Chief Priests and Roman Authorities

[Jehanne]

Guys, you are forgetting to comment on
#2. Why did the chief priests, elders, scribes, Pharisees cooperate with the Roman authorities?

Because the Romans were reasonably tolerant, as conquerors go, of the religious beliefs and practices of the conquered. The chief priests, et al, didn’t wasn’t Jesus upsetting the apple cart. 

Again, it’s all part of the boilerplate for this variety of myth.

Boru

The Romans were federalists; they did not give a shit about the nutty beliefs of the peoples whom they conquered.  The Romans only asked for three things:  1)  Some taxes to be paid to Rome, 2)  Free trade and commerce throughout the Empire, and 3) Help in time of war.  If a conquered people would agree to #1, #2 and #3, the Romans pretty much left them alone, and they were allowed local rule.  As #2 and #3 lent stability at the expense of #1, most conquered peoples found Roman rule to be quite tolerable, if not benign.

[The Grand Nudger]

Perhaps the best way to understand anti-roman sentiment among early christians or proto christians is to look at the anti-romanist movement of protestant christianity. They saw themselves, very much, and much later, in that story. To this day, it's the strong apprehension of evangelical christianity in the us that the catholics are the moneychangers in the temple. The pagans in their midst. A fifth column of romanized and secularized christians.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Because the Romans were reasonably tolerant, as conquerors go, of the religious beliefs and practices of the conquered. The chief priests, et al, didn’t wasn’t Jesus upsetting the apple cart. 

Again, it’s all part of the boilerplate for this variety of myth.

Boru

The Romans were federalists; they did not give a shit about the nutty beliefs of the peoples whom they conquered.  The Romans only asked for three things:  1)  Some taxes to be paid to Rome, 2)  Free trade and commerce throughout the Empire, and 3) Help in time of war.  If a conquered people would agree to #1, #2 and #3, the Romans pretty much left them alone, and they were allowed local rule.  As #2 and #3 lent stability at the expense of #1, most conquered peoples found Roman rule to be quite tolerable, if not benign.

They were also (nearly) unique in adopting the gods of conquered people into the Roman pantheon, as opposed to imposing Roman gods on the conquered. Pretty savvy public relations.

If the Judeans hadn’t got all snarky about Roman overlordship, they could have kept their stupid temple intact.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

The roman attack that lead to the destruction of that temple (for interested readers) being a reprisal for a small group of zealots (as in, the literal zealots from which the term is derived) deciding that militancy was their path to relevance and greater purchase over all judean peoples. It worked pretty well, for a time. As in, the time it took for roman soldiers to make it there. The sadduccee(sp?) begged the zealots to surrender peacefully in order to prevent further loss of life. They refused. They publicly hung them for the suggestion.

There are claims of casualties pursuant - perhaps not entirely accurate but certainly reflecting how the people felt about it - there was mass transportation into slavery. The didn't build the pyramids - but they did build colliseum. It's after all of this, so far as we can tell, that the myth presented in the new testament as we know it now begins to take form.

[Gwaithmir]

If Jesus had actually risen from the dead and appeared to a group of 500 people, wouldn't the Romans have crucified him all over again? 

[Foxaèr]

Whats funny is that a jesus of nazareth may have existed - but you're not going to find him, whoever he was, in the pages of new magic book. That's about Christ.

Well, yeah, the more human character can be found in the apocrypha.

[Ferrocyanide]

If Jesus had actually risen from the dead and appeared to a group of 500 people, wouldn't the Romans have crucified him all over again? 

He didn't rise from the dead in that sense.
He became a ghost and showed up to the 11 guys (Judas was dead) and he showed up to 2 or 3 Marys (depending on which part of the Bible you read).
I don't remember if he showed up to anybody else.

I think in the Luke version Jesus ghost is having dinner.

Luke 24:36 KING JAMES VERSION
And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. {24:37} But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. {24:38} And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? {24:39} Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. {24:40} And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. {24:41} And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? {24:42} And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. {24:43} And he took it, and did eat before them.

As for all the other humans, when you die, I think the jews believe that you remain dead until the final days of judgement.

The only exception is that when Jesus was crucified, he tells the guy on the right that on the same day, he will be sitting on his right side in heaven and the other guy can go fuck himself.

[Jehanne]

If Jesus had actually risen from the dead and appeared to a group of 500 people, wouldn't the Romans have crucified him all over again? 

500 is a suspiciously round number; did someone count them? Why not 501? Or, 492? And, why did none of these 500 individuals, some of whom had to be literate, ever produce their own accounts of this event? And, why did Paul, when he was persecuting Christians, not find this evidence convincing? Why did he remain an unbeliever when these 500 witnesses were still living and were telling people that they had all seen the "risen" Jesus?

[The Grand Nudger]

If Jesus had actually risen from the dead and appeared to a group of 500 people, wouldn't the Romans have crucified him all over again? 

Doubtful, they'd kill him some other way, and keep killing him till it took.  They were endlessly creative in that particular space.

Well, yeah, the more human character can be found in the apocrypha.

Ironic, isn't it.  In the end, they didn't want a man, didn't need a man.  A man with some ideas about reciprocity or human brotherhood was not useful to the institution forming with the religion of christ as a base of power due to it's growing populist appeal. Jesus the jew gets the boot, jesus the man gets the boot.  This all assuming there was one.

[Paleophyte]

(1) No. He was yet another messianic nutjob who made too much noise, got nabbed by the Romans, and tacked up for his troubles.

(2) They didn't. The whole story around the trial at the Sanhedrin is a lovely bit of blood libel about as likely as convening the US Senate over Christmas to try a horse thief.