by creator
I get that this comes off as anti-Jewish but it’s really anti-religion.
This is the problem when your world view is guided by hating a thing. It make you biased and bigoted. Ok so you’re bigoted against all religions, but when you talk about a specific religion your logic perfectly aligns with those that are only bigoted against that particular religion.
So does being bigoted towards all religions make you a better person than someone that’s bigoted towards only a single religion? You’re both using identical rationalizations, does does applying bigoted rationalizations more broadly make you more or less of a bigot?
When didi use the word Roman?
deleted by creator
Not an answer
deleted by creator
Uncivil and wrong. I never said that shit and you tried to put words in my mouth.
There is no contemporary record of Jesus or his crucifixion.
deleted by creator
… by that logic there is no existing proof that Jesus and his boys rode dinosaurs into battle. Yet you’re out here arguing his raptor had no feathers.
Hitchens razor and whatnot but why would logic come into play with your myths?
deleted by creator
Yeah and the Romans were always 100% accurate in their historical accounts, right?
deleted by creator
Why not both.
And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change, one girl sitting on her own in a small cafe in Rickmansworth suddenly realized what it was that had been going wrong all this time, and she finally knew how the world could be made a good and happy place. This time it was right, it would work, and no one would have to get nailed to anything.
– Douglas Adams, The Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
(Immediately after she realized it, the Earth gets destroyed.)
deleted by creator
I’ve re-read it many times, along with re-listening to the radio series, the LPs, re-watching the TV series, I can even appreciate the feature film, despite it being the least of the versions. I dearly love Douglas Adams.
The only thing I haven’t done in many, many years is play the INFOCOM game. Too devious.
let’s maybe not push the propagandic idea that humans are inherently bad, humans are in fact inherently extremely friendly (to a fault) and the idea that the opposite is true is part of what’s needed to restrain our inherent need to help others.
Any time a group of humans is placed in a difficult position they start working together, there’s that famous example of a group of kids accidentally ending up basically recreating Lord of the flies except they just got along and eventually had pretty comfortable lives, because as it turns out working together makes things way easier!
Humans mostly help each other. Governments do not like challenges to their authority. Jesus was killed because of the challenge he represented to the Pharisees. Ultimately Rome killed him, but at the demand of the Pharisees and an unruly mob that had been whipped into a frenzy.
They killed him because all he did was preach the apocalypse and the end times to a bunch of poors that began upsetting the power dynamic.
They didn’t barely kill him. He was dead for like a weekend. They killed the witches properly.
Except for the Sanderson sisters. They took a couple tries.
They didn’t barely kill him. He was dead for like a weekend. They killed the witches properly.
Sounds like a skill issue. If the witches were any good at witching, they wouldnt have died either.
To be fair, Jesus was a lich. That’s a whole other power level
If there’s another story for his resurrection,I’d love to hear it.
He was mostly dead. Not all dead.
I’M NOT DEAD YET!
NO HE’S NOT DEAD YET
There’s a chocolate for that too… I think.
Aaaaah, look who knows so much
The Hebrews have many levels of dead
I mean…its not their fault male magic users are harder to kill.
The Salem trials came later. I wonder if there discussion was like Townsperson 1: “So this woman with the wart, should we just nail her to a couple pieces of wood”
Townsperson 2: “Nah man, remember the last guy we did that with. Didn’t take”
Townsperson 1: “Riiiight. So, wood, nails, and a bonfire then?”
Townsperson 2: Yeah that should do it"
It wasn’t his followers that killed him though. His followers did however torture and kill women.
Ya but I’m pretty sure the witches’ followers didn’t kill the witches either. Obviously just needed more followers. Clearly, the predominant religion is the one with the most followers willing to kill competing dark arts users. It’s basically politics.
deleted by creator
Many times it was to get property. If a landowner died and had no children his wife would inherit the land. If that woman were to die before remarrying and having children, then the lord of that area would get that land. If that woman were to be accused of being a witch, then that same Lord would preside over the trial and determine whether the woman was guilty of witchcraft. I think you can see a conflict of interest here.
Check the history of Luxembourg. It got so bad the Church had to step in. Now the church wasn’t a great defender of women’s rights, but this kind of thing got so bad even the church had to say “ok you’re taking this too far.”
But sometimes it was for petty reasons. Someone in town hates a woman for whatever then accusations of witchcraft were made. This is kinda anecdotal, but I got an ancestor that lived in Salem, Mass. and there was a witch trial simply because a woman got re-married to my ancestor too soon after her previous husband died.
Although the poster above made a goof by mentioning Jesus, the general sentiment of the whole witchcraft thing being about killing women for horrible (and sometimes petty) reasons seems right to me.
deleted by creator
Theres a film about the book about it.
Can’t wait for the anime adaptation
Oh man, let me tell you about The Flying House.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flying_House_(TV_series)
Turns out maybe my ultra-christian grandma is the reason I turned into the heathen weeb I am today!
deleted by creator
They killed him because he pissed off the State, not because magic tricks.
Jesus was killed because he angered the Pharisees (specifically the Priests) by defying their authority and teaching the new covenant. The Romans (aka “the state”) were only invested insofar as it would prevent a revolt. Pontius Pilate found no fault in Christ and offered Barrabas instead (a convicted murderer) but the Pharisees would not relent and wanted Jesus crucified. Pilate famously washed his hands of the business because even he knew it was an injustice.
Pharisees specifically weren’t the priests. They were one of the branches of judaism who didn’t think temple was necessary for proper worship (which is why they became the predominant branch after the destruction of the temple and rabbinic judaism stems from them), while temple was where priests worked and performed their rites. If you open your Bible to any of the four gospels, you will find that they say it was the priests who brought Jesus to Pilate.
Also, you shouldn’t take gospels at their word for what they say about Pilate as they insert their theological concerns into Pilate’s judgement. If you read Josephus, he clearly states Pilate condemns Jesus for claiming to be a king, ie. for political uprising, and even Mark, the earliest of gospels, doesn’t state that Pilate didn’t think Jesus guilty, unlike the other three.
I specifically clarified that Jesus angered the Pharisee priest class. I’m aware that they were a jewish sect.
The Priests were “money changing” in the temple which is why Jesus flipped over the table and cast them out. The temple was a key part of their religious practices and the laity used the temple.
While not an expert I am aware of Josephus and his account of Jesus’s trial. The only account I’ve ever read concerning the trial of Jesus is extremely brief and favorable to the description provided by the gospels. The fact that Pilate “condemns” him makes sense because only Pilate has that authority. Even if someone had a wildly different interpretation this would still be a single attestation by a Roman Jew.
It’s worth mentioning that Rabbinical Judaism did not form completely until the 5th or 6th century.
There is no such thing as the Pharisee priest class. There are the Pharisees, and there are the priests. Two seperate groups that disagreed in their teachings quite a bit.
I’m referring to pharisee priests/rabbis (e.g. whatever you want to call the religious leaders). The differing groups you’re referring to are the pharisees and the sadducees and perhaps even the samaritans.
Edit: Reread your comment and it makes sense. It was the Pharisees sans priests.
