You must log in or register to comment.
They killed him cause he told them to love each other. That’ll get you killed just about anywhere. Humans love to hate.
That said the air of ‘I’m special’ didn’t help.
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?
Romans didn’t kill him his own religion did, with special emphasis that he wasn’t their messiah.
Rome specifically washed their hands of the whole incident since he didn’t break any standing laws. They imprisoned him for the reason you called out and specifically didn’t touch him for the same.
The two reasons I called out were why he was killed. There are even Roman records to the fact.
There are even Roman records to the fact.
… kiiiiiiiiinda
Best response.
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.
Christianity was a minor Jewish cult at the time, and only really expanded due to Greek Egyptians latching onto it prior to Constantine.
The Jews in were major figures in the Roman Provence which is why they were able to kill someone who was troubling them.
I get that this comes off as anti-Jewish but it’s really anti-religion. An ingroup killed an outgroup cause it was politically convenient; religion is just one more ingrouping.
As to the lack of contemporary sources you can thank both Constantine and Theodosius. This is why I upvoted your first comment.
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?
Who killed him, Jews recorded by Romans. Roman records are why we know a minor Jewish sect existed.
Not an answer
Either you are too stupid to understand or being facetious; either way the point is made.
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.
See response to other commenter.
Existing … see previous response.
… 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?
Yeah and the Romans were always 100% accurate in their historical accounts, right?
Non personal accounts probably. Roman editorialism was mostly personal, for everything else blame Theodosius the Arsonist.
air of ‘i’m special’
risk to the standing power structure
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?
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.
Yeah that’s fair.
Why not both.
deleted by creator
Absolutely not. He was claiming to be the King of the Jews. He was literally claiming political power. He wasn’t just saying “hey I’m a super cool religious figure.”
The argument actually is that he was making a religious argument, his kingdom was of the mind.
There is an effort to make that point: “give to the Roman’s that which is theirs”
A lot of the argument was about the tacit acceptance that the theology of the day dictated how you ought to live and it had been twisted.
The power structure that he was upsetting was that of the ruling Jewish political body because it called their theology into question.
The Roman’s were 100% in charge and didn’t give a fuck he could be the king of the space dolphins as long as they paid their taxes too.
i have amended my statement i guess the way i phrased it made a lot of people upset so i apologize, that was definitely not my intent and still not sure why that happened.
would love to hear your thoughts on my edited statement if you have them :)
It just says “deleted” for me. No worries dude, it’s just an internet argument :P
deleted by creator
There’s a sort of old Twitter esque, “Everything must be challenged and I’ve been having this argument with other people for 4 days straight” energy here, yeah.
As someone who didn’t use Twitter, I would always get in these weird arguments with my friends that were crazily out of proportion. Then when they would cool down later I would predictably learn they were coming fresh off a Twitter debate where everything everyone says is in bad faith.
It’s kinda fun getting that experience now tho, I feel like I missed out a bit!
need to have a new rule that you don’t get to comment unless you’d be willing to give the other person a hug or at least a firm handshake
hate being shouted down literally because the other person gets a rush of dopamine
No, you just said something that made no sense and got called on it. That’s not toxic, it’s just clear speech.
deleted by creator
No one is trapping you here.
You refuted what others said, and we aren’t obliged to just accept you twisting words and misrepresenting other’s statements. Sorry that comes off as toxic to YOU when others found your comment bad in the first place.
People deserve to maintain the character and context of their comments, and you don’t deserve to high horse once you wade in. You chose to mince words, and people disagreed with you. Thats not toxic, that’s adults disagreeing.
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.)
I just re-read it as a (middle age :S) adult – and while it’s hardly an underrated book, it’s fucking amazing and not sufficiently appreciated beyond being a fantastically fun book for a teenage brain to read. Whoever hasn’t read it since they were in high school or hasn’t read it, really should pick it up.
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
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"
I mean…its not their fault male magic users are harder to kill.
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.
It depends on which witches you are talking about; 800AD+ its probably persecution, prior to that it’s probably Rome clearing out Human Sacrifice cults. It’s one of the major reasons Rome was so hard on ancient Briton and why Christianity had such an easy time converting Scandinavia.
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.
See the qualification. 800 AD is my personal cutoff for genuine action rather than persecution, but that’s mostly familiarity with English and French history. Other regions likely experienced more. Though given that Luxembourg was contested territory for much of the time in question It’s probably safe to apply either French or German history.
this is where i wish lemmy had r/askhistorians because i remember for a fact there’s some mandela effect here and culturally we are misremembering something key but as a non-historian i’d look like an idot trying to call it out
edit: ok i figured it out and my point is moot. i am remembering that the Salem witch trials in America did not involve burnings, but hangings. however the witch trials in Europe very much did involve burning.
sorry for the semi-useless comment haha
No worries I too miss AskHistorians. Reddit could have been more.
literally the modern burning of the library of alexandria is going on and no one* is talking about it
*ok probably not no one im just being overdramatic
Probably, but we don’t mind. Most of us are refugees watching the burning, and mourning what could have been.
there’s just so much value to historians being accessible to the public. there’s a reason universities pay them tenure despite not bringing immediate material benefit to the local community or economy, and reddit seemingly magically allowed for a forum that was even more open and accessible than a university.
and now that’s being fucked over by IPOs and LLMs.
Yes, the penalty for being a witch was hanging. Unfortunately the test to prove you were a witch sometimes involved tying you up and throwing you into a lake to see if you float or sink, and if you float then they would hang you. Of course the situation resolved itself if you didn’t float. No one ever floated.
Or putting you under a stone.
Giles Corey, one of the more famous Salem victims. His wife was tried for witchcraft, and while he stood against her, he got wrapped up in it, too. They placed large stones over his body, telling him if he confessed he would be given a clean death.
His last words are reported to be “More weight”.
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.
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!
Best selling mythology ever.
Even a former president wants in on that best seller money.
Every con man has for the last 10 centuries.
They killed him on a fancier stake, too!
