Thomas Eshuis wrote:
James, you can tell quite a nice story. Would be more interesting if you could provide some evidence for this.

I don't have the evidence you desire. Though what I've said about Pilate listening to the Jewish authorities is a perfectly rational position to hold in light of evidence we do have about the Romans. After conquest, the Romans geared everything around sustaining societal stability for economic reasons (fact). Consequently, it was better to stop unrest before it happened. However, as should be obvious, you can only do this if you are informed. Also obvious, is that you cannot be informed if you don't listen to people. Therefore, Pilate would have had regular contact with the Jewish authorities. And if they wanted to see him because of their own fears, you can bet your house that he'd have had them ushered in immediately.

Why would anyone need photographic evidence of this? It's a no-brainer, surely?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

jamest wrote:

MS2 wrote:

jamest wrote:Furthermore, it is possibly/probably the case that those gospels were written by the very instigators of Xianity, so why would they have all radically changed their story in the course of a few decades? That makes no sense.

The gospels were not written by the instigators of Christianity. Try reading the first few sentences of Luke for example.

The point is debatable. I don't have time to search for evidence right now, but there's plenty which counters your opinion.

Put your money were your mouth is James.
It's the current academic concensus that the gospels were written decades after Jesus supposedly died.

Yes, I'm not doubting that. Though the disciples still had several decades of life in them after Jesus left the scene.

As Widercora has said, this is not exactly a giant "myth" and I feel this is Moss (an academic and a theologian sure but also an author interested in self serving herself to the profits from her book) creating something out of nothing. If Moss created a book along the lines of "Christians were persecuted but not to the degree that later Christian writers attributed" the book would not be as invigorating of a read. Conflict sells.

Christians were indeed persecuted as we have Tacitus and Suetonius to thank for this information. Nero according to Tacitus even blamed the developing Christian sect for the fire that afflicted Rome, even though Suetonius places direct blame on Nero. While relatively few Christians were actually executed that we know of (for example although Irenaeus' death is historically unknown, he is traditionally listed as a martyr in the Church) , imprisonment and public humiliation were indeed quite common in the 3 centuries following the death of Christ. This concept of persecution is what classified martyrdom in Christian theology and came to shape much of early Christian doctrine.

I would have to read Moss' book to actually provide a further commentary, but from I can gather, she is not really (dis)proving any "myth of martyrdom" unless it is against some Christian fundamentalist who does not know squat about Church history.

I wouldn't blame Moss, I'd blame her publisher or editor. From an interview:

So you're saying that there's a widespread belief that we don't say Christians were always persecuted in history, then it's harder for some contemporary Christians to say that they're still persecuted?

Yes. But intriguingly, the historical evidence for systematic persecution of Christians by Jews and Romans is actually very slim. There were only a few years before the rise of the emperor Constantine that Christians were sought out by the authorities just for being Christians. The stories about early Christian martyrs have been edited, expanded, and sometimes even invented, giving the impression that Christians were under constant attack. This mistaken impression is important because it fosters a sense of Christian victimhood and that victim mentality continues to rear its head in modern politics and society. It's difficult to imagine that people could make the same claims about persecution today were it not for the idea that Christians have always been persecuted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danielle- ... 43722.html

It doesn't seem like she's out to sensationalise it.

An aside: does anyone else dislike the term 'Person of Faith?' Sounds like an awfully roundabout way of saying 'Christian'.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
It isn't. If Christianity was considered to be just another Jewish cult, your persecution fable is sketchy at best.

Forgive me if I am missing the contextual details, but why if Christianity was considered to be just another Jewish cult would Christian persecution be sketchy at best?

We know Tiberius did not allow Jewish practice in Rome and we know Claudius expelled all Jews from the city. Granted the latter of these cases were not because Rome hated Jews or Christians, but rather because Claudius disliked proselytizing of any religion which the Christian means of evangelism probably caused trouble for them in that regards. But we know the conflict between Jewish leadership and Rome comes to a point with the Fall of Jerusalem under the reign of Titus. So Jews were also not looked favorably upon by many local provinces in Rome and if they were considered Jewish, it adds more to the less favorable opinion of them.

Wiðercora wrote:I wouldn't blame Moss, I'd blame her publisher or editor. From an interview:

So you're saying that there's a widespread belief that we don't say Christians were always persecuted in history, then it's harder for some contemporary Christians to say that they're still persecuted?

Yes. But intriguingly, the historical evidence for systematic persecution of Christians by Jews and Romans is actually very slim. There were only a few years before the rise of the emperor Constantine that Christians were sought out by the authorities just for being Christians. The stories about early Christian martyrs have been edited, expanded, and sometimes even invented, giving the impression that Christians were under constant attack. This mistaken impression is important because it fosters a sense of Christian victimhood and that victim mentality continues to rear its head in modern politics and society. It's difficult to imagine that people could make the same claims about persecution today were it not for the idea that Christians have always been persecuted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danielle- ... 43722.html

It doesn't seem like she's out to sensationalise it.

An aside: does anyone else dislike the term 'Person of Faith?' Sounds like an awfully roundabout way of saying 'Christian'.

Ahh, mmkay. Still I dislike the use of the title. But then again I dislike the use of many of Ehrman's titles as well.

Also person of faith to me sounds pretentious and I could never get used to its usage.

jamest wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
James, you can tell quite a nice story. Would be more interesting if you could provide some evidence for this.

I don't have the evidence you desire. Though what I've said about Pilate listening to the Jewish authorities is a perfectly rational position to hold in light of evidence we do have about the Romans.

Except of course that it isn't especially not in light of what we know of Christianity during the first 2 centuries A.D. As well as the Roman tradition of religious freedom.

jamest wrote:After conquest, the Romans geared everything around sustaining societal stability for economic reasons (fact).

One of the ways they did that, was allowing the locals to keep practicing their own religion.

jamest wrote:Consequently, it was better to stop unrest before it happened. However, as should be obvious, you can only do this if you are informed. Also obvious, is that you cannot be informed if you don't listen to people. Therefore, Pilate would have had regular contact with the Jewish authorities. And if they wanted to see him because of their own fears, you can bet your house that he'd have had them ushered in immediately.

Again, nice story. But once again it lacks all evidence for the assertions made therein.
No evidence that Pilate was governor during the birth of Christianity.
More improtantly, no evidence whatsoever that the Jewish patriarchy was lobbying with the Romans to persecute the early Christians.

jamest wrote:Why would anyone need photographic evidence of this? It's a no-brainer, surely?

Nice straw-man.
You haven't presemted any evidence for your assertions, never mind photogrpahical.

willhud9 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
It isn't. If Christianity was considered to be just another Jewish cult, your persecution fable is sketchy at best.

Forgive me if I am missing the contextual details, but why if Christianity was considered to be just another Jewish cult would Christian persecution be sketchy at best?

I was talkinf about jamest's claim that Christians were persecuted, routinely, from the start, at the behest of the Jewish patriarchy.
I do not dipsute that Christians were occasionally persecuted, especially after the 1st century. I was merely disputing Jamest version of history.

willhud9 wrote:We know Tiberius did not allow Jewish practice in Rome and we know Claudius expelled all Jews from the city. Granted the latter of these cases were not because Rome hated Jews or Christians, but rather because Claudius disliked proselytizing of any religion which the Christian means of evangelism probably caused trouble for them in that regards. But we know the conflict between Jewish leadership and Rome comes to a point with the Fall of Jerusalem under the reign of Titus. So Jews were also not looked favorably upon by many local provinces in Rome and if they were considered Jewish, it adds more to the less favorable opinion of them.

Certainly the relations between Rome and Judea were fat from amicable.
That doesn't mean that either Jews or Christians were routinely persecuted.
Jamest's claim that Christians were vigoursly persecuted from the start, because of it's exclusive claims and nature, is nonsensical in light of the above facts.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jamest's claim that Christians were vigoursly persecuted from the start, because of it's exclusive claims and nature, is nonsensical in light of the above facts.

My claim is that Xians (who, as explained by others, would have still been considered as Jews initially) would have been mercilessly persecuted at the very start, because their 'new testament' would have seemed to the Jews to undermine Judaism and the Jewish authorities.
Later, when considered a new religion, that threat would have diminished somewhat. Why? Well, Jesus was out of the way now, for starters. The authorities probably thought that that was the end of it. Regardless, the message from his followers was gradually treated as an alternative to Judaism, as opposed to a message for Judaism. There was a split, a branching-off, which meant that Judaism could retain its core beliefs and values regardless of what the Xians said. That is, Judaism as it was was no longer threatened with radical change. Tensions eased.

jamest wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jamest's claim that Christians were vigoursly persecuted from the start, because of it's exclusive claims and nature, is nonsensical in light of the above facts.

My claim is that Xians (who, as explained by others, would have still been considered as Jews initially) would have been mercilessly persecuted at the very start, because their 'new testament' would have seemed to the Jews to undermine Judaism and the Jewish authorities.

As claim for which you have yet to present any evidence.

jamest wrote:

MS2 wrote:

jamest wrote:
The first link leads to you saying that there's no evidence that the early Xians believed the same thing as the gospels purport.

No it doesn't. It leads to me saying: 'There is no evidence of people claiming he was God at the start of the movement. This idea developed later, when the movement had already grown significantly and acquired some status and power.' And that is correct.

What is the evidence for this claim?

Since it is a claim that 'There is no evidence ...', my 'evidence' is that you (and no modern non-fundamentalist scholar) have not provided any of the evidence which I say is lacking.

(Just the following?):

However, where's the evidence that they did think differently?

The earliest documents (Paul, Mark) support the idea that he was initially thought of as the Jewish messiah, ie a 'normal' man, albeit one specially chosen by Yahweh.

Yep. That's pretty much a summary of what actually happened and the evidence for it.

This is a matter of interpretation which could only be discussed if we went through each gospel with a fine-toothed comb.

Of course it is a matter of interpretation. They are texts. Every text has to be interpreted. References to fine tooth-combs are just deflections.

Certainly, from memory, I don't recall either Paul or Mark depicting Jesus as merely a 'normal man'.

I put 'normal' in quotes to signify that by 'normal' I meant something like 'no suggestion he was a deity'. Clearly they don't depict him as a 'normal man' in the sense of something like 'ordinary like everybody else'. They regard him as special, unique, chosen by Yahweh, or to put it another way 'the messiah'. But nevertheless there is no assertion in Paul or Mark that he was a deity.

The later documents show him being gradually deified (eg Luke and Matthew adding a virgin birth, and later John making him the Word of God), until he is eventually thought of as fully divine (eg the trinitarian formulation).

Well there are discrepancies amongst the gospels, but mainly in the details. I think the significant aspects of the story are embraced by all.

What aspects are you thinking of? The significant aspects they share it seems to me are things like he was reputed to be a teacher, a healer and occasional miracle-worker - these are not aspects (such as him being divine) which are needed to make your argument work (unless you want to provide evidence to the contrary?).

Furthermore, it is possibly/probably the case that those gospels were written by the very instigators of Xianity, so why would they have all radically changed their story in the course of a few decades? That makes no sense.

The gospels were not written by the instigators of Christianity. Try reading the first few sentences of Luke for example.

The point is debatable. I don't have time to search for evidence right now, but there's plenty which counters your opinion.

Not very debatable at all I'm afraid. Mark and Luke have never been claimed to have been written by 'the instigators of Christianity' and always have been claimed as second generation at best. Matthew and John were thought in early centuries to be by the disciples of those names, but hardly anybody (outside of fundamentalists) thinks that now.

jamest wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

jamest wrote:

MS2 wrote:
The gospels were not written by the instigators of Christianity. Try reading the first few sentences of Luke for example.

The point is debatable. I don't have time to search for evidence right now, but there's plenty which counters your opinion.

Put your money were your mouth is James.
It's the current academic concensus that the gospels were written decades after Jesus supposedly died.

Yes, I'm not doubting that. Though the disciples still had several decades of life in them after Jesus left the scene.

Why didn't they wrote the gospels when the events described, happened.
Why write em more than 50 years after the suppsoed events took place?

jamest wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jamest's claim that Christians were vigoursly persecuted from the start, because of it's exclusive claims and nature, is nonsensical in light of the above facts.

My claim is that Xians (who, as explained by others, would have still been considered as Jews initially) would have been mercilessly persecuted at the very start, because their 'new testament' would have seemed to the Jews to undermine Judaism and the Jewish authorities.

Except they were not mercilessly persecuted by Jews from the very start. Even in the Book of Acts, the only extensive "persecution" by Jews listed is that of the apostles and the Sanhedrin, but from what we can piece out about the early Jerusalem Christians, is that in every sense of the word they were Jewish (i.e. followed the same laws, followed the same customs such as circumcision, etc) , but proclaimed Jesus as Messiah and King. It was not until the conflicts between Rome that the relationship between Christianity and Judaism would have its major schism, with Christianity becoming its own official sect and its base of operation located in the Damascus region more so than Jerusalem. Judaism would grow into the Rabbinical sects.

This being the case, there is no evidence suggesting merciless persecution of Christians by the Jews. The Jews were not in any position to persecute anybody.

Later, when considered a new religion, that threat would have diminished somewhat. Why? Well, Jesus was out of the way now, for starters. The authorities probably thought that that was the end of it. Regardless, the message from his followers was gradually treated as an alternative to Judaism, as opposed to a message for Judaism. There was a split, a branching-off, which meant that Judaism could retain its core beliefs and values regardless of what the Xians said. That is, Judaism as it was was no longer threatened with radical change. Tensions eased.

This is a very simplified and very warped view of the actual history. Christianity was not just considered a new religion. In fact, Christians did not consider themselves part of a new religion until centuries after Christ's death. They were inheritors of the new covenant of God which was seen as a fulfillment of the old covenant of the prophets. In fact, around this time, Judaism was fracturing into many numerous sects with differencing opinions on matters of theology and so the development of Christianity was not really a major cause for persecution. When one reads a Christian text from the 1st and 2nd centuries and a Jewish text, it takes a trained eye to recognize the difference between the two. That is how well blended Christianity and Judaism were.

The split grew as Judaism became more Rabbinical over Pharisaic, and Christianity became more developed and grabbed a larger Gentile following. With the Pauline letters and doctrines such as freedom from the law and circumcision, the tensions between Jew and Christian were mounting. However there again is no suggestion that these tensions led to any persecutions. There were of course disagreements. We can see in Paul's letters such as Galatians that there was conflict arising from opponents to Paul's message, and Paul rather heatedly rebukes them. But no mention of widespread, or merciless persecution.

willhud9 wrote:
This being the case, there is no evidence suggesting merciless persecution of Christians by the Jews. The Jews were not in any position to persecute anybody.

He's claiming the Romans did it for them.

MS2 wrote:

jamest wrote:

MS2 wrote:

jamest wrote:
The first link leads to you saying that there's no evidence that the early Xians believed the same thing as the gospels purport.

No it doesn't. It leads to me saying: 'There is no evidence of people claiming he was God at the start of the movement. This idea developed later, when the movement had already grown significantly and acquired some status and power.' And that is correct.

What is the evidence for this claim?

Since it is a claim that 'There is no evidence ...', my 'evidence' is that you (and no modern non-fundamentalist scholar) have not provided any of the evidence which I say is lacking.

Hold on. You're the one making a claim here. You're saying that the writers of the gospels didn't have the same beliefs as the instigators of Christianity. So, where is the evidence for this claim? The onus is upon you. You can't simply say that I/others cannot prove otherwise, therefore you are correct. The gospels were written within several decades of Jesus' death. Therefore, it doesn't seem reasonable to suggest that the story could have evolved so fast, whilst (without doubt) there would have still been living witnesses around from Jesus' time.

This is a matter of interpretation which could only be discussed if we went through each gospel with a fine-toothed comb.

Of course it is a matter of interpretation. They are texts. Every text has to be interpreted. References to fine tooth-combs are just deflections.

Interpretations vary. The one you choose to go for is something like: "There is no direct claim, by Jesus, in Mark/Paul that Jesus was 'the son of God'. Therefore, Jesus was not the son of God."

Sometimes you have to read between the lines. Inference. I mean, for example, in any conversation I've had with you have I told you that I'm human? I don't think so. Therefore, does this then mean that I'm not human?

Certainly, from memory, I don't recall either Paul or Mark depicting Jesus as merely a 'normal man'.

I put 'normal' in quotes to signify that by 'normal' I meant something like 'no suggestion he was a deity'. Clearly they don't depict him as a 'normal man' in the sense of something like 'ordinary like everybody else'. They regard him as special, unique, chosen by Yahweh, or to put it another way 'the messiah'. But nevertheless there is no assertion in Paul or Mark that he was a deity.

So, reading between the lines, wouldn't you say that a man "special, unique, chosen by Yahweh, or to put it another way 'the messiah'", could be equated as being the 'son of God'?

Well there are discrepancies amongst the gospels, but mainly in the details. I think the significant aspects of the story are embraced by all.

What aspects are you thinking of? The significant aspects they share it seems to me are things like he was reputed to be a teacher, a healer and occasional miracle-worker - these are not aspects (such as him being divine) which are needed to make your argument work (unless you want to provide evidence to the contrary?).

What does the divine have to do to prove that 'he' is divine? Miracles? (Yep). Teach? (Yep). Bring a new message to the people? (Yep). So, what else do you want?

The point is debatable. I don't have time to search for evidence right now, but there's plenty which counters your opinion.

Not very debatable at all I'm afraid. Mark and Luke have never been claimed to have been written by 'the instigators of Christianity' and always have been claimed as second generation at best. Matthew and John were thought in early centuries to be by the disciples of those names, but hardly anybody (outside of fundamentalists) thinks that now.

Why? Do you have a link to support your claim? I'd like to read it.

willhud9 wrote:

jamest wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jamest's claim that Christians were vigoursly persecuted from the start, because of it's exclusive claims and nature, is nonsensical in light of the above facts.

My claim is that Xians (who, as explained by others, would have still been considered as Jews initially) would have been mercilessly persecuted at the very start, because their 'new testament' would have seemed to the Jews to undermine Judaism and the Jewish authorities.

Except they were not mercilessly persecuted by Jews from the very start. Even in the Book of Acts, the only extensive "persecution" by Jews listed is that of the apostles and the Sanhedrin, but from what we can piece out about the early Jerusalem Christians, is that in every sense of the word they were Jewish (i.e. followed the same laws, followed the same customs such as circumcision, etc) , but proclaimed Jesus as Messiah and King.

What I meant by "the very start" is the actual onset of the 'New Testament'. The actual moment the Jewish authorities first came to understand what was being said. More than anything else, this message would leave them extremely perturbed. Perhaps we should look more closely at this message to see just how much it undermined the Jewish mindset at that time? Some here don't seem to comprehend the significance of the message itself, regardless of whether Jesus was who he was purported to be. This message spelt doom to Judaism as it was, and completely undermined the 'authority' of the Jewish leaders. That's how significant it was, and that's why the establishment would have been looking to stop it in its tracks at its onset.

As soon as Jesus is dead, the worry subsides. There is no more pressing-need to do anything 'at all costs'. It is probably believed that the 'following' would fade away. The chicken has lost its head. Tensions diminish, but the following does not die. The testament is perpetuated through the survivors. However, it now lacks the teeth to change Judaism itself, so must go its own way. The split from Judaism is inevitable. That is, the testament is no longer of and for the Jews. Judaism will hence sustain the status quo. All is well in the temple... even if the perpetuation of this new testament is fucking annoying. This annoyance lingers and will be the cause of friction (and trouble), but it's a far cry from the Jewish civil war envisioned at the onset of the new testament.

The authorities didn't just have their mindset and positions to protect. They also knew that this message would cause massive societal disturbance within their society as it was. This in itself is a problem, for nobody wants to see their own society at war with itself. However, there's the Romans to consider too. They'll fuck you up without a second's thought if you dare to fuck up their demand for societal order. Look at what they did in AD 70, for instance. No messing about. Over a million Jews killed in no time at all? That's what Josephus claimed:

"The slaughter within was even more dreadful than the spectacle from without. Men and women, old and young, insurgents and priests, those who fought and those who entreated mercy, were hewn down in indiscriminate carnage. The number of the slain exceeded that of the slayers. The legionaries had to clamber over heaps of dead to carry on the work of extermination."
(from Milman, The History of the Jews, book 16, in Wiki)

You fuck with the Romans... and you're fucked. The Jewish authorities could not let any challenge to Judaism as it was happen. They knew the consequences. They knew what the Romans were like. The poor bastards had no choice other than to beg Pilate to cut the head off the chicken. Especially as the chicken had no interest in cutting the head off Rome.

jamest wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

jamest wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jamest's claim that Christians were vigoursly persecuted from the start, because of it's exclusive claims and nature, is nonsensical in light of the above facts.

My claim is that Xians (who, as explained by others, would have still been considered as Jews initially) would have been mercilessly persecuted at the very start, because their 'new testament' would have seemed to the Jews to undermine Judaism and the Jewish authorities.

Except they were not mercilessly persecuted by Jews from the very start. Even in the Book of Acts, the only extensive "persecution" by Jews listed is that of the apostles and the Sanhedrin, but from what we can piece out about the early Jerusalem Christians, is that in every sense of the word they were Jewish (i.e. followed the same laws, followed the same customs such as circumcision, etc) , but proclaimed Jesus as Messiah and King.

What I meant by "the very start" is the actual onset of the 'New Testament'. The actual moment the Jewish authorities first came to understand what was being said.

And when was this exactly?

More than anything else, this message would leave them extremely perturbed. Perhaps we should look more closely at this message to see just how much it undermined the Jewish mindset at that time? Some here don't seem to comprehend the significance of the message itself, regardless of whether Jesus was who he was purported to be. This message spelt doom to Judaism as it was, and completely undermined the 'authority' of the Jewish leaders. That's how significant it was, and that's why the establishment would have been looking to stop it in its tracks at its onset.

No, it did not spell doom to Judaism. Judaism during the Second Temple era was full of messianic prophecies and hope. The message of Jesus as the Messiah is not one that is incompatible with Judaism. In fact, Jewish leaders were awaiting their Messiah and after Christ's death when the Christian sect took the Pharisaic concept of resurrection (an eschatology concept) and applied it to Messianic texts to create a resurrected Jesus. The message of Christ being resurrected, was a very Jewish concept and did not spell the doom of Judaism. As I have already told you, Judaism was fracturing into many different sects. Jewish authority was in secular "kings" such as Herod Antipas or within the Sanhedrin because there were different sects which diminished after the Fall if Jerusalem in AD 70. Opinions on doctrine differed between these many sects.

As soon as Jesus is dead, the worry subsides. There is no more pressing-need to do anything 'at all costs'. It is probably believed that the 'following' would fade away. The chicken has lost its head. Tensions diminish, but the following does not die.

Assumption of worry. You cannot know this from any historical means.

The testament is perpetuated through the survivors.

You do realize all testament mean is covenant so your usage here in this context of the Jews being worried of the following of Christ is very awkward and incorrect. The Jewish leaders of the other sects would not consider it being close to a new covenant.

However, it now lacks the teeth to change Judaism itself, so must go its own way. The split from Judaism is inevitable. That is, the testament is no longer of and for the Jews.

Which was a concept developing in Judaism. Again Judaism is not this established religion and doctrine. In fact, what we call Judaism today is a branch of Rabbinical Pharisaic teachings. The split from Judaism was inevitable since there was an established church in the regions of Syria and Asia Minor by the Fall of Jerusalem. Once Jerusalem fell, the leadership of the Christian church left Jerusalem and turned towards Damascus and other such places.

Judaism will hence sustain the status quo. All is well in the temple... even if the perpetuation of this new testament is fucking annoying. This annoyance lingers and will be the cause of friction (and trouble), but it's a far cry from the Jewish civil war envisioned at the onset of the new testament.

Except not. Judaism is not the maintainer of a status quo. You have the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, the Zealots, and of course you have the Christians, and within each of those sects you have small communities who created different doctrines, etc. What status quo is Judaism maintaining? What breach of Judaism is the Christian sect breaking. Paul's letters tell us of Jewish Christians getting upset over Gentile Christans lack of conduct in regards to the law. But this is a growing tension, not an immediate or even prompting tension. The Sadducees rejected the Prophets and the Writings and only accepted the Torah as being divinely inspired. When you have sects in Judaism able to do that, why is Christianity special enough to require a major silencing from the Jewish authorities? It's not.

As for your last point, what evidence do you have that the Christians wanted a Jewish civil war?

The authorities didn't just have their mindset and positions to protect. They also knew that this message would cause massive societal disturbance within their society as it was.

Baseless speculation. What societal disturbance? What message? Why? Your reasoning is fluff with no substance as it is.

This in itself is a problem, for nobody wants to see their own society at war with itself.

Again, Judaism was fractured into many different branches. The message of Christianity was no more extreme than that of any of the other sects.

However, there's the Romans to consider too. They'll fuck you up without a second's thought if you dare to fuck up their demand for societal order.

Except, on the whole the Romans gave Jerusalem and the Jews very lenient treatment.

Look at what they did in AD 70, for instance. No messing about. Over a million Jews killed in no time at all? That's what Josephus claimed:

"The slaughter within was even more dreadful than the spectacle from without. Men and women, old and young, insurgents and priests, those who fought and those who entreated mercy, were hewn down in indiscriminate carnage. The number of the slain exceeded that of the slayers. The legionaries had to clamber over heaps of dead to carry on the work of extermination."
(from Milman, The History of the Jews, book 16, in Wiki)

Yes, but you show a lack of understanding about what revolved around the siege of destruction of Jerusalem. It was not as if it was a sudden assault by Rome because of social unrest. The Great Revolt had only a margin of blame laid on religious reasons, the biggest factor was revolts against taxation and Jews were assaulting Roman citizens. Not because of social unrest due to Christianity or Judaism. As Jewish zealots assaulted and captured Roman garrisons, Rome responded in a military manner.

You fuck with the Romans... and you're fucked. The Jewish authorities could not let any challenge to Judaism as it was happen. They knew the consequences. They knew what the Romans were like. The poor bastards had no choice other than to beg Pilate to cut the head off the chicken. Especially as the chicken had no interest in cutting the head off Rome.

Well let us do a summation shall we and you can see why your argument does not stand up:

1) Judaism had many different sects, all of which had different doctrines in regards to "core values" of Judaism.
2) Christianity was just another developing sect of Judaism just like the Pharisees and Sadducees.
3) Christianity did not challenge Judaism until after the Fall of Jerusalem when the Gentile community became the leaders of the Christian church. By that time, Christianity would become its own distinctive belief system.
4) You are taking an overtly literal reading of the Bible if you assume the events surrounding Christ's arrest and the Pharisees pleading with Pilate to execute him are 100% factual. That right there is a flaw in your position.
5) Rome was a very tolerant empire. It had to be when you had a wide ethnicity of people ranging from Egypt and the Northern coast of Africa, Persia, the Balkans, Apennines, Iberia, Gaul, and Britannia. Too suggest that Rome was this iron fist of an empire is not true from a historical perspective. They did not tolerate civil unrest which was what the Jews were causing when they led anti-Rome sentiments throughout Palestine, assaulted Roman citizens, attacked Roman legions and disrupted life in the Empire. But none of this was due to Judaism and Christianity.

So I suggest Jamest to go and read on the subject of not only early Christian history, but also Judaism, and also the Roman Empire.

willhud9 wrote:

jamest wrote:
What I meant by "the very start" is the actual onset of the 'New Testament'. The actual moment the Jewish authorities first came to understand what was being said.

And when was this exactly?

Exactly? I cannot answer that question precisely, but around 30 A.D. would be close.

More than anything else, this message would leave them extremely perturbed. Perhaps we should look more closely at this message to see just how much it undermined the Jewish mindset at that time? Some here don't seem to comprehend the significance of the message itself, regardless of whether Jesus was who he was purported to be. This message spelt doom to Judaism as it was, and completely undermined the 'authority' of the Jewish leaders. That's how significant it was, and that's why the establishment would have been looking to stop it in its tracks at its onset.

No, it did not spell doom to Judaism. Judaism during the Second Temple era was full of messianic prophecies and hope. The message of Jesus as the Messiah is not one that is incompatible with Judaism.

Jesus wasn't the messiah they had hoped for. "Render unto Caesar those things which are Caesars" does not free the Jews from their bondage. Regardless, the NT was confrontational with Judaism as it was for lots of reasons. What Jesus said about the Sabbath, for example; or what he said about the Pharisees; or what he said about the kingdom of God being within you (with negative connotations for 'the temple' and the authorities thereof). Any close analysis of the NT would find numerous reasons for the Jews to be pissed-off with it, as it neither freed them from their current plight nor maintained the values they had held for numerous centuries. The NT wasn't just a disappointment in terms of freedom, it demanded a radical overhaul of Judaism itself.

Other messiahs had not made such demands. Indeed, most had promised (or were expected to promise) a freedom from bondage (a freedom from Roman rule). Jesus represented the opposite of their expectations and hope. He was a shock to the system. Indigestible for most, but not all.

Due to the time (and my tiredness) I cannot respond to the rest of your post. My apologies.

willhud9 wrote:

jamest wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jamest's claim that Christians were vigoursly persecuted from the start, because of it's exclusive claims and nature, is nonsensical in light of the above facts.

My claim is that Xians (who, as explained by others, would have still been considered as Jews initially) would have been mercilessly persecuted at the very start, because their 'new testament' would have seemed to the Jews to undermine Judaism and the Jewish authorities.

Except they were not mercilessly persecuted by Jews from the very start. Even in the Book of Acts, the only extensive "persecution" by Jews listed is that of the apostles and the Sanhedrin, but from what we can piece out about the early Jerusalem Christians, is that in every sense of the word they were Jewish (i.e. followed the same laws, followed the same customs such as circumcision, etc) , but proclaimed Jesus as Messiah and King. It was not until the conflicts between Rome that the relationship between Christianity and Judaism would have its major schism, with Christianity becoming its own official sect and its base of operation located in the Damascus region more so than Jerusalem. Judaism would grow into the Rabbinical sects.

This being the case, there is no evidence suggesting merciless persecution of Christians by the Jews. The Jews were not in any position to persecute anybody.

Later, when considered a new religion, that threat would have diminished somewhat. Why? Well, Jesus was out of the way now, for starters. The authorities probably thought that that was the end of it. Regardless, the message from his followers was gradually treated as an alternative to Judaism, as opposed to a message for Judaism. There was a split, a branching-off, which meant that Judaism could retain its core beliefs and values regardless of what the Xians said. That is, Judaism as it was was no longer threatened with radical change. Tensions eased.

This is a very simplified and very warped view of the actual history. Christianity was not just considered a new religion. In fact, Christians did not consider themselves part of a new religion until centuries after Christ's death. They were inheritors of the new covenant of God which was seen as a fulfillment of the old covenant of the prophets. In fact, around this time, Judaism was fracturing into many numerous sects with differencing opinions on matters of theology and so the development of Christianity was not really a major cause for persecution. When one reads a Christian text from the 1st and 2nd centuries and a Jewish text, it takes a trained eye to recognize the difference between the two. That is how well blended Christianity and Judaism were.

The split grew as Judaism became more Rabbinical over Pharisaic, and Christianity became more developed and grabbed a larger Gentile following. With the Pauline letters and doctrines such as freedom from the law and circumcision, the tensions between Jew and Christian were mounting. However there again is no suggestion that these tensions led to any persecutions. There were of course disagreements. We can see in Paul's letters such as Galatians that there was conflict arising from opponents to Paul's message, and Paul rather heatedly rebukes them. But no mention of widespread, or merciless persecution.

Good points, but as you know, I think you're reading the NT too literally. There was no persecution of Christians by Jews as portrayed in the NT. There was some sort of conflict c. 49 in Rome, which resulted in the Jews' temporary expulsion. But the NT gives away the plot when it pretends that there was no Roman persecution, and all their troubles were because of Jews. This is clear evidence of serious ideological and racist axe-grinding, not history writing. The point was to destroy and demonize the Jews in order to justify stealing their religion. It was the most effective propaganda of all time.

jamest wrote:
Jesus wasn't the messiah they had hoped for... Other messiahs had not made such demands. Indeed, most had promised (or were expected to promise) a freedom from bondage (a freedom from Roman rule). Jesus represented the opposite of their expectations and hope. He was a shock to the system. Indigestible for most, but not all.

The whole point of the Jesus myth is that "the Jews" (as a people, not just the Sanhedrin of 33 AD) had him murdered because they were so far gone in their sins that they couldn't recognize their messiah in front of them. But who did? The Gentiles! In their infinite wisdom and superiority to backwards tribal people who take razors to their penises, the Gentiles invented recognized God's true messiah.

The Gentiles invented the Jesus myth to justify stealing the Bible and Judaism. Nobody was a "shock to the system."