These two ideas are arguably very similar. Claiming religious or political standing is both claiming an air of uniqueness and a threat to the status quo, and to my understanding this guy was doing both. ☺️
The argument made is that the Romans saw no threat. The Romans didn’t give a fuck about the religious part. As far as they were concerned he was no threat.
That’s how the story goes at least, a story rewritten over and over by Romans so why would they make themselves look bad?
There is a lot of anti-Semitic history in the retelling of this myth so sometimes it’s hard to understand where people are coming from.
Judaism was not compatible with the polytheistic religions of the time, it specifically had a militaristic bend to it which is part of why they were persecuted and chased off time and again and also fought hard for their land. It was a seed change in ideas, suddenly your god was a problem because this god said no others.
That inherently isn’t bad, human nature and whatnot.
The Roman’s didn’t give a fuck beyond enforcing the local peace and getting their due. Their whole system relied on being pragmatic and open to the local religions.
Who decided that this mythological person needed to be executed is here-say, whether it even happened is here-say.
What is easy to pick out is the push for the narrative to be at the hands of the evil bad guys which is where things get kinda gross.
With no records of the event why are we saying one side did it over the other.
These two ideas are arguably very similar. Claiming religious or political standing is both claiming an air of uniqueness and a threat to the status quo, and to my understanding this guy was doing both. ☺️
Yeah that’s fair.
The argument made is that the Romans saw no threat. The Romans didn’t give a fuck about the religious part. As far as they were concerned he was no threat.
That’s how the story goes at least, a story rewritten over and over by Romans so why would they make themselves look bad?
I agree! :)
I think you’re misunderstanding a bit what I mean.
The Roman people have every reason to change the narrative to make it the others who killed him.
No I think I totally agree and understand exactly what you mean. 🙃🙃
I promise my comment is only saying what it said, face value. No subtext lol :)
There is a lot of anti-Semitic history in the retelling of this myth so sometimes it’s hard to understand where people are coming from.
Judaism was not compatible with the polytheistic religions of the time, it specifically had a militaristic bend to it which is part of why they were persecuted and chased off time and again and also fought hard for their land. It was a seed change in ideas, suddenly your god was a problem because this god said no others.
That inherently isn’t bad, human nature and whatnot.
The Roman’s didn’t give a fuck beyond enforcing the local peace and getting their due. Their whole system relied on being pragmatic and open to the local religions.
Who decided that this mythological person needed to be executed is here-say, whether it even happened is here-say.
What is easy to pick out is the push for the narrative to be at the hands of the evil bad guys which is where things get kinda gross.
With no records of the event why are we saying one side did it over the other.
understood! yeah sorry if i gave any impression of the opposing position. that’s not at all the case.