Jewish clerics hate jesus for saying he is the son of god, a blasphemous claim...

which would piss off jewish religious leaders, and not the roman government

While we're on it:

>Some random religious guy with a following of like 30 people executed therefore he's the Son of God and was resurrected and was a magic baby who never sinned and we should all worship him forever and ever and cherish the day he returns to destroy all those who disagree with us. In the mean time we should set up a church that ultimately becomes the state religion of the government that sanctioned his murder and become embraced by billions over the next 2 millennia

vs

>Some random religious guy with a following of like 30 people is executed therefore we should study the history of Roman Jewish conflict and carefully observe the various complex political happenings of this time period, while taking all accounts with a grain of salt, and noticing rampant bias.

It means that material earthly things are the bussiness of the state (goods, money and taxes etc.) whereas the rules and ways of God are those of God. For example, the Romans expected their populus to accept the emporer as a god after his death, that comes in direct conflict with christians and jews as they believe that there is but only one almighty god.

The Romans wanted people to swear loyalty to the Roman emperor and empire, because they were pretty sure that helped get the gods on their side.

If you refused to do that, you were in trouble.

The Jews got a pass on that requirement because Judaism was ancient and the Romans loved ancient things. It's the same reason Greeks got away with so much shit.

...

romands didnt give a shit what rocks or stars you worshipped or what ever ooga booga crap you believed as long as you paid your damn taxes. Jesus literally told his followers to pay their taxes to caesar because it had caesars face on it.

How about

>Jesus had a following of far more than 30 people, probably in the hundreds to low thousands. He causes disruption in Jerusalem, decrying the Priestly collaboration with the Romans. He almost certainly IS Barabbas. The Priests try to deal with him, and can't, and eventually the Romans restore order and execute him for purely political reasons.

amazon.com/Revolution-Judaea-Hyam-Maccoby/dp/080086784X

>He almost certainly IS Barabbas.

this is when I stopped reading

The Romans did not care for the polytheistic religion of the region they captured as they were often willing to embrace Roman gods or fuse them with their native ones. That failed to work with the monotheistic Jews and later christians, which has led to great conflict and persecution.

>this is when I stopped reading

And what is so crazy about the notions? The earliest gospel manuscripts refer to him as "Jesus Barrabas", and Barrabas is Aramaic for "son of the father". How many guys calling themselves "Jesus, Son of the Father" do you think were running around anyway?

>I have never seen a Nordic person
Jesus looks like a Syrian in that painting you Kike.

>which one of these is the truth?

Neither, the story is make believe.

youtube.com/watch?v=HS0WSEuousE

>and not the roman government
Claiming to be the christ would however.

Way to get the story completely wrong.

>Jesus fed over 10,000 people with a few loaves and fish.

>Had a following of maybe low thousands.

The same thing that is crazy about all of satan's lies.

Matthew 27:17 Therefore, when they had gathered together, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release to you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?”

And yes, Barabbas was a pseudonym for that revolutionary murderer.

>Implying that Passover Pardons actually happened.

Can you name a single other prisoner besides Barrabas who got released? Or a document outside the Bible testifying to the existence of such a practice?

Nah dude, read up on some academia. Barrabas was Jesus, and there was probably more than a little upset when the fuzz picked him up. Much later, the Gospel authors shift the blame away from the Romans (who could and would fuck them up) to the 'Jews', who were much safer targets.

Stating is not implying. I never said anyone but Pilate released anyone but Barabbas because, you know, that's in the bible.

But here you go.

An example of a Roman official releasing a prisoner on the demands of the people occurs in the Papyrus Florentinus 61:59ff. There the Roman governor of Egypt, G. Septimus Vegetus, says to Phibion, the accused: ‘Thou has been worthy of scourging, but I will give thee to the people’.”

He just explained to you in the earliest copies they are the same person, Jesus Barrabbas. yet you quote a modern English translation as proof that he is wrong.

Nothing in the talmud, you say?

Talmudical rule that a paschal lamb may be slaughtered for one who has been promised release from prison.” This can be found in an article by C. B. Chavel, “The Releasing of a Prisoner on the Eve of Passover in Ancient Jerusalem,” Journal of Biblical Literature, LX (1941), pp. 273-78.

Yes, I saw the lie. It was absurd.

Tens of thousands of bible manuscripts all over the known world all changed at exactly the same time in exactly the same manner to conflate Barabbas with Jesus.

kek

The bible as we know it was copied from a relatively few manuscripts, especially in the west the latin Vulgate set the standard until modern times.

When you actually look at the earliest surviving manuscripts, most of which were found in places like Egypt outside the west, there are small differences like that.

>vulgate
>not "Jerome's Folly"

kek

>small differences
>two men become the same man, and the prefect asks the mob which man to release.

kek

>Stating is not implying. I never said anyone but Pilate released anyone but Barabbas because, you know, that's in the bible.

No, you are implying that the Gospels are a source of truth, and that because it states in the Gospels the Passover Pardon happened, ergo, the Passover Pardons happened.

>An example of a Roman official releasing a prisoner on the demands of the people occurs in the Papyrus Florentinus 61:59ff. There the Roman governor of Egypt, G. Septimus Vegetus, says to Phibion, the accused: ‘Thou has been worthy of scourging, but I will give thee to the people’.”

Don't move the goalposts. I want proof that there was a custom to release prisoners dictated by the crowd on or around Passover.

What the fuck are you even on about? Who mentioned the Talmud, and how is the permission of slaughtering sacrifices on behalf of one who can't make it to the Temple have ANYTHING to do with the non-existence of a passover pardon?

By the way, I've looked up that article you cited to. Would you like to know what it said? Pic related, red circling mine.

>According to the Synoptic Gospels, Herod, who was tetrarch, or sub-king, of Galilee under the Roman Empire, had imprisoned John the Baptist because he reproved Herod for divorcing his wife (Phasaelis, daughter of King Aretas of Nabataea) and unlawfully taking Herodias, the wife of his brother Herod Philip I. On Herod's birthday, Herodias' daughter (whom Josephus identifies as Salome) danced before the king and his guests. Her dancing pleased Herod so much that in his drunkenness he promised to give her anything she desired, up to half of his kingdom. When Salome asked her mother what she should request, she was told to ask for the head of John the Baptist on a platter. Although Herod was appalled by the request, he reluctantly agreed and had John executed in the prison.[2]

>Later in life he gave into the delusions of grander and believed he was the son of god.
>later in life

Nigga his entire ministry was only 3 years.

in terms of hand copying a passage you dont fully understand, yes its not a huge thing.

The fact remains that early copies of the gospel has this in it, and no wishful thinking on your part will make it go away

Kinda wonder if anyone got a glimpse of ol' Pilates' family jewels in that skirt there.

That doesn't refer to my cite at all.

>This can be found in an article by C. B. Chavel, “The Releasing of a Prisoner on the Eve of Passover in Ancient Jerusalem,” Journal of Biblical Literature, LX (1941), pp. 273-78.

When you're talking about the inspired Word of God, yes, yes it is.

And to hypothesize with zero information that Jesus and Barabbas are one and the same person is absurd.

>An example of a Roman official releasing a prisoner on the demands of the people occurs in the Papyrus Florentinus 61:59ff. There the Roman governor of Egypt, G. Septimus Vegetus, says to Phibion, the accused: ‘Thou has been worthy of scourging, but I will give thee to the people’.”

Josephus records that when the Roman governor Albinus was preparing to leave office he released prisoners who had been incarcerated for crimes other than murder. 'he was desirous to appear to do somewhat that might be grateful to the people of Jerusalem; so he brought out all those prisoners who seemed to him to be most plainly worthy of death, and ordered them to be put to death accordingly. But as to those who had been put into prison on some trifling occasions, he took money of them, and dismissed them; by which means the prisons were indeed emptied, but the country was filled with robbers.' (Antiquities 20.9.3).

>The Romans would never do this!

So you are completely incapable of reading. Gotcha. Did you miss the part where I said I was talking about the failure of any proof that a Passover Pardon existed as an extant custom, such as what Matthew 27:15 says? Did you miss this part of post >What the fuck are you even on about? Who mentioned the Talmud, and how is the permission of slaughtering sacrifices on behalf of one who can't make it to the Temple have ANYTHING to do with the non-existence of a passover pardon?

Anyway, I have to be going, but I'm glad it's on a note showing exactly how morally bankrupt and quite flatly stupid you are. Good evening.

Oh, should have waited and just disappeared back under your rock.

Does anyone else find it cool that Jesus lived and died at the most prosperous period of the Roman empire?

1. In the Mishnah (Jewish oral tradition, written in around AD 300) it records that “they may slaughter the passover lamb for one….whom they have promised to bring out of prison”. Now its not exactly clear but this certainly records a prisoner being released specifically at Passover.

2.A piece of papyrus also records a Roman governor of Egypt saying: “You were worthy of scourging but I gave you to the crowds.” (P.Flor 61, c. AD 85).

3. Pliny the younger from one of his early second century letters also has something important to note on such practices and who had responsibility to do so, "It was asserted, however, that these people were released upon their petition to the proconsuls, or their lieutenants; which seems likely enough, as it is improbable any person should have dared to set them at liberty without authority" (Epistles 10.31).

4. The author William Lane states ‘There is….. a parallel in Roman law which indicates that an imperial magistrate could pardon and acquit individual prisoners in response to the shouts of the populace’.

>No mentions outside the bible.

If you want to say that Jesus came at the height of Pharisaical Judaism and imperial Rome, and was impressed by neither, sure.

>le secular Romans maymay
Romans loved tax money, it's true. Keeping the finicky gods on your good side was definitely something they cared about as well. A lot.

Neither.

Palestine was a major pain in the ass for the Romans, and they saw Jesus of Nazareth as the leader of yet another apocalyptic Jewish movements threatening to further destabilize the region.

The Sadduces, the aristocratic/high priest class that ran the Temple and held a lot of political power, were viewed by large portions of the populace (most notably the Pharisees, think proto-Rabbinic Jews) as sell-outs because they cooperated with the Romans and acted as their local intermediaries. This weakened the respect of the existing religious order and sparked the growth of numerous new sects and apocalyptic movements. There was also extreme tension with the Hellenised and Romanised Jews and those who weren't assimilated/assimilating pouring gas on the flames, with the Zealots pushing to "purify" the land of Roman rule and targeting people they saw as collaborators.

Jesus was apocalyptic cult leader #239812, preaching about living in a "Kingdom of God" (aka, not the kingdom of Rome), challenging the authority of the Sadducees and by extension the Roman occupation, claiming the power to exorcise demonic hosts with literally the same name as Roman military units, storming into the Jewish Temple and flipping shit saying the priests and moneychangers were defiling it... he was fitting the textbook profile of a zealot and had to go.

Extremely early Christians regarded themselves as just another form of Judaism, and didn't really splinter off until the major Jewish Revolt and brutal Roman crackdown made the survivors and small communities elsewhere in the Empire want to put as much space as possible between them and the people being punished for rebellion in the eyes of the authorities.

The "render unto caesar" part and passages going out of their way to paint Pilate and the Romans as blameless while putting it all on the Jews are part of said desperate attempt at sucking up to Rome.

Its not a hypothesize, When the text of the gospel says he is the same, since that texts is older than text modern translations are based off of, it only makes sense to assume the latter text was miss-copied.

This in no way undermines your belief that Jesus is God or died for your sins so I dont know why you attack it so much

Maybe it was a metaphor mate
Barabbas is who the jews see christ as, Jesus is who Pilates sees him as

Somewhere, an actual academic scholar of religious studies is weeping.