Jesus Christ as Roman Propaganda?

Feb 2017
1
Palatine Hill
#1
Roman rule was challenged many times in Judea by Jewish uprisings. We also know there were many messiah figures that all promised to free the Jews from their oppressors. These figures were mostly quite belligerent and advocated full armed insurrection against the Romans. Christ, however, is known as being pacifistic, and called for Jews to "render unto Caeser that which is Caeser's." He called for turning the other cheek and shunning violence. That being said, there is no historical evidence of Christ at all. Josephus, who wrote about a lot of things that occurred in the province during his time, did not mention Jesus while referring to other messiah figures.

Could it be that Jesus Christ was a Roman propaganda tool to pacify the increasingly rebellious Jewish population?
 
Dec 2012
1,556
U.S.A.
#2
If it was propaganda then it was the least effective of all time. The Romans did destroy the Temple and expelled all Jews from Jerusalem, not to mention the various persecutions against Christians throughout the years that were ultimately unsuccessful. I highly doubt any Roman official cared enough about a religious sect in a backwater like Judea enough to concoct some elaborate propaganda story to pacify them.
 
May 2011
2,926
Rural Australia
#3
The propaganda tool the Romans used to pacify the increasingly rebellious Jewish population in the first century of the common era was the army. Stories in codex or roll form were not deployed as political instruments of the Roman State until the 4th century.
 

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
4,028
Connecticut
#4
That being said, there is no historical evidence of Christ at all.
Far from the mainstream scholarly view.

Josephus, who wrote about a lot of things that occurred in the province during his time, did not mention Jesus while referring to other messiah figures.
Very debatable.

Could it be that Jesus Christ was a Roman propaganda tool to pacify the increasingly rebellious Jewish population?
The chance of that is ZERO. For one thing jesus was an apocalypticist, who claimed the "son of man" would come to overthrow the present evil age. That of course can be taken as a commentary on Rome. Furthermore the Romans would've set up an agent in Jerusalem, where they had a presence and where there were many of the most important people, not some hick backwater like galilee.
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,874
Republika Srpska
#5
Roman rule was challenged many times in Judea by Jewish uprisings. We also know there were many messiah figures that all promised to free the Jews from their oppressors. These figures were mostly quite belligerent and advocated full armed insurrection against the Romans. Christ, however, is known as being pacifistic, and called for Jews to "render unto Caeser that which is Caeser's." He called for turning the other cheek and shunning violence. That being said, there is no historical evidence of Christ at all. Josephus, who wrote about a lot of things that occurred in the province during his time, did not mention Jesus while referring to other messiah figures.

Could it be that Jesus Christ was a Roman propaganda tool to pacify the increasingly rebellious Jewish population?
It is far too elaborate and time consuming to do like this for the province like Judea. Rome could simply come with an army and squash the Jews. Also, why would they make a story about the Messiah who is killed by the Romans and hated by the Jews? This places the Romans as villains who killed a holy man and the Jews as fanatics who killed their Messiah. You don't create propaganda in which you are the villain.
 
Sep 2014
901
Texas
#6
Far from the mainstream scholarly view.



Very debatable.



The chance of that is ZERO. For one thing jesus was an apocalypticist, who claimed the "son of man" would come to overthrow the present evil age. That of course can be taken as a commentary on Rome. Furthermore the Romans would've set up an agent in Jerusalem, where they had a presence and where there were many of the most important people, not some hick backwater like galilee.
I agree with what you say, but to the man who said there is no historical evidence for Jesus, the same applies for Prince Siddhartha, the founder of Buddhism.
 
Feb 2017
12
Leuven - Belgium
#7
Roman rule was challenged many times in Judea by Jewish uprisings. We also know there were many messiah figures that all promised to free the Jews from their oppressors. These figures were mostly quite belligerent and advocated full armed insurrection against the Romans. Christ, however, is known as being pacifistic, and called for Jews to "render unto Caeser that which is Caeser's." He called for turning the other cheek and shunning violence. That being said, there is no historical evidence of Christ at all. Josephus, who wrote about a lot of things that occurred in the province during his time, did not mention Jesus while referring to other messiah figures.

Could it be that Jesus Christ was a Roman propaganda tool to pacify the increasingly rebellious Jewish population?

Your opinion reminds me of Francesco Carotta’s book War Jesus Caesar? (in German, 1999). All of Carotta’s arguments were far-fetched, making his theory as a whole worthless. I believe you are mistaken too, just like all traditional Christians and biblical scholars, who believe at face value that Jesus lived during the term of office of Pontius Pilate. The bottom line of the origins of Christianity is that Jesus was active 40 years later than the Gospel would have us believe. Mark, the writer of the first gospel (in 71 or 72 CE), described events that occurred just before and during the war of the Jews against the Romans (66-70 CE). He antedated them because describing the real course of events was way too dangerous in a world dominated by the Romans.

Josephus, the great historian of that era, couldn’t mention a Jesus ‘under Pilate’ simple because that Jesus was not active yet at that time (around 30 CE he was a young boy). But Josephus described a certain Jesus son of Saphat during the rebellion, a prominent priest who was the leader of the fishermen and the poor in Eastern Galilee, and who worked together with a certain Eleazar (Lazarus) while organizing the rebellion. Jesus' rebellious activity and the period during which he was active have for the greatest part been eliminated from the New Testament, but not totally. On careful reading there are numerous clues to the real course of the then events. Just read my A Chronological Revision of the Origins of Christianity, and you’ll discover a belligerent Jesus, a man who killed opponents or had them killed by his revolutionary soldiers.
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
26,241
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#8
Roman rule was challenged many times in Judea by Jewish uprisings. We also know there were many messiah figures that all promised to free the Jews from their oppressors. These figures were mostly quite belligerent and advocated full armed insurrection against the Romans. Christ, however, is known as being pacifistic, and called for Jews to "render unto Caeser that which is Caeser's." He called for turning the other cheek and shunning violence. That being said, there is no historical evidence of Christ at all. Josephus, who wrote about a lot of things that occurred in the province during his time, did not mention Jesus while referring to other messiah figures.

Could it be that Jesus Christ was a Roman propaganda tool to pacify the increasingly rebellious Jewish population?
A part considerations about the historicity of Jesus [which are irrelevant in this context], his figure hadn't presented as the one of a traditional Jew [he challenged the Tradition]. So, no, Romans weren't able to use such a figure to pacify Jews [Jews ignored Jesus in large part].
 
Oct 2013
313
Australia
#9
There is a guy who says Christianity was invented by the Flavian dynasty and that Titus was the real Jesus but I think it's a bit fanciful...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
4,028
Connecticut
#10
Josephus, the great historian of that era, couldn’t mention a Jesus ‘under Pilate’ simple because that Jesus was not active yet at that time (around 30 CE he was a young boy).

Josephus wrote that Pilate sentenced him to die. If Jesus was just a young boy in 30 CE who was Paul preaching about c 40-50?
 

Similar History Discussions