Why did pagans not take any notice of Jesus?

[bennyboy]

Mentioning someone means they wanted that figure to be known.  It doesn't mean it was a real figure.

It's possible that early Christians were Jews who sat around and said, "How can we personify our religion in a way that makes it accessible to Romans?"

The early Christians were Jews, as was Jesus.  Your thesis that Jews were interested in converting non-Jews to Judaism is, I believe, supported by no one.  Judaism has not been a proselytizing religion.

Yeah, I'm just speculatin'.  Maybe Jesus was intended as a revolutionary martyr figure, rooted in Jewish legend: he was specifically claimed to be the embodiment of Biblical prophecy, such that the Jews might take heart against their Roman oppressors?

I can see why downtrodden Jews would want such a character to be brought into existence.  You can see that effect today, with various groups claiming (and in some cases even believing) that the second coming is nigh.

[Yonadav]

From a Jewish legal perspective, it seems pretty unlikely that Jesus was Jewish. It really doesn't make sense that Herod would have turned him over to the Romans otherwise. For a Jewish king to hand over a Jewish guy to be punished by gentiles makes absolutely no sense. It simply wouldn't happen. Especially when the gentile authorities send the Jewish guy to the Jewish king, thinking that the guy is a Jew. The only way that Herod sending the guy back to the Romans makes any sense is if Herod determined that the guy was not Jewish.

[The Grand Nudger]

Mentioning someone means they wanted that figure to be known.  It doesn't mean it was a real figure.

It's possible that early Christians were Jews who sat around and said, "How can we personify our religion in a way that makes it accessible to Romans?"

The early Christians were Jews, as was Jesus. 

Unlikely, on both counts. The earliest groups of identifiable christians were gentiles, as was their mythical savior. Romanization was a thing, though it probably didn't begin consciously.

[Yonadav]

Mentioning someone means they wanted that figure to be known.  It doesn't mean it was a real figure.

It's possible that early Christians were Jews who sat around and said, "How can we personify our religion in a way that makes it accessible to Romans?"

The early Christians were Jews, as was Jesus.  Your thesis that Jews were interested in converting non-Jews to Judaism is, I believe, supported by no one.  Judaism has not been a proselytizing religion.

No, what you are saying doesn't make sense. There have always been non-Jews who worshiped the Israelite deity. Non-Jews who worship the Israelite deity are called Noachides. Jews are a little bit interested in converting people to the Noachide faith. We don't go around trying to convince people to convert, but when someone is interested in Judaism, we will frequently suggest the Noachide faith to them. 

We have always done that. It's biblical. A non-Jew's offering is to be accepted is biblical. Israel as a nation of priests is biblical. The non-Jewish man grabbing the corner of a Jewish man's garment and asking to learn about G-d is biblical. Judaism for non-Jews is as old as Judaism.

[Brian37]

From a Jewish legal perspective, it seems pretty unlikely that Jesus was Jewish. It really doesn't make sense that Herod would have turned him over to the Romans otherwise. For a Jewish king to hand over a Jewish guy to be punished by gentiles makes absolutely no sense. It simply wouldn't happen. Especially when the gentile authorities send the Jewish guy to the Jewish king, thinking that the guy is a Jew. The only way that Herod sending the guy back to the Romans makes any sense is if Herod determined that the guy was not Jewish.

Luke Skywalker was never a Jedi either. 

Hate to burst your bubble, but even the Jewish religion stems from prior polytheism. 

Yahweh, prior to being the head God of the Hebrews, was a lesser deity in the divine family of the head God El in Canaanite polytheism. 

Regardless if any Christian or Jew wants to argue the character's existence, humans do not have magic super powers to have a cosmic bat phone to a sky wizard. Nor do old books of mythology have any insight to the nature of reality. 

I don't hate human rights in saying any of the above. All I am saying is that human's may do better considering those claims were made in antiquity when humans didn't have benefit of modern knowledge. That was then, and it was understandable humans wrote those things and sold those claims when they didn't know any better, but we have a far better understanding of the nature of reality now.

[The Grand Nudger]

All well and good, but nothing in there about why christianity wasn't ""noticed" earlier.  That question carries some assumption that a kernel of the christian narrative is true.  If there were miracles falling out of every hat and the whole ane was abuzz with jesus and his wonderful travelling disciples..yeah, someone might have noticed.  

In fact people did notice, centuries later when some version of any of the above was true.  In the time frame the christians allege, in their own self serving and heavily retconned history, there was nothing like that to notice.  By the time there actually were "travelling disciples" spreading the newly formed christian faith by recounting stories about miracles, pagans immediately discarded them as derivative superstition.  Even the christians knew their shit was manufactured.   Iraneus, Tertullian, and Justin Martyr all opined on diobolic mimicry.

The notion that demons, knowing what was to come (this is rich, because they butchered the OT "prophecy" themselves) established a plethora of religions to mimic and thus discredit the future christ. In reality, rather than the "historical documents" of the NT and whatever it's curators chose to preserve, it appears that the worlds first reaction to christianity was the appropriate one. Bunch of superstitious nutballs out in the sticks, doing silly shit. Now pay your taxes.

[Brian37]

All well and good, but nothing in there about why christianity wasn't ""noticed" earlier.  That question carries some assumption that a kernel of the christian narrative is true.  If there were miracles falling out of every hat and the whole ane was abuzz with jesus and his wonderful travelling disciples..yeah, someone might have noticed.  

In fact people did notice, centuries later when some version of any of the above was true.  In the time frame the christians allege, in their own self serving and heavily retconned history, there was nothing like that to notice.  By the time there actually were "travelling disciples" spreading the newly formed christian faith by recounting stories about miracles, pagans immediately discarded them as derivative superstition.  Even the christians knew their shit was manufactured.   Iraneus, Tertullian, and Justin Martyr all opined on diobolic mimicry.

The notion that demons, knowing what was to come (this is rich, because they butchered the OT "prophecy" themselves) established a plethora of religions to mimic and thus discredit the future christ.

This is the point right here.

A legend, myth got started that caused the later movement. The stories/characters were made after the fact and retrofit to sell the narrative.

All religions get manufactured working backwards drawing off prior stories, tweaking or changing details in order to compete and grow. Just like Coke and Pepsi compete, but neither were the first human beverage.

[Yonadav]

All well and good, but nothing in there about why christianity wasn't ""noticed" earlier.  That question carries some assumption that a kernel of the christian narrative is true.  If there were miracles falling out of every hat and the whole ane was abuzz with jesus and his wonderful travelling disciples..yeah, someone might have noticed.  

In fact people did notice, centuries later when some version of any of the above was true.  In the time frame the christians allege, in their own self serving and heavily retconned history, there was nothing like that to notice.  By the time there actually were "travelling disciples" spreading the newly formed christian faith by recounting stories about miracles, pagans immediately discarded them as derivative superstition.  Even the christians knew their shit was manufactured.   Iraneus, Tertullian, and Justin Martyr all opined on diobolic mimicry.

The notion that demons, knowing what was to come (this is rich, because they butchered the OT "prophecy" themselves) established a plethora of religions to mimic and thus discredit the future christ.  In reality, rather than the "historical documents" of the NT and whatever it's curators chose to preserve, it appears that the worlds first reaction to christianity was the appropriate one.  Bunch of superstitious nutballs out in the sticks, doing silly shit.  Now pay your taxes.

I'm not a big believer in the historicity of Jesus. What I have said about it is that the account of his interaction with Jewish authorities doesn't make sense. It looks an awful lot like something that non-Jews might imagine would happen when some contentious Jew is brought before Jewish authorities, but isn't at all like what would actually happen. So from a Jewish perspective, the story looks pretty made up.

But arguments like yours aren't very compelling. It sounds like the reasoning of someone from the 20th century who thinks that someone like Jesus would have been in all of the newspapers and on TV.  The chances of anyone becoming widely known during their lifetime back then was incredibly small. Thousands of people could see you perform some miracles, and stories of your miracles wouldn't spread far beyond the people who had actually seen it.  Stories of your miracles would be competing with a bunch of other stories about other people that we have never heard of. A few might write about it, but the chances of those few writings surviving to our times would be small.

[Jehanne]

The early Christians were Jews, as was Jesus.  Your thesis that Jews were interested in converting non-Jews to Judaism is, I believe, supported by no one.  Judaism has not been a proselytizing religion.

No, what you are saying doesn't make sense. There have always been non-Jews who worshiped the Israelite deity. Non-Jews who worship the Israelite deity are called Noachides. Jews are a little bit interested in converting people to the Noachide faith. We don't go around trying to convince people to convert, but when someone is interested in Judaism, we will frequently suggest the Noachide faith to them. 

We have always done that. It's biblical. A non-Jew's offering is to be accepted is biblical. Israel as a nation of priests is biblical. The non-Jewish man grabbing the corner of a Jewish man's garment and asking to learn about G-d is biblical. Judaism for non-Jews is as old as Judaism.

The Romans practiced a certain amount of religious tolerance, but prior to Christianity, there was little to no missionary activity on the part of Jews to convert the mostly pagan Romans to Judaism.

---

All well and good, but nothing in there about why christianity wasn't ""noticed" earlier.  That question carries some assumption that a kernel of the christian narrative is true.  If there were miracles falling out of every hat and the whole ane was abuzz with jesus and his wonderful travelling disciples..yeah, someone might have noticed.  

In fact people did notice, centuries later when some version of any of the above was true.  In the time frame the christians allege, in their own self serving and heavily retconned history, there was nothing like that to notice.  By the time there actually were "travelling disciples" spreading the newly formed christian faith by recounting stories about miracles, pagans immediately discarded them as derivative superstition.  Even the christians knew their shit was manufactured.   Iraneus, Tertullian, and Justin Martyr all opined on diobolic mimicry.

The notion that demons, knowing what was to come (this is rich, because they butchered the OT "prophecy" themselves) established a plethora of religions to mimic and thus discredit the future christ.  In reality, rather than the "historical documents" of the NT and whatever it's curators chose to preserve, it appears that the worlds first reaction to christianity was the appropriate one.  Bunch of superstitious nutballs out in the sticks, doing silly shit.  Now pay your taxes.

I'm not a big believer in the historicity of Jesus. What I have said about it is that the account of his interaction with Jewish authorities doesn't make sense. It looks an awful lot like something that non-Jews might imagine would happen when some contentious Jew is brought before Jewish authorities, but isn't at all like what would actually happen. So from a Jewish perspective, the story looks pretty made up.

But arguments like yours aren't very compelling. It sounds like the reasoning of someone from the 20th century who thinks that someone like Jesus would have been in all of the newspapers and on TV.  The chances of anyone becoming widely known during their lifetime back then was incredibly small. Thousands of people could see you perform some miracles, and stories of your miracles wouldn't spread far beyond the people who had actually seen it.  Stories of your miracles would be competing with a bunch of other stories about other people that we have never heard of. A few might write about it, but the chances of those few writings surviving to our times would be small.

Jways was not the only miracle-worker of his day.

[Brian37]

All well and good, but nothing in there about why christianity wasn't ""noticed" earlier.  That question carries some assumption that a kernel of the christian narrative is true.  If there were miracles falling out of every hat and the whole ane was abuzz with jesus and his wonderful travelling disciples..yeah, someone might have noticed.  

In fact people did notice, centuries later when some version of any of the above was true.  In the time frame the christians allege, in their own self serving and heavily retconned history, there was nothing like that to notice.  By the time there actually were "travelling disciples" spreading the newly formed christian faith by recounting stories about miracles, pagans immediately discarded them as derivative superstition.  Even the christians knew their shit was manufactured.   Iraneus, Tertullian, and Justin Martyr all opined on diobolic mimicry.

The notion that demons, knowing what was to come (this is rich, because they butchered the OT "prophecy" themselves) established a plethora of religions to mimic and thus discredit the future christ.  In reality, rather than the "historical documents" of the NT and whatever it's curators chose to preserve, it appears that the worlds first reaction to christianity was the appropriate one.  Bunch of superstitious nutballs out in the sticks, doing silly shit.  Now pay your taxes.

I'm not a big believer in the historicity of Jesus. What I have said about it is that the account of his interaction with Jewish authorities doesn't make sense. It looks an awful lot like something that non-Jews might imagine would happen when some contentious Jew is brought before Jewish authorities, but isn't at all like what would actually happen. So from a Jewish perspective, the story looks pretty made up.

But arguments like yours aren't very compelling. It sounds like the reasoning of someone from the 20th century who thinks that someone like Jesus would have been in all of the newspapers and on TV.  The chances of anyone becoming widely known during their lifetime back then was incredibly small. Thousands of people could see you perform some miracles, and stories of your miracles wouldn't spread far beyond the people who had actually seen it.  Stories of your miracles would be competing with a bunch of other stories about other people that we have never heard of. A few might write about it, but the chances of those few writings surviving to our times would be small.

Religion existed long before the written tradition. Our species has been around an estimated 2 to 300,000 years. Our planet is 4 billion years old. Our universe is 13.8 bilion years old. Our planet has had 5 mass extinction events. I could care less if one is Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian or Muslim.

None of the mythology of antiquity, just like the ancient Egyptians, or ancient Romans or Greeks, explains anything remotely close to what humans know today.

Religions are human inventions regardless of trying to pepper the mythology with real places or real people. 

Humans buy and sell religion because it is mostly sold to youth by accident of birth/geography and humans simply mostly adapt their local beliefs long before they can formulate adult critical thinking skills. 

If you can accept that Apollo isn't real because that mythology mentions Rome, and you can accept Thor does not make lightening just because we can observe lightening, then it should not be that hard to accept that religions are human inventions and deities/god/s and ancestor worship are just that, human constructs.

A history of making a claim, only means it has a history, it does not make the claim true by default.