Max I. Dimont on Jews of the Roman Empire

[Dom]

According to Max I. Dimont ["Jews, God and History," Signet (1962)]
http://www.amazon.com/Jews-God-History-Max-Dimont/dp/0451529405/ , if
Christianity had not emerged, Judaism would have become the dominant
religion in the Roman Empire; and he writes "[...] in the first
century A.D. over 10 per cent of the population of the Roman Empire
was Jewish--seven million out of seventy million." Of these about
three million "were converted pagans or of converted-pagan
descent." [p. 113]

Are the above figures accurate?

"The Jews held influential positions and seats of learning totally out
of proportion to their numbers. [...] in high legislative, judicial,
executive, and scholastic places." [p. 114]

Who were some of these individuals? I presume that Philo of Alexandria
was one of them.

[JTEM]

Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
> According to Max I. Dimont ["Jews, God and History," Signet (1962)]http://www.amazon.com/Jews-God-History-Max-Dimont/dp/0451529405/, if

> Christianity had not emerged, Judaism would have become the dominant
> religion in the Roman Empire; and he writes "[...] in the first
> century A.D. over 10 per cent of the population of the Roman Empire
> was Jewish--seven million out of seventy million." Of these about
> three million "were converted pagans or of converted-pagan
> descent."  [p. 113]
>
> Are the above figures accurate?

It was probably more than that, with the
overwhelming majority being from the
hellenistic world. It would have been
popular with most of the population, though
perhaps not exclusively so.

I currently subscribe to Christianity being
invented as an acceptable alternative to
the Jewish religion. Jews were viewed as
upstarts, rebels. Records show Tiberius
and Claudius both banning Jews from the city
of Rome. Then there were the three revolts,
the second of which alone is credited with
killing nearly a quarter million romans/pagans
just on Crete! The third rebellion is claimed
to be much, much bigger -- stretching across
north Africa, up through the Levant and deep
into Anatolia. These "Jews" are said to have
fielded an army of 50,000 outside of Alexandria.

That would be a large force today, and absolutely
huge in ancient times...

There is an alternative possibility where the
romans painted the rebels as "jewish" in order
to tarnish them. This would require jews to have
been a much disliked minority in pre christian
times. A possibility, but unlikely.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[SolomonW]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:34:15 -0700 (PDT), Dom wrote:

> According to Max I. Dimont ["Jews, God and History," Signet (1962)]
> http://www.amazon.com/Jews-God-History-Max-Dimont/dp/0451529405/ , if
> Christianity had not emerged, Judaism would have become the dominant
> religion in the Roman Empire; and he writes "[...] in the first
> century A.D. over 10 per cent of the population of the Roman Empire
> was Jewish--seven million out of seventy million." Of these about
> three million "were converted pagans or of converted-pagan
> descent." [p. 113]
>
> Are the above figures accurate?
>

Basically yes having said that Max I. Dimont is not a professional
historian and what you have is a popular history which is full of errors.
Get a better book.

At the time there was no formal way of becoming Jewish so many people maybe
better described as fellow travelers would be classified as Jews still
having said this the Claudian census numbers 6,944,000 Jewish residents of
the Empire, nearly 10% of the Empire's total population.

Note this would not include the Jewish communities outside of the Roman
Empire. If you include them the Jewish population was about 8 million.

[Poetic Justice]

JTEM wrote;

>I currently subscribe to Christianity being
>invented as an acceptable alternative to
>the Jewish religion.

Invented by whom, the Romans or the Jews?

IIRC you also have a theory regarding Nero's 64AD Fire that possibly
ties into this?

[Christopher Ingham]

On Apr 23, 11:34 am, Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
> According to Max I. Dimont ["Jews, God and History," Signet (1962)]http://www.amazon.com/Jews-God-History-Max-Dimont/dp/0451529405/, if

> Christianity had not emerged, Judaism would have become the dominant
> religion in the Roman Empire; and he writes "[...] in the first
> century A.D. over 10 per cent of the population of the Roman Empire
> was Jewish--seven million out of seventy million." Of these about
> three million "were converted pagans or of converted-pagan
> descent."  [p. 113]
>
> Are the above figures accurate?

According to conservative estimates, the Roman Empire had fifty to
sixty million inhabitants in the first century, ten percent of whom
perhaps were Jews. These figures are educated guesses at best, and
what proportion converts comprised of the Jewish population is much
less determinable, particularly since there is no consensus as to how
widespread conversion was at any given time or whether it was a
phenomenon ever involving significant numbers.

There occurred, of course, the forcible conversion of most inhabitants
within the Hasmonean realm in the second century BCE, which is
explainable partly as a desire to maintain ritual purity within Judea
(gentile slaves in Jewish households in Judea and gentiles who were
prospective spouses of Jews also had to convert) and partly as the
Hasmoneans following a precedent of their Roman overlords, whose
ancestors had extended Roman citizenship to the peoples of Italy.
(Note that Josephus – a Pharisee – calls Herod, who was from a family
that had undergone this “political” conversion, a “half-Jew.”) But
apart from this singular event, there is not conclusive evidence that
Jews in any systematic way sought to proselytize non-Jews during the
Roman period (though there are isolated incidents; and of course Jews
did welcome outsiders who converted on their own volition).

The ancient texts that are used to adduce a Jewish proselytizing
mission do not necessarily say what they are commonly understood to
say. Matthew 23.15, for example, almost certainly is a criticism of
the efforts of Pharasaic Jews to convert other Jews – not gentiles –
at the time when the gospels were being written. And the numerous
writings by Jews extoling their religion – generally understood to be
propaganda for attracting proselytes – likely were addressed to Greek-
speaking Jews, and probably did not circulate among a gentile
audience. (see Martin Goodman,_Judaism in the Roman world: Collected
essays_, Leiden, Brill, 2006, 163-73.)

What the development of Judaism would have been in the Roman state
without the presence of Christianity is therefore difficult
(impossible) to surmise, not to mention that in Judea in the first
century there were numerous competing sects of Jews, and
simulataneously there were any number self-definitions of what it
meant to be a Jew depending on what community of the Mediterranean
region one belonged to. The destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE
necessitated some radical reformulations of beliefs and practices (not
to be codified until the Early Middle Ages), but it will have had to
have been one or more of the most influential religious factions
arising after 70 which could have embarked on any comprehensive
program of proselytizing – most likely resulting in a religion quite
different from modern Judaism.

>
> "The Jews held influential positions and seats of learning totally out
> of proportion to their numbers. [...] in high legislative, judicial,
> executive, and scholastic places." [p. 114]
>
> Who were some of these individuals? I presume that Philo of Alexandria
> was one of them.

Jews held high positions, but I don’t know that it was out of
proportion to their numbers. You can easily search for some of the
outstanding figures.

Christopher Ingham

[Martin Edwards]

On 24/04/2013 10:46, JTEM wrote:
> That would be a large force today, and absolutely
> huge in ancient times...

All such figures were exaggerated. Look at the supposed atrocities of
Alexander Jannaeus, then figure how many people would have been left.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

[Martin Edwards]

"St Paul" refers to connections in both the Imperial and Herodian
households.

[Martin Edwards]

On 24/04/2013 21:25, Christopher Ingham wrote:
> Matthew 23.15, for example, almost certainly is a criticism of
> the efforts of Pharasaic Jews to convert other Jews – not gentiles –
> at the time when the gospels were being written.

There were no Pharisees in Galilee at the time of Jesus. It is more
likely to date from the period after the revolt when Pharisaism /was/
Judaism, the only kind still allowed.

[SolomonW]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:25:07 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Ingham wrote:

> There occurred, of course, the forcible conversion of most inhabitants
> within the Hasmonean realm in the second century BCE,

This is quite disputed both in scope and who was affected certainly the
Idumaens but it would not be fair to say this was general policy.

[SolomonW]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:17:32 -0400, Poetic Justice wrote:

> JTEM wrote;
>
>>I currently subscribe to Christianity being
>>invented as an acceptable alternative to
>>the Jewish religion.
>
> Invented by whom, the Romans or the Jews?

I am not sure who invented it but the main proponent of this claim is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_J._Schonfield

in his book

"Those Incredible Christians"

I confess I did not like the work

[JTEM]

I don't like treating ancient accounts
as gospel, but I will say this: The
claim is that the fire was started by
Christians -- a religion that preaches
subservience and to "Render unto Caesar"
and all that. Meanwhile, the Jews credit
with killing christ AND who happened to be
in full rebellion at the time are strangely
absent from these accounts...

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

A cite is always welcome (especially after I
was lazy), but it's wrong to try and characterize
the idea as somehow belonging to or following
the teaches of a particular person.

I've never read this Schonfield, so I have no idea
what his ultimate conclusions are -- when it was
created, by whom and why. He does not speak for
me. I'm not attacking his position (I may agree
with everything he says, I don't know), I'm just
saying that I'm one of those people who arrived at
the idea on my own.

I believe I have been exposed to the concept in the
past, but not any of the specifics.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

Probably. But even making that assumption the
rebellion was too large -- too wide spread.

Before accepting the "Invented Christianity"
theory I dealt with this by suspecting that
the empire was merely trying to win the hearts
and minds of the people by associating political
rebels with an unpopular religious & ethnic
minority. The rebellions fit in so perfectly with
what we know was true for Jews of the period,
and specifically from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

If we don't imagine the unsupportable "Essenes"
stronghold of qumran then the scrolls and their
record of a Jewish culture obsessed with some
sort of "Final Battle" against Rome has to be
mainstream.

The evidence simply fits: The stories of the
rebellions jive with the physical documents of
the contemporary Jews.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net> wrote:

> According to conservative estimates, the Roman Empire had fifty to
> sixty million inhabitants in the first century, ten percent of whom
> perhaps were Jews. These figures are educated guesses at best, and
> what proportion converts comprised of the Jewish population is much
> less determinable, particularly since there is no consensus as to how
> widespread conversion was at any given time or whether it was a
> phenomenon ever involving significant numbers.

There is powerful circumstantial evidence that
conversion was wide spread, starting with the
Septuagint: A holy book created specifically for
the Hellenistic world.

There was also the Court of the Gentiles inside what
is called Herod's temple.

This view is strengthened many fold if you
accept the north/south religious split. It was
the Samaritan refusal to accept converts --
outsiders of any kind -- that divided them from
the "Jews." We know it was a point of contention
(the court of the gentiles alone makes that
clear), and all by itself provides motive for
a "Second," competing temple.

Putting it all together: We have "Jews" split
from the Samaritans and the Samaritan temple
over the acceptance of Hellenistic practitioners,
with these Hellenistic converts requiring the
Hellenistic Septuagint even as they provided
the raw numbers and great dispersal necessary to
account for the rebellions.

It simply all fits. And although there isn't a
great deal of evidence, what evidence there is
(hard evidence) is entirely consistent with this
view.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[SolomonW]

Read more.

[JTEM]

And this will... what?


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Poetic Justice]

>JTEM wrote;
>I currently subscribe to Christianity being
>invented as an acceptable alternative to
>the Jewish religion.

>Poetic Justice wrote;

>Invented by whom, the Romans or the
>Jews?

You didn't respond to this question but by your later responses it
seems(?) that you believe that the Romans invented Christianity to win
the 'hearts and minds' of rebellious groups within the Empire and you
came-up with this theory on your own?

>[IIRC you also have a theory regarding

>Nero's 64AD Fire that possibly ties into
>this?]

>I don't like treating ancient accounts
>as gospel,

Yes there usually is some bias in them but I assume you also used them
to form you opinions?

>but I will say this: The claim is that the fire
>was started by Christians -- a religion that
>preaches subservience and to "Render
>unto Caesar" and all that.

You're going with the claim made by Nero?

Suetonius blames Nero 100% for the 64AD Fire and he also said that Nero
persecuted Christians.

Tacitus said Nero blamed the Christians to end the rumor that he started
the Fire and then goes into details about the Christian persecution.

>Meanwhile, the Jews credit with killing
>christ

I'm lost here I assume "Meanwhile" is still 64AD?
But yes in the NT accounts they are blamed.
Did the Jewish religious leaders arrest him and turn him over to the
Romans, sure why not?
He's a criminal troublemaker violating the law.
He has a Roman trial, he's found guilty and executed by Pilate.

>AND who happened to be in full rebellion
>at the time are strangely absent from
>these accounts...

Perhaps it's "strangely absent" from those accounts because there was no
Jewish "full rebellion" going on either at the time of Jesus'
crucifixion or at the time of the 64AD Fire and Nero's 64AD Christian
persecution (scholars even Christian ones claim that dating vs the later
Christian dating of that persecution).

The 'First Jewish-Roman War/Rebellion' starts 2yrs later in 66AD.

[Christopher Ingham]

On Apr 25, 6:17 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 24/04/2013 21:25, Christopher Ingham wrote:
>
> >   Matthew 23.15, for example, almost certainly is a criticism of
> > the efforts of Pharasaic Jews to convert other Jews – not gentiles –
> > at the time when the gospels were being written.
>
> There were no Pharisees in Galilee at the time of Jesus.  It is more
> likely to date from the period after the revolt when Pharisaism /was/
> Judaism, the only kind still allowed.
>

Paul and Josephus called themselves Pharisees, and Josephus says that
the Sadduccees, Pharisees, and Essenes comprised the major
philosophical factions of Judaism in Herod’s time. Now, the Pharisees
did prevail as religious leaders at the beginning of the post-
Destruction period, due partly to a flexible approach to Jewish law
which made them acceptable to the Romans (“the only kind still
allowed”), and partly to the fact that they already had a synogogue-
centered form of worship. The rabbis can be considered followers of
Pharisaism as far as halakhic concepts are concerned, but to identify
them with the Pharisees is problematic.

Christopher Ingham

[Christopher Ingham]

A thoroughgoing Judaization, analogous to Hellenization, was
undertaken by the Hasmoneans: the Idumean and Iturean tribes were
converted (the Samaritans, who practiced a schismatic form of Judaism,
were left alone), there were expulsions from the Greek cities of
southern Syria and the coast of Palestine, idols in temples were
destroyed, coins with aniconic features were distributed, etc. Much of
this is diffcult to quantify. How extensive the alleged expulsions
from the Hellenistic cities actually was is disputed , but Jewish
settlers at the least were granted sovereignty  over those cities.
Archaeological investigations in upper Galilee for the time in
question show a decline in the production of Phoenician jars and
Galilean coarseware and a rise in Hasmomean coins, indicative of
massive resettlements.


Christopher Ingham

[Christopher Ingham]

The Septuagint was produced for the large communities of Greek-
speaking Jews who lived in Alexandria and many other Hellenistic
cities. And the so-called Court of the Gentiles was an innovation on
the part of Herod, an avid admirer of Hellenistic and especially Roman
architecture, built long after the Judean-Samaritan estrangement, and
says nothing about Jewish attitudes toward proselytizing; and in any
event, it was the outermost of numerous courts, beyond which non-Jews
were forbidden to trespass on pain of death.

Christopher Ingham

[Italo]

SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com> schreef:

> the Claudian census numbers 6,944,000 Jewish residents of the Empire,

No, the Claudian census has such as the total number of Roman citizens
(Jerome, Chronicon).





--

b o y c o t t a m e r i c a n p r o d u c t s

[Poetic Justice]

>I currently subscribe to Christianity being
>invented as an acceptable alternative to
>the Jewish religion.

>Invented by whom, the Romans or the
>Jews?

SolomonW wrote;

>I am not sure who invented it but the main
>proponent of this claim is
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_J._Schonfi
>eld in his book
>"Those Incredible Christians"

>I confess I did not like the work

Thanks! I read his "The Passover Plot" at 14 in 1968, I was reading
everything I could including the Bible cover-to-cover (tough read:)
concerning God and Christianity and I became a Atheist that year.

His isn't a far-fetched theory for any type of religious zealot to
aspire too (Jonestown, Waco, etc).

But now looking back his theory falls apart at Jesus' planned
crucifixion.

The Romans did 1-day massive suffering crucifixions of Jews in order to
likely avoid religious troubles (buried before sunset).

So a brutal scourging which would likely eventually kill them anyway
within days with at least the ankles nailed to the sides of the vertical
post.

If not dead near sunset the Romans would just break their legs and they
would suffocate within a short time.

If already dead it would be alot easier/lazier for the bored Roman
soldier to just stab the victim with a spear to check rather that
swinging some type of mallot to break both legs.

It's not a Roman Game Show where if you make it to the end of the day
you win and go on your way:-). No one's coming off the cross alive at
their execution (and not all survived with the Josephus/Titus
crucifixion removal during the Jerusalum seige).

Anyway this is what Schonfield wrote in 'The Passover Plot' so I
personally wouldn't have too much faith in his follow-up book to this.
Regards, Walter


"Among other things, so that he (Jesus) would not be on the cross for
more than a few hours before the Sabbath arrived when it was required by
law that Jews be taken down, so that one of his supporters, who was on
hand, would give him water (to quench his thirst) that was actually
laced with a drug to make him unconscious, and so that Joseph of
Arimathea, a well-connected supporter, would collect him off the cross
while still alive (but appearing dead) so that he could be secretly
nursed back to health.

Schonfield suggests that the plan went awry because of a soldier's
actions with a spear."

[Martin Edwards]

It is far from clear who these "Christians" were or what they believed.
Christianity was a spectrum of beliefs. The version imposed by
Theodosius I in 381 made up a backstory making itself the real thing.

[SolomonW]

What indeed

[SolomonW]

I think you will find Schonfield's book on "Those Incredible Christians" to
being more mainstream and less speculative then "The Passover Plot". It is
a follow up book in a marketing sense rather then in a story line.


Its central theory is that Christianity was changed both internally by its
supporters and externally by the Roman authorities to make it acceptable to
the Romans authorities.

I think in a moderate sense most experts would agree with him and JTEM
here.

[JTEM]

paradisel...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) wrote:

> >JTEM wrote;
> >I currently subscribe to Christianity being
> >invented as an acceptable alternative to
> >the Jewish religion.
> >Poetic Justice wrote;
> >Invented by whom, the Romans or the
> >Jews?
>
> You didn't respond to this question but by your later responses it
> seems(?) that you believe that the Romans invented Christianity to win
> the 'hearts and minds' of rebellious groups within the Empire and you
> came-up with this theory on your own?

I'd been exposed to the idea though not the
theory. The idea does explain a lot of
gaping holes in the history of Christianity,
and I slowly came to accept it.

> >[IIRC you also have a theory regarding
> >Nero's 64AD Fire that possibly ties into
> >this?]

Nero's fire and the popular account is an
example of one of those holes. the narrative
has subservient, anti-rebellion, render-unto
-caesar Christianity but excludes Jews who
were in full rebellion at the time. The usual
nonsense is to claim that the Christians were
supporting the Jews whom they believed rejected
and executed their savior.

Quite frankly, if one crosses out "Christians" and
writes "Jews" the story makes a great deal more
sense...

> Suetonius blames Nero 100% for the 64AD Fire and he also said that Nero
> persecuted Christians.

And here you hit on the means. We have the
Romans as suspects, the uppity Jews as the
motive and the means would be the control of
information...

The oldest copy of Suetonius dates to the 9th
century. As the invention is usually dated to
the 4th century or before, that's hardly telling.

> Tacitus said Nero blamed the Christians to end the rumor that he started
> the Fire and then goes into details about the Christian persecution.

"Christ" is our rendering of "Christos," Geek
for the "Anointed one."

You raise another issue here. Jesus was never
anointed, the bible never claims it, but Simon
Bar Kokhba was.

So we know for a fact that a recognized, popular
and officially "anointed" (a "Christ" as we would
say today) Jewish messiah lived and lead Jews
in a rebellion against Rome, yet every last
historical reference to an "anointed one" is talking
about someone else, someone who was never anointed.

See the problem?

> >Meanwhile, the Jews credit with killing
> >christ
>
> I'm lost here I assume "Meanwhile" is still 64AD?
> But yes in the NT accounts they are blamed.

So if there was a Christianity it had no reason
to support the Jews. In fact, as any Jew will
tell you, Christianity has traditionally been
quite antisemitic...

So why would "Christians" be raised at all within
the context of a fire during a Jewish rebellion?

> The 'First Jewish-Roman War/Rebellion' starts 2yrs later in 66AD.

Tiberius and Claudius are both said to have
been dealing with troublesome Jews, both expelled
them from the city.

If true, Jews would have been a convenient
scapegoat for any fire already resting on the
Roman shelf.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> It is far from clear who these "Christians" were or what they believed.
>   Christianity was a spectrum of beliefs.  The version imposed by
> Theodosius I in 381 made up a backstory making itself the real thing.

Several facts are clear though, such as
"Christians" coming from followers of
"Christ," the anointed one ("Christ" being
a corruption of the Greek "Christos"), and
Jesus was never anointed.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[SolomonW]

I would say over time the Hasmonean did become Hellenized. It was not a
simple point of Hellenization vs Judaization. In any case we are not sure
whether a better description of what happened would be ethnic cleansing or
forced conversion. What we do know is that the religious authorities at the
time opposed forced conversion. The Hasmonean king claimed he could do it
because of a loophole in Judaism in relation to the religion of a slave.

[JTEM]

Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net> wrote:

> The Septuagint was produced for the large communities of Greek-
> speaking Jews who lived in Alexandria and many other Hellenistic
> cities.

That's the excuse. But, we know that some
centuries later the eastern empire was
banning any "Jewish" version of the bible. So
it's a hard sell claiming that the Septuagint
was for Jewish consumption when the law had
to ban Jews from using anything but...

| The Hebrews, then, shall read the sacred words;
| they must reject the versions that have not
| been approved, and not discard those which are
| genuine to make use of foreign translations,
| transmitted orally, and devised for the
| perdition of weak persons.
http://www.constitution.org/sps/sps17.htm

> And the so-called Court of the Gentiles was
> an innovation on the part of Herod,

I know who is credited with including it, but
the point remains it's specifically for the
uncircumcised believers.

They had a market for them.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Poetic Justice]

>You didn't respond to this question but by
>your later responses it seems(?) that you
>believe that the Romans invented
>Christianity to win the 'hearts and minds'
>of rebellious groups within the Empire and
>you came-up with this theory on your
>own?

JTEM wrote;

>I'd been exposed to the idea though not
>the theory. The idea does explain a lot of >gaping holes in the history
of Christianity,
>and I slowly came to accept it.

So, the Roman authorites "invented" Christianity and marketed this idea
to the Jews sometime post ~30AD?

>[IIRC you also have a theory regarding
>Nero's 64AD Fire that possibly ties into
>this?]

>Nero's fire and the popular account is an
>example of one of those holes. the
>narrative has subservient, anti-rebellion,
>render-unto -caesar Christianity

Which is basically the 1C Christian's message of not calling for armed
revolt against the Romans and pay your taxes because very soon the 'Son
of God' is coming back from heaven to kick some Roman ass.

>but excludes Jews who were in full
>rebellion at the time.

And once again WHERE is this Jewish "full rebellion" taking place in
64AD?

>The usual nonsense is to claim that the

>Christians were supporting the Jews...

"Supporting the Jews" in What?

>...whom they believed rejected and
>executed their savior.

I've read that early Christians very likely pre-Claudius expulsion were
allowed in and used the synagogues for their services?

Pilate executed Jesus, I've read that early Christians down-played this
as to not seem revolutionary anti-Roman?

And later with Constantine it was a perfect fit, blame the Jews Pilate
was just doing his job.

>Quite frankly, if one crosses out
>"Christians" and writes "Jews" the story
>makes a great deal more sense...

Why? The Jews have been in Rome for what around 100yrs they are accepted
somewhat and part of Roman society.

Jews go to their public Temples and are openly Jewish.

Christians are a new much smaller sect that meets in secret at different
followers homes with strange rituals and they worship a condemed
criminal who was crucified by a Roman Governor.
No Red Flags for the Romans there.

Romans authorities dislike non-religious gatherings esp secret and off
the charts ones.
It was a big deal for Augustus just to start fire departments where
Slaves?/Freedman? gathered just to fight fires.

Romans and Jews have no love for these Christians esp if the Claudius
expulsion was caused by them.

They are the perfect scapegoat even though they didn't start the Fire
*perhaps* it's possible that 1 Christian zealot arsonist was later
caught helping it along?
>[Suetonius blames Nero 100% for the

>64AD Fire and he also said that Nero
>persecuted Christians.]

>And here you hit on the means.

>We have the Romans as suspects,

NO, your have the Roman Mob rumor-mill blaming Nero, he is their only
suspect.

>the uppity Jews as the motive

Where? How? Why? Is their a Jewish motive?

>and the means would be the control of
>information...

"Control" in the Pagan Roman accounts? So you believe they were forged
during and right-after this persecution from the Jews to Christians?

How about the early Christian accounts?
They replaced the Jews with themselves as being persecuted?

And no Jewish historical accounts of their persecution?
Are they also in on this Pagan/Christian conspiracy?

>The oldest copy of Suetonius dates to the
>9th century. As the invention is usually
>dated to the 4th century or before, that's
>hardly telling.

How about physical evidence ~90yrs later which you can see today?

The 'Trophy of Gaius' and the 'Red Wall' structure was built by early
Christians to mark the grave where they believed St. Peter was buried in
a 1stC cemetery.

It is a literal stone's throw from the 'Circus of Nero' where Tacitus
has Christians being killed in Nero's persecution months after the 64AD
Fire.

It's archaeological evidence that early Christians ~90 yrs believed it
was them that was persecuted for the 64AD Fire.

And for an oral history example; My great-grandfather showed me the
house he was born in ~1895 that's 118yrs ago but from a 1st hand account
he also said his son my grandfather was also born there 100yrs ago.

Where are the Jewish accounts and evidence that it was Jews that were
persecuted and killed in 64AD?

You would think that it would have at least got a *single* mention in
Jewish history?

>[Tacitus said Nero blamed the Christians

>to end the rumor that he started the Fire
>and then goes into details about the
>Christian persecution.]
>"Christ" is our rendering of "Christos,"
>Geek for the "Anointed one."

True. And are not Christos and Messiah inter-changeable?

>You raise another issue here. Jesus was
>never anointed, the bible never claims it,

His post-death followers could claim anything they wanted.

He walked on water, raised the dead, cured the sick, water into wine and
returned from the dead.

How many other Jews were called Messiah before and after Jesus by their
followers?

Christians believe Jesus is coming back and over history how many have
gotten their followers to believe it was them?

>but Simon Bar Kokhba was.

Proclaimed by his followers ~100yrs later. And?

>So we know for a fact that a recognized,
>popular and officially "anointed" (a "Christ"
>as we would say today) Jewish messiah
>lived and lead Jews in a rebellion against
>Rome, yet every last historical reference
>to an "anointed one" is talking about
>someone else, someone who was never
>anointed.

It's just a title given to him by his followers, they believe it that's
all that matters.
They could have called him King, Emperor or Grand PoBah if they wanted
too.

IIRC A Messiah isn't the Son of God but that's another title they gave
him.

>See the problem?

Can You?

>[Meanwhile, the Jews credit with killing

>christ]

>[I'm lost here I assume "Meanwhile" is still
>64AD? But yes in the NT accounts they
>are blamed.]

>So if there was a Christianity it had no
>reason to support the Jews.

Support them in What???

>In fact, as any Jew will tell you,
>Christianity has traditionally been quite
>antisemitic...

And in the 1stC Jews were anti-Christian and the Christians were almost
if not entirely Semitic.

>So why would "Christians" be raised at all
>within the context of a fire during a Jewish
>rebellion?

Again, ***WHAT*** Jewish Rebellion in 64AD???

>[The 'First Jewish-Roman War/Rebellion'

>starts 2yrs later in 66AD.]

>Tiberius and Claudius are both said to
>have been dealing with troublesome
>Jews, both expelled them from the city.

Tiberius it's reported that in 19AD he expelled the Jews because his
buddy's wife became Jewish and 4 Jewish con-men conned her (and him) out
of their money.

[Hopefully I got the spelling right here] Claudius in ~49AD expelled the
Jews for fighting/rioting over someone named Chrestos.

The majority of scholars believe that this popular Greek name was
mistakenly recorded for Christos.

Jews are fighting other Jews over this break-away Jewish-Christian cult.

So the Roman soldier on-scene at this riot gets a verbal account (Latin
or Greek) from the Jews, it moves-up the chain of command, to the
Emperor's inner circle and then to the Emperor's ear and then recorded
in the Imperial Achives.

All the while likely switching between Latin and Greek up the chain, so
a simular sounding name ends up written as the commonly known name.

I don't know Jewish religious history but I'd bet there were alot of
Jewish cults that have broken-away from the mainstream Jewish religion.
How many 1000's does Christian history have that have attacked and/or
killed each other?

>If true, Jews would have been a
>convenient scapegoat for any fire already
>resting on the Roman shelf.

Actually if True the small unliked by everyone Christians would make
*the perfect scapegoat*.

Jews have been in Rome for ~100yrs, they are part of its social
structure, commerce, business and it seems that some Pagans have even
converted over.

Romans know them, some are likely even friends and many interact with
them daily, Why upset the applecart?

Usually it's nice to back-up a 'idea' with some kind of proof your
Jewish "full rebellion" would make a nice start.

Creationists also have an 'idea'.

[JTEM]

paradisel...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) wrote:


> So, the Roman authorites "invented" Christianity and marketed this idea
> to the Jews sometime post ~30AD?

The marketed to the overwhelming majority of
people -- the disenfranchised.

Roman religion offered the people nothing. In
fact, they had an afterlife to look forward to
that was little different from our concept of
Hell. Greco-Roman religious mores showered
contempt of the oppressed, the weak, even as it
glorified the rich and powerful. The "Jews"
were simply people who found a far more acceptable
alternative.

...unfortunately, that alternative preached
an earthly reward -- reward in this life, here
on earth -- and at the expense of Rome which
represented "Evil."

Today the beliefs are usually attributed to a
fringe group of radicals -- the Essenes -- but
it was mainstream. This fact is demonstrated
by the rebellions themselves.

For the longest time the Empire dealt with these
dangerous religious ideas by trying to legislate
belief in the official gods. That never worked,
and eventually they simply gave the people what
they wanted: A religion that promised them the
world.

Unlike Greco-roman religions, instead of being
shit on for being poor & weak, the more poor
and weak you were the greater you reward in the
afterlife. The richer and more powerful you were
the more you would suffer.

Unlike the Jews, this new religion preached
compliance. It told you to turn your cheek to
your oppressors (God was going to get them for
you), and to love all your enemies. Jebus told
you to pay your taxes without complaint and that
it was easier for a camel to squeeze through the
eye of a needle than to get into heaven.

And those uppity Jews? Why, they killed Christ!
They rejected him! Christ hated those nasty,
earth bound Jews, and they killed him for it. They
even chose to spare the life of some uppity Jew
rebel over the very son of God.

Can you believe that? Freaking Jews... Sheesh!

The Romans, see, the romans were against killing
Christ. Pilate even washed his hands of the killing
he was so disgusted by it all.

And what about their history? History shows that
all the truly great Christians marched to their
deaths in the Colosseum. They didn't rebel. They
didn't kill Romans. They ensured their place in
Heaven by suffering. Follow their example. Be like
them. So what they did: Comply. Consent. Obey!

> Which is basically the 1C Christian's message of not calling for armed
> revolt against the Romans and pay your taxes because very soon the 'Son
> of God' is coming back from heaven to kick some Roman ass.

It wasn't Roman against Christian, not like it
was with the Jews.

> >but excludes Jews who were in full
> >rebellion at the time.
>
> And once again WHERE is this Jewish "full rebellion" taking place in
> 64AD?

Well, maybe "Full Rebellion" isn't the best
term to choose, but there's two points here:

The records are "iffy" at best and the Jews
were trouble long before Nero.

> >The usual nonsense is to claim that the
> >Christians were supporting the Jews...
>
> "Supporting the Jews" in What?

There was no reason for Christians to rise
against the Romans, unless they were somehow
joining in the Jewish antics. The usual
excuse is that those early Christians were
Jews themselves, a subset, so of course they
were joining in the fun...

> I've read that early Christians very likely pre-Claudius expulsion were
> allowed in and used the synagogues for their services?

Gentiles, maybe.

> Pilate executed Jesus, I've read that early Christians down-played this
> as to not seem revolutionary anti-Roman?

The only record of any pilate that is supposed to
be free of any latter day revisionism/flurishments
is highly dubious. It comes from Caesarea and I
personally believe it's a forgery, at best.

> And later with Constantine it was a perfect fit, blame the Jews Pilate
> was just doing his job.

There was a lot of heavy revisionism going
on even after Constantine. His "Christian
Cross," for example, wasn't the crucifix at
all, it was the Chi Rho, and by all accounts
it originates in Hellenistic Alexandria.

> >Quite frankly, if one crosses out
> >"Christians" and writes "Jews" the story
> >makes a great deal more sense...
>
> Why?

Because the Jews had supposedly been trouble
makers for quite some time already, while
what we know of early Christianity is that it
taught subservience and AGAINST rebellion.

> Christians are a new much smaller sect that meets in secret at different
> followers homes with strange rituals and they worship a condemed
> criminal who was crucified by a Roman Governor.

"Christian" is from the Greek "Christos" for
"anointed one" and Jesus was never anointed.

Why wouldn't "Christians" be followers of the
Messiah who was anointed: Simon Bar Kokhba?

You're exposing holes in your own narrative...


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Martin Edwards]

On 26/04/2013 19:43, Poetic Justice wrote:
> [Hopefully I got the spelling right here] Claudius in ~49AD expelled the
> Jews for fighting/rioting over someone named Chrestos.
>
> The majority of scholars believe that this popular Greek name was
> mistakenly recorded for Christos.

The modern Greek pronunciation was in place by this time and the
pronunciation was identical. "Chrestus" ("Handy") was a common name
among freedmen. The notice could have its origin in a perfectly
ordinary riot, eg over prices. After all, ordinary people do not
believe in free markets.

[SolomonW]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:47:51 +0200, Italo wrote:

> SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com> schreef:
>
>> the Claudian census numbers 6,944,000 Jewish residents of the Empire,
>
> No, the Claudian census has such as the total number of Roman citizens
> (Jerome, Chronicon).

Maybe.

There is a detailed discussion on this subject in the Encyclopaedia Judaica
volume 13 page 871. Where it is stated that it was initially reported by
Gergory bar Hebraeus that Claudius in 48 BCE did a census of the Jews, and
this is the figure that was established.

Going from this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Hebraeus
it appears that he is considered today to being a serious source.

To be fair, some historians debate the authenticity of Gergory bar
Hebraeus's report and claim as you state it was a census of Roman citizens,
but in any case, most historians accept that the figure of approx 7 million
is about right in the Romans empire and between one and two million more
Jews outside the empire.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Apr 27, 5:17 am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:47:51 +0200, Italo wrote:

> > SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> schreef:

>
> >> the Claudian census numbers 6,944,000 Jewish residents of the Empire,
>
> > No, the Claudian census has such as the total number of Roman citizens
> > (Jerome, Chronicon).
>
> Maybe.
>
> There is a detailed discussion on this subject in the Encyclopaedia Judaica
> volume 13 page 871. Where it is stated that it was initially reported by
> Gergory bar Hebraeus that Claudius in 48 BCE did a census of the Jews, and
> this is the figure that was established.
>

under which entry?

> Going from thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Hebraeus

[Christopher Ingham]

On Apr 27, 5:17 am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:47:51 +0200, Italo wrote:

> > SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> schreef:

>
> >> the Claudian census numbers 6,944,000 Jewish residents of the Empire,
>
> > No, the Claudian census has such as the total number of Roman citizens
> > (Jerome, Chronicon).
>
> Maybe.
>
> There is a detailed discussion on this subject in the Encyclopaedia Judaica
> volume 13 page 871. Where it is stated that it was initially reported by
> Gergory bar Hebraeus that Claudius in 48 BCE did a census of the Jews, and
> this is the figure that was established.
>

> Going from thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Hebraeus

> it appears that he is considered today to being a serious source.
>
> To be fair, some historians debate the authenticity of Gergory bar
> Hebraeus's report and claim as you state it was a census of Roman citizens,
> but in any case, most historians accept that the figure of approx 7 million
> is about right in the Romans empire and between one and two million more
> Jews outside the empire.

As a rule, numbers given by ancient authors are not to be trusted,
especially large numbers.

Maristella Botticini and Zvi Eckstein,_The Chosen Few: How education
shaped Jewish history, 70-1492_(Princeton Univ. Press, 2012), pp.
15-16:
http://books.google.com/books?id=F7KX-4OJEPkC&pg=PA15

“Estimates of the Jewish population in ancient times are at best crude
approximations. Salo Baron [1971], one of the most eminent scholars of
Jewish history, puts the number at about 8 million on the eve of the
first Jewish-Roman war, in 65 CE. Sergio DellaPergola [1992, 2001],
one of the leading scholars of Jewish demography, estimates the Jewish
population [...] in the first century CE at a number between 4 and 5
million. Other prominent scholars, such as Magen Broschi [1979, 1982,
2001], Gildas Hamel [1990], and Seth Schwartz [2001, pp. 10-11; 2006,
pp. 23, 36], have proposed even lower estimates, arguing that world
Jewry in the early first century CE amounted to no more than 2–2.5
million. We agree with DellaPergola’s estimates, and for 65 CE, we
propose an estimate of 5–5.5 million Jews—about 9–10 percent of the
population of the Persian Empire in the East and the entire Roman
Empire.”

“Jews made up a substantial percentage of the population (at least 5
percent [in the first century CE] by most estimates) at all levels of
Roman society (Julie Galambush, “Early Christianity in a Jewish
context,” in_The Wiley-Blackwell history of Jews and Judaism_, ed.
Alan T. Levenson, Malden, MA, Wiley-Blackwell, 2012, p. 142).

 “Some estimates calculate Jews comprising as much as 7–8 per cent of
the population of the Roman Empire” (Andrew S. Jacobs, “Jews and
Christians,” in_The Oxford handbook of early Christian studies_, ed.
Susan A. Harvey and David G. Hunter, New York, Oxford Univ. Press,
2008, p. 174; citing Keith Hopkins, “Christian number and its
implications,”_JECS_6 (1998):212-16).

“By a conservative estimate, scholars assess the population of the
Roman Empire at the beginning of the first millennium CE to have been
50–60 million, inhabiting the lands around the Mediterranean basin. An
educated guess counts among them about five million Jews, more or less
(Hopkins 1998; Schwartz 2001: 10–11, 41; cf. McGing 2002). Something
between 10 and 20 percent of the empire’s Jewish population lived in
the area now called Israel or Palestine.” (Yaron Z. Eliav, “Jews and
Judaism, 70-429 CE,” in_A companion to the Roman Empire_, ed. David T.
Potter, Malden, MA, Blackwell, 565.)

Christopher Ingham

[Dom]

On Apr 25, 9:34 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> paradisel...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) wrote:
> > JTEM wrote;
>
> > >I currently subscribe to Christianity being
> > >invented as an acceptable alternative to
> > >the Jewish religion.
>
> > Invented by whom, the Romans or the Jews?
>
> > IIRC you also have a theory regarding Nero's 64AD Fire that possibly
> > ties into this?
>
> I don't like treating ancient accounts
> as gospel, but I will say this:  The
> claim is that the fire was started by

> Christians [snip]

The Great Fire of Rome was discussed on the PBS program
http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Dead-Great-Fire-Rome/dp/B000K15W2A/ ,
which is at

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/previous_seasons/case_rome/clues.html

and according to which:

<<Archaeologist Andrea Carandini provides the most convincing evidence
to corroborate the implication of Tacitus -- that Nero circumvented
the senate by burning Rome so he could build his palace.>>

<<Not everyone agrees that Nero is to blame. Art historian Eric Varner
says "It seems unlikely that Nero would have started the great fire of
AD 64, because it destroyed his palace, the Domus Transitoria ... a
huge, villa-like complex that stretched from the Palatine to the
Esqualine." Historian Henry Hurst feels the fire most likely began as
an accident.>>

<<Professor Gerhard Baudy of the University of Konstanz in Germany has
spent 15 years studying ancient apocalyptic prophecies. He has learned
that in the poor districts of Rome, Christians were circulating
vengeful texts predicting that a raging inferno would reduce the city
to ashes. "In all of these oracles, the destruction of Rome by fire is
prophesied," Baudy explains. "That is the constant theme: Rome must
burn. This was the long-desired objective of all the people who felt
subjugated by Rome.">>

[Poetic Justice]

>So, the Roman authorites "invented"
>Christianity and marketed this idea to the
>Jews sometime post ~30AD?

JTEM wrote;

>The marketed to the overwhelming
>majority of people -- the

>disenfranchised.[snip]

Ok the Romans invented Christianity ~30AD.
Constantine comes to power 312AD.

So this Grand Roman Masterplan takes almost 300yrs just to get legally
accepted by the Empire alongside Paganism.

When Constantine does this the Empire is only ~30% Christian.

~300yrs @ ~30%. If Constantine (for political reasons) didn't do this
and stayed Pagan how many more centuries would you think it would take
to get to 51% for this Roman Masterplan to finally succeed?
If my math is correct, well after the Fall of Rome...Great "invented
religion" Masterplan wasn't it?

>[Which is basically the 1C Christian's

>message of not calling for armed revolt
>against the Romans and pay your taxes
>because very soon the 'Son of God' is
>coming back from heaven to kick some
>Roman ass.]

>It wasn't Roman against Christian, not like
>it was with the Jews.

Jews hate the Romans in Judaea and certainly those Jews in Rome hate
Romans as I'm sure the Greeks and everyone else from occupied countries
did also.

But WHAT EXACTLY did the Jews do in Rome (their home for generations) to
provoke the Romans in 64AD to blame them for the Fire now that "full
rebellion" is out of the picture?

>[but excludes Jews who were in full

>rebellion at the time.]

>[And once again WHERE is this Jewish
>"full rebellion" taking place in 64AD?]

>Well, maybe "Full Rebellion" isn't the best
>term to choose, but there's two points
>here:

So in 2 posts the *central point* of your "idea" for the Jewish/64AD
Fire connection is this "Full Rebellion" of yours.

I asked for "full rebellion" proof from your 1st post...Nothing.

Your 2nd post it's "full rebellion" again and I again pressed you for
proof multiple times.

And now you claim your *central point* is "iffy"!!!

>The records are "iffy" at best and the Jews
>were trouble long before Nero.

Bottom Line; Your "idea's" main point was centered around a 'mistruth'
to put it nicely.

>The usual nonsense is to claim that the
>Christians were supporting the Jews...

>["Supporting the Jews" in What?]

>There was no reason for Christians to rise
>against the Romans, unless they were
>somehow joining in the Jewish antics. The
>usual excuse is that those early Christians
>were Jews themselves, a subset, so of
>course they were joining in the fun...

"nonsense" "antics" "excuse" What were the Jews doing in Rome against
the Romans in 64AD that you can *actually* back-up with FACTS?

>[I've read that early Christians very likely

>pre-Claudius expulsion were allowed in
>and used the synagogues for their
>services?]

>Gentiles, maybe.

Gentiles? In that timeframe the Christians are all practicing Jews the
only thing that sets them apart from other Jews is that they believe
their long awaited Jewish Messiah has come and gone.

>[Pilate executed Jesus, I've read that early

>Christians down-played this as to not
>seem revolutionary anti-Roman?]

>The only record of any pilate that is
>supposed to be free of any latter day
>revisionism/flurishments is highly dubious.
>It comes from Caesarea and I personally
>believe it's a forgery, at best.

So a reused inscription block used in the 4thC for a step in a theater
in the town where Pilate had his palace and headquarters was found in
situ in 1961 and you believe "it's a forgery, at best"?

And who besides you believes this Bullshit?

For anyone interested a good start here:
www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate08.html

And Tacitus and Josephus who besides the Jesus mention which many
scholars believe was original but highly embellished by later day
Christians, he also mentions Pilate in 3 other places at different times
in his term that are not tied to Christianity.

But of course both are forgeries...correct?

Your MO for years has been whenever solid evidence goes against your
"idea" it's either a forgery, you don't believe the dating, etc.
regardless of how many real scholars say something is authentic.

I once proved you wrong about the dating of some Christian symbolic
painting "The Good Shepherd" maybe.

My proof was *in* the Roman Catacombs where scholars had dated it.

The gist of your response was;
"I don't believe the dating of the *actual* Catacombs is correct" ...No
proof ...No cites... Nothing... Just the evidence now proves me wrong so
I disbelieve the dating of the entire structure because it proves ME
wrong!

>[And later with Constantine it was a

>perfect fit, blame the Jews Pilate was just
>doing his job.]

>There was a lot of heavy revisionism
>going on even after Constantine.

The "revisionism" pre-Constantine was done by the Christians themselves,
no one else.
It's only a couple of decades earlier where Diocletian is doing a major
Christian Persecution not revisionism.

>His "Christian Cross," for example, wasn't
>the crucifix at all, it was the Chi Rho, and
>by all accounts it originates in Hellenistic
>Alexandria.

They were all written after the event, a cross or a heavenly sign or the
Chi Rho.
If the painted on shields story is true it was mostly likely the Chi Rho
which Constantine later uses as Emperor.

The Chi Rho symbol was used earlier in non-Christian settings but they
didn't copy that. It just also happens to be the 1st 2 letters of Christ
in Greek that they superimposed over each other.

How many swasika designs are not related to an earlier design, I've
personally seen them from Mycenae, Rome and American Indians.
But like the Chi Rho who do we think of when we see a swasika?

>[Quite frankly, if one crosses out

>"Christians" and writes "Jews" the story
>makes a great deal more sense...]

>[Why?]

>Because the Jews had supposedly been
>trouble makers for quite some time
>already, while what we know of early
>Christianity is that it taught subservience
>and AGAINST rebellion.

So we have gone from "full rebellion" to "supposedly been trouble makers
for quite some time already".

And so Nero persecutes the Jews not the Christians and yet Jewish
history which loves to record a good persecution story NEVER makes a
single mention of this.

And of course *all* the Pagan accounts are forged which as usual is your
MO's fallback position.

Yet you don't find it strange that your only and I mean ONLY proof is
*your* "idea" that you can't back-up with *any type* of FACTS or any
scholars that agree with you?

>[Christians are a new much smaller sect

>that meets in secret at different followers
>homes with strange rituals and they
>worship a condemed criminal who was
>crucified by a Roman Governor.]

>"Christian" is from the Greek "Christos"
>for "anointed one" and Jesus was never
>anointed.

Grasping at straws over a title given to him by his cult followers?

And Gee... Why quote that from me and avoid my quote that directly
addresses that?
Could it be that I asked you how many other Messiahs there were?

>[How many other Jews were called

>Messiah before and after Jesus by their

>followers?]

Jesus's cult followers call him the Messiah...POOF he's the Messiah to
them, it's just a damn title that has also been used for anti-Roman
Jewish rebels...POOF they're the Messiah.

>Why wouldn't "Christians" be followers of
>the Messiah who was anointed: Simon
>Bar Kokhba?

A high ranking Rabbi proclaims him Messiah and *POOF* he's the Messiah
yet the title he used was Prince.
Any proof that he was actually "anointed" with oil in an official
ceremony?

Plus it's a 100yrs later and your "invented" peaceful Christianity is
already up and running. Remember it wasn't invented to violently turn on
the inventers.

And what are they supposed to do kick Jesus to the curb everytime there
is a new Messiah claim?
Besides they already have their "invented" one and he's also the
physical 'Son of God' to boot.

Now tell me what great and grand oil anointing official ceremony did all
the Messiah claimants go thru 1C-BC and beyond?

Josephus proclaimed Emperor Vespasian Messiah why didn't the Christians
follow him?

>You're exposing holes in your own
>narrative...

Yes of course I am, how could I ever compete with your "idea" where
ideas are facts and any evidence is a forgery.

It's the exact same tactic that the Creationists use and in their own
minds they win every single argument. (fossils are forgeries, scientists
are all liars and I know the real truth).

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Apr 25, 12:14 pm, paradisel...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) wrote:
> >JTEM wrote;
> >I currently subscribe to Christianity being
> >invented as an acceptable alternative to
> >the Jewish religion.
> >Poetic Justice wrote;
> >Invented by whom, the Romans or the
> >Jews?
>
> You didn't respond to this question but by your later responses it
> seems(?) that you believe that the Romans invented Christianity to win
> the 'hearts and minds' of rebellious groups within the Empire and you
> came-up with this theory on your own?

that a group of Jews, especially the Pauline church, reshaped Judaism
to make it palatable to a Roman / Hellenistic audience is not
controversial. that the Gospels dissociate themsleves from mainstream
Jewry and lay blame on the cucifixion on the Jewish leadership is also
seen in this light. thus the Christians also seek to dissociate
themselves from the Jewish Revolt.

[JTEM]

paradisel...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) wrote:

> Ok the Romans invented Christianity ~30AD.

Much later. There may or may not have been
something it's based on that existed at that
time, but the adoption (exploitation?) would
have occurred later.

> Constantine comes to power 312AD.
>
> So this Grand Roman Masterplan takes almost 300yrs just to get legally
> accepted by the Empire alongside Paganism.

I have no idea why you think that I said anything
about 30AD.

The bible's timeline is false. We always knew
that. It places Jesus at Caesarea, for example,
when we know that would have to have taken place
long after the time granted for the crucifixion.
And it has Jesus defending the entirely
Greco-Roman concept of marriage with one man and
one woman when the empire wasn't banning Jews from
having multiple wives until centuries later.

> When Constantine does this the Empire is only ~30%
> Christian.

Go by... what?

Your error is in accepting everything as true,
taking it all literally, and then trying to squeeze
in Christianity.

Well, that's part of your error...

If you take take it all literally -- accept that
things happened when & how the official accounts
passed it all down to us -- then nothing fits. Like
Jesus at Ceasarea. And then there's even the more
recent archaeology that tells us that the retaining
wall (without which there was never any "Herod's
Temple") wasn't built until decades after Herod.

...or not the "Right" Herod anyway.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Poetic Justice]

>Ok the Romans invented Christianity
>~30AD.

JTEM wrote;

>Much later.

When? Ballpark.

And what date do *you* accept as the 1st Christianity mention in ancient
accounts?

>There may or may not have been
>something it's based on that existed at
>that time, but the adoption (exploitation?)
>would have occurred later.

So now it wasn't "invented" by the Romans?
But maybe it was?

And something might or might not have existed ~30AD?

But the adoption (exploitation?) occurred later of something that might
or might not have existed?

Thanks for clearing that up for me?

>[Constantine comes to power 312AD.

>So this Grand Roman Masterplan takes
>almost 300yrs just to get legally accepted
>by the Empire alongside Paganism.]

>I have no idea why you think that I said
>anything about 30AD.

Well I assumed your "invented" Christianity started around the middle of
Pilate's tour of duty in ~30AD which puts in the middle.
And this "invented" religion of yours does has Pilate center stage.

>The bible's timeline is false.

When did I use the Bible as a timeline?
Or used the Bible as a fact?

>We always knew that. It places Jesus at
>Caesarea, for example, when we know
>that would have to have taken place long
>after the time granted for the crucifixion.
>And it has Jesus defending the entirely >Greco-Roman concept of
marriage with
>one man and one woman when the
>empire wasn't banning Jews from having
>multiple wives until centuries later.

Don't know and really don't care about an embellished fairy-tale book of
miracles.

I was only talking about the fact that this religion existed and was
blamed for the 64AD Fire.

>[When Constantine does this the Empire

>is only ~30% Christian.]

>Go by... what?

Well it's not an "idea" I pulled out of *my* head.

It's from historian's estimates, Christians were still a minority when
Constantine pulled-off his "heavenly Sign" bullshit and he doesn't get
baptized until 25yrs later on his deathbed.

What % fits in with your "ideas"?

>Your error is in accepting everything as
>true,

And your error is making it up as you go along with zero evidence. It's
your "idea" that is your reality and you have no problems flip-flopping
within it.

>taking it all literally,

If it's a fact or if the evidence points to it as very likely being
true, Yes I do as most rational people take it literally.

>and then trying to squeeze in Christianity.

And you take the facts we have almost 2000yrs later and try to squeeze
out any mention of Christianity and replace it with your "ideas".

I'm an Atheist I'm not trying to prove anything religious and I'm not
trying to prove anything anti-religious...just the truth based on facts
and not my "ideas".

>Well, that's part of your error...

I have repeatly asked you to disprove the facts we have with facts but
all I got was your "ideas".

Well, that's totally your error...

>If you take take it all literally -- accept that
>things happened when & how the official
>accounts passed it all down to us -- then
>nothing fits.

Which you have failed to prove with Facts just your own personal Ideas!

>Like Jesus at Ceasarea.

I don't care, I'm not using the Bible as factual evidence.

>And then there's even the more recent
>archaeology that tells us that the retaining
>wall (without which there was never any
>"Herod's Temple") wasn't built until
>decades after Herod. ...or not the "Right"
>Herod anyway.

Great! You see that's now a *fact* proven by archaeological evidence.

And you like that fact and accept it but you don't like the Pilate
inscription fact so you don't accept it because it doesn't fit in with
your "ideas".

See the problem?...[pause]... I didn't think so.

[SolomonW]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 07:08:56 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

> On Apr 27, 5:17�am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:47:51 +0200, Italo wrote:
>>> SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> schreef:
>>
>>>> the Claudian census numbers 6,944,000 Jewish residents of the Empire,
>>
>>> No, the Claudian census has such as the total number of Roman citizens
>>> (Jerome, Chronicon).
>>
>> Maybe.
>>
>> There is a detailed discussion on this subject in the Encyclopaedia Judaica
>> volume 13 page 871. Where it is stated that it was initially reported by
>> Gergory bar Hebraeus that Claudius in 48 BCE did a census of the Jews, and
>> this is the figure that was established.
>>
>
> under which entry?

Population Methodological Uncertainties

[SolomonW]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 10:40:54 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Ingham wrote:

>> Going from thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Hebraeus
>> it appears that he is considered today to being a serious source.
>>
>> To be fair, some historians debate the authenticity of Gergory bar
>> Hebraeus's report and claim as you state it was a census of Roman citizens,
>> but in any case, most historians accept that the figure of approx 7 million
>> is about right in the Romans empire and between one and two million more
>> Jews outside the empire.
> As a rule, numbers given by ancient authors are not to be trusted,
> especially large numbers.

The big problem here is that we do not have the primary data and our only
source is Gergory bar Hebraeus who reported the result, and he lived in
1200 CE, which is a long time from when the census was done. On the other
hand, he is a known serious source and much work was preserved by him.

I agree with the rest the figure quoted by Gergory bar Hebraeus seem to be
broadly in what others claim.

[Poetic Justice]

>JTEM wrote;
>I currently subscribe to Christianity being
>invented as an acceptable alternative to
>the Jewish religion.

>Poetic Justice wrote;
>Invented by whom, the Romans or the
>Jews?
>You didn't respond to this question but by
>your later responses it seems(?) that you
>believe that the Romans invented
>Christianity to win the 'hearts and minds'
>of rebellious groups within the Empire and
>you came-up with this theory on your
>own?

Yusuf B Gursey wrote;

>that a group of Jews, especially the
>Pauline church, reshaped Judaism to
>make it palatable to a Roman / Hellenistic
>audience is not controversial.

No, that's pretty much fact.

>that the Gospels dissociate themsleves
>from mainstream Jewry and lay blame on
>the cucifixion on the Jewish leadership is
>also seen in this light.

A good decision, the Romans are very touchy about criticism from
non-Romans:-).

>thus the Christians also seek to dissociate
>themselves from the Jewish Revolt.

Sounds like another extremely good decision seeing that the majority of
Christians are Jews.

But these decisions, new doctrines, etc are all made by 'non-Roman
citizen' Christians mostly Jewish with no Romans authorites
involved...Correct?

And the biggie, getting rid of circumcision for Gentiles to get new
converts.

So an already established Jewish religion but with a Messiah which only
a very small minority excepts eventually breaks away from that to go
mainstream.

So can I assume you don't believe it was invented by the Roman
Authorites;-)?

>"I currently subscribe to Christianity being

>invented (by Romans) as an acceptable

>alternative to the Jewish religion."

Which is what I was responding too.
Regards, Walter

[Poetic Justice]

Martin Edwards wrote;

>The modern Greek pronunciation was in
>place by this time and the pronunciation
>was identical. "Chrestus" ("Handy") was a
>common name among freedmen.

>The notice could have its origin in a
>perfectly ordinary riot, eg over prices.
>After all, ordinary people do not believe in
>free markets.

So if I replace Chrestus with Christos or Christ and focus on the "Jews
*Constantly* made disturbances" does this sound like a single riot over
the price of figs?

"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of
Christ, he expelled them from Rome".

[Martin Edwards]

On 28/04/2013 00:33, Poetic Justice wrote:
> And you like that fact and accept it but you don't like the Pilate
> inscription fact so you don't accept it because it doesn't fit in with
> your "ideas".

All the inscription tells us is that Pilate existed. Billy the Kid
existed. Did Brett Maverick exist?

[Martin Edwards]

Then again, who was this Christus/Chrestus who was instigating the
riots, and how did he get to do it more than once without being executed?

[Martin Edwards]

On 27/04/2013 19:50, Dom wrote:
> "It seems unlikely that Nero would have started the great fire of
> AD 64, because it destroyed his palace, the Domus Transitoria ... a
> huge, villa-like complex that stretched from the Palatine to the
> Esqualine."

Also, against legend, he returned from holiday to supervise the
firefighting, and told his slaves to get lost and help out, not good
business as some of them might not have come back. His enormous palace
and garden complex that replaced the old one was partly open to the
public and there were free plays. He also wanted to stop the
gladiatorial fights, but gave up on that one. Vespasian, middle class
officer who lost money on a provincial governorship and slept on a
soldier's bed when Emperor, built the Collosseum. Nero was not a good
man, and was probably mentally unstable, though this is hardly rare
among ruling �lites, but he was hardly the blackhearted villain created
by later propaganda.

[JTEM]

paradisel...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) wrote:

> When? Ballpark.

Depends on how you want to define "Start."

If you're a Giwer type who doesn't accept
a people until they not only call themselves
the same thing that we call them, but all their
beliefs as we know them today are set in stone
then Christianity "Begins" many centuries later.
If you want to take the most liberal, most
accepting approach, then Christianity began many
centuries earlier than the time attributed to
Christ, in the Pagan religions from which most
of Christianities precepts are found.

We all know the story of how Christianity
adopted (co-opted) December 25th as the
birthday of Jesus, and how prior to this it
was a very large Pagan holiday. Well, I choose
that as my start, and that began in the 4th
century.

This, however, was by no means the first nor
last time that Christianity absorbed a
Pagan belief, tradition or figure -- with the
Pagans along with them. Jesus is an amalgam
of gods & myths. There's a lengthy list of
crucified saviors, if some researchers are to
be believed, including none other than Mithras,
the usual Pagan entity associated with Dec.
25th before Jesus came along...

Virgin birth? Raising the dead? Name name
"Christ"?

Pretty much everything about the guy is found
in Pagan culture & religions going *Way* back
before any time of Jesus.

No, I'm not suggesting that anyone sat down and
decided which attributes from which Pagan gods
they would select, and them mushed them all
together under some new "Christian" label. What
I am saying is that this happened in spurts.

If I am allowed to get crude on you:

If baby is born in September, then that would
require mommy & daddy to have gotten with the
nasty sometime back in, oh, January or so...

Christianity as we think of it was probably
born in the 4th century, but daddy (Rome) had
to have seen the need back in the 2nd century.
I mean, three major rebellions in less than
a century, each one larger than the last...

It was probably back in the 2nd century when
those inclined towards "alternative" religions
figured that rebellions weren't doing a lot for
their long-term prospects, either. It's just a
guess, but I bet the Romans made an extra
special effort to get their hands on the
leadership of the religious upstarts over &
above the rank and file. So if you were any
kind of an "Elder" before the end of the 2nd
century, there's an excellent chance that you
saw one of not two failed uprisings in your
lifetime -- one and possibly two generations of
elders subjected to Roman justice. Thems some
powerful incentive for reform...

Thus, if the 4th century marks the birth of
Christianity, the 2nd century is when the
whole thing was conceived.

The process would have been slow, paralleling
biological evolution. There would have been
years of a gradual "Micro Evolution" punctuated
by periods of greater/more rapid change. Constantine
would have been one of those periods.

IMPORTANT: We tend to think of Constantine
making Christianity "The" state sanctioned
religion and it was all cake & ice cream after
that. It wasn't. Most scholars seem to argue
that it wasn't until after Julian and his
distinctly pro-Pagan views/policy when Christianity
emerged... and I would argue that it was
Justinian who propelled Christianity to the
forefront with laws like this:

: ...We order that the law shall be repeated
: which provides that no Jew, Pagan, or heretic
: shall hold Christian slaves; and if any
: should be found to have done so, We direct
: that all such slaves shall become absolutely
: free, in accordance with the tenor of Our
: former laws.
http://www.constitution.org/sps/sps12.htm

Now, religion is a bit of a sub-issue for
me, I am mostly disinterested in it as a
topic of study (most of what I know I know
from arguing with religious nitwits attempting
to corrupt history discussions), so I can't
tell you when exactly it became illegal to
Pagans/Jews to own Christian slaves. But I
can tell you is that once the slaves learned
this, there would have been no holding back
the tide...

> And what date do *you* accept as the 1st
> Christianity mention in ancient
> accounts?

No sooner than the 2nd century. For one thing,
Caesarea didn't assume that name until the
rebellion, and that is normally dated to more
than 30 years after the time attributed to
Christ.

> So now it wasn't "invented" by the Romans?
> But maybe it was?

It was invented, but I caution you against
imagining a single event taking place all
at once in a moment of creation.

> And something might or might not have existed ~30AD?

Virtually every element of Jesus existed
hundreds of years before then.

You're looking for something binary -- sharp
contrast -- yes & no answers. That's not how
reality works. You want simplicity? Take up
math. This is history. These are humans.
Nothing is simple, nothing is black & white.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Poetic Justice]

>And you like that fact and accept it but
>you don't like the Pilate inscription fact so
>you don't accept it because it doesn't fit in
>with your "ideas".

Martin Edwards wrote;

>All the inscription tells us is that Pilate
>existed.

The partial inscription was found in Caesarea where Pilate had his villa
and official headquarters.

It was a stone block that was chopped-up so it could be used as a step
in a 4thC theater and discovered in 1961.

1st line; . . . . . . S TIBERIEVM
Something dedicated to Tiberius the Emperor who appointed him and is
reigning Emperor during his governorship and whose ass like every other
governor he must kiss.

2nd line;. . [PO]NTIVS PILATVS
Well WTF!... 'Pontius Pilate'.

3rd line; [PRAE]CTVS IVDA[EA]E
And WTF!... His job title 'Praefectus Judaea'.

And JTEM believes that it is a "forgery, at best".

That was the point of my response.

>Billy the Kid existed. Did Brett Maverick
>exist?

And the point of your response was?

[Yusuf B Gursey]

messiah is Hebrew / Aramaic for "anointed" and christos is the
translation in Greek. Aramaic speaking (or at least in liturgy)
Christians today use the Aramaic word and the Arabic speaking
Christians and Muslims use the Arabic equivalent (al-)masi:H. though
it appears in the Qur'an, the Muslim concept of Jesus as the Messiah
is entirely different from either Jewish or Christian traditions.

"anointed Messiah" is redundent.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

the Messiah is supposed to usher in a new era of ideal earthly rule.
Jesus "inconveniently" died before that coudl happen, so to keep up
his Messianic claims you have to have him coming back. teh same
dilemma is faced by Lubovitcher Jews who believe that their rabbi
(who is now deceased) was the Messiah.

actually "antisemitic" is not the opposite of "Semitic". the word was
invented (I forgot by whom) to denote a hater of Jews to replace more
vulgar terms.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Apr 26, 4:07 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > It is far from clear who these "Christians" were or what they believed.
> >   Christianity was a spectrum of beliefs.  The version imposed by
> > Theodosius I in 381 made up a backstory making itself the real thing.
>
> Several facts are clear though, such as
> "Christians" coming from followers of
> "Christ," the anointed one ("Christ" being
> a corruption of the Greek "Christos"), and

its not a "corruption", just put in a form more suitable English
speakers.

[Christopher Ingham]

On Apr 28, 2:37 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 27/04/2013 19:50, Dom wrote:
>
> > "It seems unlikely that Nero would have started the great fire of
> > AD 64, because it destroyed his palace, the Domus Transitoria ... a
> > huge, villa-like complex that stretched from the Palatine to the
> > Esqualine."
>
> Also, against legend, he returned from holiday to supervise the
> firefighting, and told his slaves to get lost and help out, not good
> business as some of them might not have come back.  His enormous palace
> and garden complex that replaced the old one was partly open to the
> public and there were free plays.  He also wanted to stop the
> gladiatorial fights, but gave up on that one.  Vespasian, middle class
> officer who lost money on a provincial governorship and slept on a
> soldier's bed when Emperor, built the Collosseum.  Nero was not a good
> man, and was probably mentally unstable, though this is hardly rare

> among ruling élites, but he was hardly the blackhearted villain created
> by later propaganda.
>
Yes, Nero opened the grounds of his much-damaged Domus Transitoria
temporarily to many of the inhabitants of the city displaced by the
conflagration, but he is alleged to have started the fire in order to
expropriate and clear tracts of land for a vast new palace, the Domus
Aurea, which ultimately occupied the Palatine, some slopes of the
Esquiline and Caelian and the valley between them, and the Gardens of
Macaenas. Gangs of Nero’s henchmen are reported to have helped to
spread the fire. The Domus Aurea was not a public space (although some
provision must have been made for public routes through the complex),
and jokes made the rounds that the city was being swallowed up by it.
When Vespasian later built his amphitheater on the site of the lake of
Nero’s palace, he reportedly claimed to be restoring the land to
public use.

We really don’t know whether Nero actually had anything to do with the
Great Fire, nor does it seem likely that many things reported about
him are true (or are accurately represented). He was enormously
popular in the memory of the public for decades after his death. But
he was a villain to many of the senatorial class, and the histories
that we have were written by members of this class. He was, after all,
one of the ”bad” emperors who contributed to the liquidation of the
descendants of the republican aristocracy, which was nearly complete
by about 100 CE.

Christopher Ingham

[Poetic Justice]

>So if I replace Chrestus with Christos or
>Christ and focus on the "Jews
>*Constantly* made disturbances" does
>this sound like a single riot over the price
>of figs?

>"Since the Jews constantly made
>disturbances at the instigation of Christ,
>he expelled them from Rome".

Martin Edwards wrote;

>Then again, who was this
>Christus/Chrestus who was instigating the
>riots,

Well I would spell it out for you but I just did that and you quoted it?
And I was talking about a *theory* on the name.

Many scholars believe it was a simple mistake on the spelling of the
name and this wasn't a major earth-shattering event in the Empire at its
peak that was reported by others.

It's a 1-liner that Suetonius copied from most likely the Imperial
Archives 'word for word' decades later for his book on the 12 Caesars
spanning ~140yrs.

Jews caused more trouble to Rome over religion than anyone else either
fighting amongst themselves or the Romans.

The "disturbances" are believed to be in-fighting among themselves over
this 'Christ' claim made by a small Jewish religious minority on their
long established Jewish religion.

If these "disturbances" were against Roman Citizens, the Emperor, Roman
Authority, Pagan Temples, etc it would have been likely mentioned as
such?
And many/all would find themselves outside Rome's City Gate hanging on a
tau cross or entertainment at the Games.

But these "disturbances" seem to just warrant exile with oddly no
example being made of them to the other non-Jewish inhabitants of Rome
not to do whatever they have done.

So it seems to be an internal "disturbance" which is more of a pain in
the ass to the authorites and nothing criminal or rebellious against
Rome?

>and how did he get to do it more than
>once without being executed?

If it's over a religious matter (Christ, Messiah, Son of God, whatever)
it's a group and it's not like the Romans are going to side with either
one, to them they are all Jews.

If Chrestos was a man causing these constant disturbances the opposing
faction of Jews would turn him in a heartbeat, it would be a Win-Win for
them and the Romans.

If these disturbances were caused by a single man with all the Jews
backing him, the Romans can be very persuasive in getting information or
help esp from non-citizens.

Plus informants for the reward.

And the Romans would very much want to have the ringleader publicly
executed as an example.

And also likely revenge for fucking with them.

And possibly all the players down the chain of command from the Emperor
are catching shit because this is happening repeatedly in *the* capital
of the Roman Empire.

[JTEM]

paradisel...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) wrote:

> >And you like that fact and accept it but
> >you don't like the Pilate inscription fact so
> >you don't accept it because it doesn't fit in
> >with your "ideas".
>
> Martin Edwards wrote;
>
> >All the inscription tells us is that Pilate
> >existed.

Personally, I don't believe even THAT is the
case. I believe it is a forgery.

Fact is, religiously-significant forgeries are
not only common, they're de rigot. They've always
existed, and in the case of Christianity they go
at least as far back as Constantine. So, it would
be idiotic to not immediately suspect as much in the
case of this pilate inscription.

Secondly, the inscription itself is highly fragmented.
There isn't enough there for a positive I.D. on
anyone.

Third, what is there is EXACTLY enough to be upheld
as "Proof of the bible" and not one mark more. It
is precisely what a forger would produce.

It gives us nothing precise now as later genuine
finds could expose a detailed fake, but it gives
us a rough timing with Tiberius, a name that looks
like the biblical Pilate's and a title that fits
within the range/description from traditional
accounts.

Remember: an inscription like this is intensely
easy to forge. Even patinas aren't a problem so
long as the entire inscription is faked.

Most good forgeries us actual ancient artifacts
and then add texts to make them religiously
(historically?) significant. The problem is that
being a genuine artifact it has a genuine patina,
and that patina is difficult to replicate for
the newly exposed area constituting the forged
text. But in this example it isn't an issue at
all because the whole damn thing is a forgery.

It's consistent!

Patina is only an issue when you're adding text
to an existing work -- like the James ossuary or
the temple pomegranate. In those cases the carving
of new text removed ancient material and ancient
patina, and the new patina they applied over the
newly carved areas did not match the ancient patina.

Again, there can't be any such issue in this case.

So even though we don't have the usual test available
for a forgery, we do have something that exactly
follows a textbook example of a forgery, on a subject
riddled with forgeries and in a place where countless
forgeries have surfaced, some of them extremely high
profile.

...and let's not forget that these finds serve
political and well as religious and financial motives.

I'll cut this short: THE DEFAULT with religiously
significant finds is to always assume forgery unless
proven otherwise -- given their prevalence -- and in
this example we have extra reasons to suspect forgery.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

On Apr 28, 2:01 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 26, 4:07 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > It is far from clear who these "Christians" were or what they believed.
> > >   Christianity was a spectrum of beliefs.  The version imposed by
> > > Theodosius I in 381 made up a backstory making itself the real thing.
>
> > Several facts are clear though, such as
> > "Christians" coming from followers of
> > "Christ," the anointed one ("Christ" being
> > a corruption of the Greek "Christos"), and
>
> its not a "corruption", just put in a form more suitable English
> speakers.

This is one reason why you annoy me so much...

It's rather typical of you to focus on the
irrelevant. Don't like my word choice? So
what? It doesn't alter what I said, the point
I was getting across... the communication.

I remember how, back during the reign of king
Dubya the first, Michael Moore wrote something
complaining about Bush's military budgeting
(before the war), arguing that we were spending
way too much money. They right wing went
Berserk on Moore -- calling him a "liar" and
such -- quibbling over dollar amounts. But
Michael Moore wasn't communicating a dollar
amount, he was communicating the idea that too
much was being spent.

For the record: Moore gave Bush too much
credit and drastically underestimated what
Bush would eventually spend.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Apr 28, 2:01 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 26, 4:07 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > It is far from clear who these "Christians" were or what they believed.
> > >   Christianity was a spectrum of beliefs.  The version imposed by
> > > Theodosius I in 381 made up a backstory making itself the real thing.
>
> > Several facts are clear though, such as
> > "Christians" coming from followers of
> > "Christ," the anointed one ("Christ" being
> > a corruption of the Greek "Christos"), and
>
> its not a "corruption", just put in a form more suitable English
> speakers.
>
>
>

-os is the nominative case ending, Christ- is the word stem. the
translators of the Bible were aware of this.

[Martin Edwards]

Obvious to all but the obtuse.

[Martin Edwards]

On 29/04/2013 01:28, JTEM wrote:
> de rigot


de rigeur.

[Martin Edwards]

On 29/04/2013 07:25, Martin Edwards wrote:
> On 29/04/2013 01:28, JTEM wrote:
>> de rigot
>
>
> de rigeur.
>

Sorry, de rigueur. A closed vowel would, of course, soften the g.

[Martin Edwards]

On 28/04/2013 20:05, Poetic Justice wrote:
> And the Romans would very much want to have the ringleader publicly
> executed as an example.

I repeat, how did this instigator, whoever he may have been, get to do
it more than once?

[Martin Edwards]

On 29/04/2013 01:34, JTEM wrote:
> It's rather typical of you to focus on the
> irrelevant. Don't like my word choice? So
> what? It doesn't alter what I said, the point
> I was getting across... the communication.

Well, yes, but as "corruption" means running two or more words together,
you are laying yourself open to pedantry, and I am not the only one on
here who finds it fun.

[Martin Edwards]

I should hope so.

[Martin Edwards]

On 28/04/2013 19:48, Christopher Ingham wrote:
> Gangs of Nero�s henchmen are reported to have helped to
> spread the fire.

An interesting BBC programme alleged that they were, in fact, Christians.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Apr 29, 2:43 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 29/04/2013 07:19, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 28, 2:01 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 26, 4:07 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> It is far from clear who these "Christians" were or what they believed.
> >>>>    Christianity was a spectrum of beliefs.  The version imposed by
> >>>> Theodosius I in 381 made up a backstory making itself the real thing.
>
> >>> Several facts are clear though, such as
> >>> "Christians" coming from followers of
> >>> "Christ," the anointed one ("Christ" being
> >>> a corruption of the Greek "Christos"), and
>
> >> its not a "corruption", just put in a form more suitable English
> >> speakers.
>
> >   -os is the nominative case ending, Christ- is the word stem. the
> > translators of the Bible were aware of this.
>
> I should hope so.

well, of course. the point being that it was takne from a learned
tradition and not passed orally.

>
> --
> Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally.  History is what we must

> painfully learn and struggle to remember.  -Albert Goldman- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[JTEM]

Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Well, yes, but as "corruption" means running
> two or more words together,

No it doesn't.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Poetic Justice]

>And the point of your response was?

Martin Edwards wrote;

>Obvious to all but the obtuse.

I bet you've had to use that line alot in your life.

[Christopher Ingham]

On Apr 29, 2:44 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 28/04/2013 19:48, Christopher Ingham wrote:
>

> > Gangs of Nero s henchmen are reported to have helped to

> > spread the fire.
>
> An interesting BBC programme alleged that they were, in fact, Christians.
>

Gerhard Baudy makes an interesting case, but if the Christians were
the agents of the fire of 64 one would expect to find at least some
substantiation in the historical record. Of the extant early sources –
Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, and Cassius Dio – who go into any detail
about the fire, only Tacitus mentions Christians in association with
the event, and he unequivocally says they were made scapegoats by
Nero. I’d think that a general hunting down of Christians would have
followed had it been established that members of their sect had burned
down the capital city, but that didn’t occur. Nor did a
criminalization of Christianity ensue, as is evidenced decades later
when Pliny, as a provincial governor, has no legal precedent to follow
and seeks the emperor’s advice on what to do with Christians under his
jurisdiction.

Christopher Ingham

[Poetic Justice]

>And the Romans would very much want to
>have the ringleader publicly executed as
>an example.

Martin Edwards wrote;

>I repeat, how did this instigator, whoever
>he may have been, get to do it more than
>once?

I realize my writing skills suck but did that cause you a reading
comprehension problem with my entire post?

That 1-liner was from an "IF" it was a actual single person that was the
"instigator" which I just used to help support the opposite theory that
many scholars believe was a *group* instigation over doctrine.

I believe the term here is 'taken out of context'?

And wouldn't it just be alot easier to cite the many respected scholars
that believe that the "instigator" was an actual living person named
Chrestus with his sandals on the ground at these "disturbances" to make
your point?

But try this so you don't have to "repeat" yourself again and again over
the point I was making which is just a theory.

Many scholars *believe* the repeated "disturbances" were caused by
in-fighting among members of the same religion over a new doctrine
<period>

So the main point I was making in my other posts was;

It is not a "whoever *he* may have been" theory, it is a two seperate
groups of people theory.

Martin Luther died in 1546, did the Protestants and the Catholics life
'Happy Ever After' within the same religion or did a new doctrine cause
"disturbances"?

[Poetic Justice]

Christopher Ingham wrote;

>Gerhard Baudy makes an interesting
>case, but if the Christians were the agents
>of the fire of 64 one would expect to find
>at least some substantiation in the
>historical record.

In the decades since has he or anyone else backed-up his theory that the
Christians were following an ancient Egyptian Pagan prophecy and that
Christians were passing-out texts pre-64AD in Rome's poor districts
saying Rome would be destroyed by Fire?

I googled him a few years ago looking for that and recall it was only
his theory that I found mentioned?

>Of the extant early sources – Tacitus,
>Suetonius, Pliny, and Cassius Dio – who
>go into any detail about the fire, only
>Tacitus mentions Christians in association
>with the event, and he unequivocally says
>they were made scapegoats by Nero.

Lets throw-out Pliny (just mentioned in passing) and Cassius Dio
(generations later).

Suetonius places 100% of the blame on Nero even having his war-engines
in downtown Rome knocking down granaries during the Fire:-).
But he also mentions punishment (persecution?) of the Christians.

I think that goes to support Tacitus esp with Suetonius' extreme bias
towards certain Emperors?

>I'd think that a general hunting down of
>Christians would have followed had it
>been established that members of their
>sect had burned down the capital city, but
>that didn't occur.

Yes I believe it would have if the Mob and the Roman authorites believed
it 100%.

I wonder if it was like McCarthism in 1950's that just fizzled-out when
the Mob and authorites finally figured-out it was based-on the lies of
one man?

>Nor did a criminalization of Christianity
>ensue,

But aren't they already criminals that practices Atheism, don't
sacrifice to the Emperor and are considered something like a foreign
politician association cult?

>as is evidenced decades later when Pliny,
>as a provincial governor, has no legal
>precedent to follow and seeks the
>emperor's advice on what to do with
>Christians under his jurisdiction.

It seems to me that both Pliny and Trajan agree that this Christianity
cult is illegal and must be prosecuted.

Pliny's letter just seems to be who can be defined as a Christian
technically?

Ex-Christians?

Practicing Christians who renounce their faith at trial and sacrifice to
the Emperor or Pagan Gods?

Or only Christians that refuse 3 times to renounce their faith and
sacrifice to the Emperor or Pagan Gods.

Both seem to agree that it is only the last group that needs to be
prosecuted but that Pliny should not actively seek them out.

Homosexually was against the law in many states in my lifetime.

If actually caught in the act they would be prosecuted.

A local city DA might ask a state DA about how to charge and/or
prosecute according to that State Law depending on the act they were
caught doing.

Although illegal Homosexuals are not actively sought-out thru legal
means (search warrants, wiretaps, surveillance of suspected homosexuals,
etc).

[Italo]

Christopher Ingham <christop...@comcast.net> schreef:

> On Apr 25, 7:10 am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:25:07 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Ingham wrote:
> > > There occurred, of course, the forcible conversion of most
> > > inhabitants within the Hasmonean realm in the second century BCE,
> >
> > This is quite disputed both in scope and who was affected certainly
> > the Idumaens but it would not be fair to say this was general
> > policy.
> A thoroughgoing Judaization, analogous to Hellenization, was
> undertaken by the Hasmoneans: the Idumean and Iturean tribes were
> converted

..

> (the Samaritans, who practiced a schismatic form of Judaism,

No, as successor to Israel, Samaria's cult was supposed to be native.
Judaism was formed in Babylon, spreading out over Mesopotamia and
beyond, even before the Persians sanctioned the cult to establish
itself in Jerusalem.

> were left alone),

No they were defeated in war and were repressed.
However Samaria held/regained some degree of autonomy in the
Herodian/Roman period.

> there were expulsions from the Greek cities of southern Syria and the
> coast of Palestine, idols in temples were destroyed, coins with
> aniconic features were distributed, etc. Much of this is diffcult to
> quantify. How extensive the alleged expulsions from the Hellenistic
> cities actually was is disputed ,

Expelled? Where to?

> but Jewish
> settlers at the least were granted sovereignty  over those cities.

What settlers? is it inferred from Jesus' lineage perhaps?

> Archaeological investigations in upper Galilee for the time in
> question show a decline in the production of Phoenician jars and
> Galilean coarseware and a rise in Hasmomean coins, indicative of
> massive resettlements.

How does such indicative massive resettlements? Who invented this
theory ?








--

b o y c o t t a m e r i c a n p r o d u c t s

[Italo]

SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com> schreef:

> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 07:08:56 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
> > On Apr 27, 5:17 am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:47:51 +0200, Italo wrote:
> >>> SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> schreef:
> >>
> >>>> the Claudian census numbers 6,944,000 Jewish residents of the
> >>>> Empire,
> >>
> >>> No, the Claudian census has such as the total number of Roman
> >>> citizens (Jerome, Chronicon).
> >>
> >> Maybe.
> >>
> >> There is a detailed discussion on this subject in the
> >> Encyclopaedia Judaica volume 13 page 871.

2nd ed. volume 16 page 384

> >> Where it is stated that
> >> it was initially reported by Gergory bar Hebraeus that Claudius in
> >> 48 BCE did a census of the Jews, and this is the figure that was
> >> established.
> >>
> >
> > under which entry?
>
> Population Methodological Uncertainties

The article is full of assumptions. It posits up to 2,500,000 in
Roman-era Palestine.

For sure that in the 1st c bce the overwhelming majority of adherents to
Judaism did not live in Palestine (nor of 'Israelite' origins) but a
total of over 8 million Jews as that article claims is not credible.

> >> Going from thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Hebraeus
> >> it appears that he is considered today to being a serious source.
> >>
> >> To be fair, some historians debate the authenticity of Gergory bar
> >> Hebraeus's report and claim as you state it was a census of Roman
> >> citizens,

Bar-Hebraeus is a medieval author. Some coincidence that Jerome (which
he would have read) has the same number (6,844,000 in another copy)
from this census.

> >> but in any case, most historians accept that the figure
> >> of approx 7 million is about right in the Romans empire and
> >> between one and two million more Jews outside the empire.

[Christopher Ingham]

On Apr 29, 3:42 pm, paradisel...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) wrote:
> Christopher Ingham wrote;
>
> >Gerhard Baudy makes an interesting
> >case, but if the Christians were the agents
> >of the fire of 64 one would expect to find
> >at least some substantiation in the
> >historical record.
>
> In the decades since has he or anyone else backed-up his theory that the
> Christians were following an ancient Egyptian Pagan prophecy and that
> Christians were passing-out texts pre-64AD in Rome's poor districts
> saying Rome would be destroyed by Fire?
>
> I googled him a few years ago looking for that and recall it was only
> his theory that I found mentioned?

AFAICT, Baudy’s speculations are little-discussed in the mainstream
scholarly literature, much less the documents that he alleges support
his claims. Perhaps he is taken more seriously in this matter in
Germany, which would explain the following comment (obviously
influenced by recent history) by Christer Bruun (“Rome,” in_A
companion to ancient history_, ed. Andrew Erskine, Malden, MA, Wiley-
Blackwell, 2009, 243):

“In modern scholarship there is, however, a growing sense that
Christian fanatics, steeped in confused apocalyptic beliefs, may in
fact have been the instigators (Baudy 1991 [_Die Brände Roms: Ein
apokalyptisches Motiv in der antiken Historiographie_(Hildesheim: G.
Olms,]). If so, Rome could also sport the worst case of terrorism ever
recorded.”

Baudy’s theory has previously been put forward by others, most
recently by John Bishop (_Nero: The man and the legend_, London, R.
Hale, 1964, 79-89) and Willy Rordorf. Perhaps some of Baudy’s
documents are those cited by Rordorf, who has proposed that Christian
apocalyptists in Rome in Nero’s time, anticipating an end of Rome by
fire, were brought to the attention of authorities (“Die neronische
Christenverfolgung im Spiegel der Apokryphen Paulusakten,”_NTS_28
[1981]:365-74). However, “the texts which are supposed to prove this
apocalyptic expectation of the Christians of Rome in the first century
come only from the second century and predominantly from Asia
Minor” (Peter Lampe,_Christians at Rome in the first two centuries_,
London, Continuum, 2003, 47n.75).

>
> >Of the extant early sources – Tacitus,
> >Suetonius, Pliny, and Cassius Dio – who
> >go into any detail about the fire, only
> >Tacitus mentions Christians in association
> >with the event, and he unequivocally says
> >they were made scapegoats by Nero.
>
> Lets throw-out Pliny (just mentioned in passing) and Cassius Dio
> (generations later).
>
> Suetonius places 100% of the blame on Nero even having his war-engines
> in downtown Rome knocking down granaries during the Fire:-).
> But he also mentions punishment (persecution?) of the Christians.
>
> I think that goes to support Tacitus esp with Suetonius' extreme bias
> towards certain Emperors?

Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dio are our major sources on the Great Fire.
None are contemporary to the event, and all rely on sources hostile to
Nero.

Suetonius makes no connection between the fire and the punishment of
Christians, as they are mentioned in separate sections (_Nero_38 and
16); he says of the Christians only that they were punished for being
adherents of a new and dangerous superstition (_superstition nova et
malefica_). Tacitus says that a multitude of Christians, adherents of
a pernicious superstition (_exitiabilis superstitio_), was convicted,
“not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human
race” (_Ann._15.44).

>
> >I'd think that a general hunting down of
> >Christians would have followed had it
> >been established that members of their
> >sect had burned down the capital city, but
> >that didn't occur.
>
> Yes I believe it would have if the Mob and the Roman authorites believed
> it 100%.
>
> I wonder if it was like McCarthism in 1950's that just fizzled-out when
> the Mob and authorites finally figured-out it was based-on the lies of
> one man?
>
> >Nor did a criminalization of Christianity
> >ensue,
>
> But aren't they already criminals that practices Atheism, don't
> sacrifice to the Emperor and are considered something like a foreign
> politician association cult?

The Jews also were despised for their atheism (an invisible god = no
god) and antisocial ways, but theirs was a_religio licita_, and
therefore they were licensed atheists; and in addition many of the
Jews of Rome were Roman citizens. In looking about for scapegoats to
deflect blame for the fire – real or perceived –away from himself, we
might imagine that Nero in consultation with his advisors considered
the Jews (several in Nero’s circle are known to have been hostile to
Jews), but, as there were some in his household favorably disposed to
the same, the Christians were selected, since they not only were
atheists, but they gathered in non-publc places: Christians not only
offended the_pax deorum_, but they were potentially seditious;
additionally they were generally of the humbler sort who probably
lacked the protection of Roman citizenship. (See Michael J. G. Gray-
Fow, “Why the Christians ? Nero and the Great Fire,”_Latomus_57 (1998):
595-616. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/41538370?uid.)

>
> >as is evidenced decades later when Pliny,
> >as a provincial governor, has no legal
> >precedent to follow and seeks the
> >emperor's advice on what to do with
> >Christians under his jurisdiction.
>
> It seems to me that both Pliny and Trajan agree that this Christianity
> cult is illegal and must be prosecuted.
>
> Pliny's letter just seems to be who can be defined as a Christian
> technically?
>
> Ex-Christians?
>
> Practicing Christians who renounce their faith at trial and sacrifice to
> the Emperor or Pagan Gods?
>
> Or only Christians that refuse 3 times to renounce their faith and
> sacrifice to the Emperor or Pagan Gods.
>
> Both seem to agree that it is only the last group that needs to be
> prosecuted but that Pliny should not actively seek them out.
>
> Homosexually was against the law in many states in my lifetime.
>
> If actually caught in the act they would be prosecuted.
>
> A local city DA might ask a state DA about how to charge and/or
> prosecute according to that State Law depending on the act they were
> caught doing.
>
> Although illegal Homosexuals are not actively sought-out thru legal
> means (search warrants, wiretaps, surveillance of suspected homosexuals,
> etc).

Nero’s persecution (legitimate of otherwise) of the Christians set a
precedent for the criminalization of Christianity, but it was Trajan
who made made it a criminal offense to be Christian.

Christopher Ingham

[JTEM]

Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> > de rigeur.
>
> Sorry, de rigueur.  A closed vowel would, of course, soften the g.

You try *Way* too hard, and it shows.

You're entirely disingenuous.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[SolomonW]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:23:45 +0200, Italo wrote:

> SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com> schreef:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 07:08:56 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 27, 5:17�am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:47:51 +0200, Italo wrote:
>>>>> SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> schreef:
>>>>
>>>>>> the Claudian census numbers 6,944,000 Jewish residents of the
>>>>>> Empire,
>>>>
>>>>> No, the Claudian census has such as the total number of Roman
>>>>> citizens (Jerome, Chronicon).
>>>>
>>>> Maybe.
>>>>
>>>> There is a detailed discussion on this subject in the
>>>> Encyclopaedia Judaica volume 13 page 871.
>
> 2nd ed. volume 16 page 384
>
>>>> Where it is stated that
>>>> it was initially reported by Gergory bar Hebraeus that Claudius in
>>>> 48 BCE did a census of the Jews, and this is the figure that was
>>>> established.
>>>>
>>>
>>> under which entry?
>>
>> Population Methodological Uncertainties
>
> The article is full of assumptions.

It in the nature to the question that much is unknown so educated guesses
need to be used. The alternative would be that we would have no answer.

> It posits up to 2,500,000 in
> Roman-era Palestine.
>
> For sure that in the 1st c bce the overwhelming majority of adherents to
> Judaism did not live in Palestine (nor of 'Israelite' origins) but a
> total of over 8 million Jews as that article claims is not credible.
>

Why is it not credible?

>>>> Going from thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Hebraeus
>>>> it appears that he is considered today to being a serious source.
>>>>
>>>> To be fair, some historians debate the authenticity of Gergory bar
>>>> Hebraeus's report and claim as you state it was a census of Roman
>>>> citizens,
>
> Bar-Hebraeus is a medieval author.

I had similar thoughts too. On the plus side we do know that Gergory bar
Hebraeus did have access to information that we do not and what we do know
suggests that he accurately recorded it.

> Some coincidence that Jerome (which
> he would have read) has the same number (6,844,000 in another copy)
> from this census.
>

It hardly seems like a coincidence.

[Dom]

On Apr 29, 3:42 pm, paradisel...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) wrote:

> Christopher Ingham wrote;
>
> >Gerhard Baudy makes an interesting
> >case, but if the Christians were the agents
> >of the fire of 64 one would expect to find
> >at least some substantiation in the
> >historical record.
>
> In the decades since has he or anyone else backed-up his theory that the
> Christians were following an ancient Egyptian Pagan prophecy and that
> Christians were passing-out texts pre-64AD in Rome's poor districts
> saying Rome would be destroyed by Fire?

If I remember correctly, according to the PBS program
http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Dead-Great-Fire-Rome/dp/B000K15W2A/ ,
which is at

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/previous_seasons/case_rome/clues.html

the fire started not far from the Circus Maximus, in a neighborhood
inhabited by Jews and Christians, where there were many cheap wooden
buildings easily susceptible to fire. According to the program, after
the initial fire had started to subside, Nero's agents helped it to
spread in order to destroy the homes of high-ranking Romans. Does
anyone know if the location of the fire's start has been identified?
And was this location near the Jewish neighborhood, which is still
located exactly where it was in antiquity--along the Tiber near the
Isola Tiburina.

[SolomonW]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:22:24 +0200, Italo wrote:

> Christopher Ingham <christop...@comcast.net> schreef:
>
>> On Apr 25, 7:10�am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:25:07 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Ingham wrote:
>>> > There occurred, of course, the forcible conversion of most
>>> > inhabitants within the Hasmonean realm in the second century BCE,
>>>
>>> This is quite disputed both in scope and who was affected certainly
>>> the Idumaens but it would not be fair to say this was general
>>> policy.
>> A thoroughgoing Judaization, analogous to Hellenization, was
>> undertaken by the Hasmoneans: the Idumean and Iturean tribes were
>> converted
>
> ..
>
>> (the Samaritans, who practiced a schismatic form of Judaism,
>
> No, as successor to Israel, Samaria's cult was supposed to be native.
> Judaism was formed in Babylon, spreading out over Mesopotamia and
> beyond,

This is a popular theory that I think has much truth. In any case, they
would both be schismatic of the religion of the early Hebrew and clearly
saw themselves as very close.

> even before the Persians sanctioned the cult to establish
> itself in Jerusalem.

The Persians nor the Babylonians before them never did NOT sanction it.

>
>> were left alone),
>
> No they were defeated in war and were repressed.
> However Samaria held/regained some degree of autonomy in the
> Herodian/Roman period.
>
>> there were expulsions from the Greek cities of southern Syria and the
>> coast of Palestine, idols in temples were destroyed, coins with
>> aniconic features were distributed, etc. Much of this is diffcult to
>> quantify. How extensive the alleged expulsions from the Hellenistic
>> cities actually was is disputed ,
>
> Expelled? Where to?
>
>> but Jewish
>> settlers at the least were granted sovereignty �over those cities.
>
> What settlers? is it inferred from Jesus' lineage perhaps?

Jesus lineage appears to be Jewish on both sides (putting aside divine
birth)

>
>> Archaeological investigations in upper Galilee for the time in
>> question show a decline in the production of Phoenician jars and
>> Galilean coarseware and a rise in Hasmomean coins, indicative of
>> massive resettlements.
>
> How does such indicative massive resettlements?

Of course it may simply mean Hasmomean economic domination.

[Martin Edwards]

Not entirely.

[Martin Edwards]

Actually I just coined it, and it is not even one of my best.

[Martin Edwards]

Er, yes it does. From Latin "cum" and "rupo". This particular
corruption mutates the "cum" into "cor-". I am always up for a bit of
badinage, but here you are simply wrong, there is no witty way to put it.

[Martin Edwards]

Tamam.

[Poetic Justice]

Dom wrote;

>...the fire started not far from the Circus

>Maximus, in a neighborhood inhabited by
>Jews and Christians, where there were
>many cheap wooden buildings easily

>susceptible to fire.[snip]

>Does anyone know if the location of the
>fire's start has been identified?

Just the general location; East of the Circus Maximus near the Porta
Capena.

>And was this location near the Jewish
>neighborhood, which is still located
>exactly where it was in antiquity--along
>the Tiber near the Isola Tiburina.

No. It's ~1.2km SE of that.

www.maquettes-historiques.net/page9B.html

In your mind move the pointy hand up to just below the R.I that is near
the Porta and East of the Circus.

If you look at the Tiber just before it goes off-screen at the top you
well see the tip of the Isola Tiburina.
Regards, Walter

[Italo]

SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com> schreef:

> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:23:45 +0200, Italo wrote:
>
> > SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com> schreef:
> >
> >> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 07:08:56 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Apr 27, 5:17 am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:47:51 +0200, Italo wrote:
> >>>>> SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> schreef:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> the Claudian census numbers 6,944,000 Jewish residents of the
> >>>>>> Empire,
> >>>>
> >>>>> No, the Claudian census has such as the total number of Roman
> >>>>> citizens (Jerome, Chronicon).
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe.
> >>>>
> >>>> There is a detailed discussion on this subject in the
> >>>> Encyclopaedia Judaica volume 13 page 871.
> >
> > 2nd ed. volume 16 page 384
> >
> >>>> Where it is stated that
> >>>> it was initially reported by Gergory bar Hebraeus that Claudius
> >>>> in 48 BCE did a census of the Jews, and this is the figure that
> >>>> was established.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> under which entry?
> >>
> >> Population Methodological Uncertainties
> >
> > The article is full of assumptions.
>
> It in the nature to the question that much is unknown so educated
> guesses need to be used. The alternative would be that we would have
> no answer.

The alternative is to apply some common sense and determine the limits
of what is and what is not possible.

A better discussion in "Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman cities"
J.F.Bartlett, p.88 ff.

> > It posits up to 2,500,000 in
> > Roman-era Palestine.
> >
> > For sure that in the 1st c bce the overwhelming majority of
> > adherents to Judaism did not live in Palestine (nor of 'Israelite'
> > origins) but a total of over 8 million Jews as that article claims
> > is not credible.
> >
>
> Why is it not credible?

My impression is that at any time the number of Jews in Egyptian cities
(by then over one million?) exceeded those in Palestine (perhaps a
similar total population in Palestine, but not all were Jewish).

> >>>> Going from thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Hebraeus
> >>>> it appears that he is considered today to being a serious source.
> >>>>
> >>>> To be fair, some historians debate the authenticity of Gergory
> >>>> bar Hebraeus's report and claim as you state it was a census of
> >>>> Roman citizens,
> >
> > Bar-Hebraeus is a medieval author.
>
>
>
> I had similar thoughts too. On the plus side we do know that Gergory
> bar Hebraeus did have access to information that we do not and what
> we do know suggests that he accurately recorded it.

I haven't yet located his mention of the above number, but he more as
once deviates from the usual (e.g. where he says that Jesus arrived
in Betlehem at the age of two - http://rbedrosian.com/BH/bh9.htm )

> > Some coincidence that Jerome (which
> > he would have read) has the same number (6,844,000 in another copy)
> > from this census.
> >
>
> It hardly seems like a coincidence.

May be that he noted the number but misremembered what it referred to.
Or perhaps he simply put a number to a view which put Jews vs. Romans
as evenly matched / mirrored.

[Poetic Justice]

Christopher Ingham wrote;

>However, "the texts which are supposed
>to prove this apocalyptic expectation of
>the Christians of Rome in the first century
>come only from the second century and
>predominantly from Asia Minor" (Peter
>Lampe,_Christians at Rome in the first
>two centuries_, London, Continuum, 2003,
>47n.75).

So Bundy's proof is from a Christian(?) claim that this was done in the
previous century?

Also sounds like it would make a good Christian God PR legend after the
fact?

OUR God told WE Christians that He was going to burn down Rome and
warned ONLY us and not the Pagans who we tried to warn also?

I wonder if the ancient Egyptian prophecy was his theory alone?

>Tacitus says that a multitude of
>Christians, adherents of a pernicious
>superstition (_exitiabilis superstitio_), was
>convicted, "not so much on the count of
>arson as for hatred of the human race"

But still arson is in there as a "count" against them.

Could it be like today? Genocide is murder but we would call it 'Crimes
against Humanity' at the trial and in the media?

>The Jews also were despised for their
>atheism (an invisible god = no god) and
>antisocial ways, but theirs was a_religio
>licita_, and therefore they were licensed
>atheists;

Yes I knew they had some kind of official 'Get out of Jail Free'
card:-).

>Nero's persecution (legitimate of
>otherwise) of the Christians set a
>precedent for the criminalization of
>Christianity, but it was Trajan who made
>made it a criminal offense to be Christian.

I knew there was a lull there until the Pliny/Trajan letters but I had
always thought that Domitian's persecution filled that gap.
Until I discovered it never happened and it was entirely a Christian
invention:-).

Thanks Again! Regards, Walter

[Italo]

SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com> schreef:

> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:22:24 +0200, Italo wrote:
>
> > Christopher Ingham <christop...@comcast.net> schreef:
> >
> >> On Apr 25, 7:10 am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:25:07 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Ingham
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > There occurred, of course, the forcible conversion of most
> >>> > inhabitants within the Hasmonean realm in the second century
> >>> > BCE,
> >>>
> >>> This is quite disputed both in scope and who was affected
> >>> certainly the Idumaens but it would not be fair to say this was
> >>> general policy.
> >> A thoroughgoing Judaization, analogous to Hellenization, was
> >> undertaken by the Hasmoneans: the Idumean and Iturean tribes were
> >> converted
> >
> > ..
> >
> >> (the Samaritans, who practiced a schismatic form of Judaism,
> >
> > No, as successor to Israel, Samaria's cult was supposed to be
> > native. Judaism was formed in Babylon, spreading out over
> > Mesopotamia and beyond,
>
> This is a popular theory that I think has much truth. In any case,
> they would both be schismatic of the religion of the early Hebrew and
> clearly saw themselves as very close.

There was no separation between politics and religion, Jerusalem and
Samaria were fierce rivals, hence not "close".

> > even before the Persians sanctioned the cult to establish
> > itself in Jerusalem.
>
> The Persians nor the Babylonians before them never did NOT sanction
> it.

Jerusalem was under Persian control, the undertaking would've been
impossible if it was anything other as a political decision to place
Babylonian Jews there and grant to them control over the city's
temple site, supplanting the rule of local Judeans (who, as the
bible states, practiced other religious traditions besides Jahwism,
btw).

> >> were left alone),
> >
> > No they were defeated in war and were repressed.
> > However Samaria held/regained some degree of autonomy in the
> > Herodian/Roman period.
> >
> >> there were expulsions from the Greek cities of southern Syria and
> >> the coast of Palestine, idols in temples were destroyed, coins with
> >> aniconic features were distributed, etc. Much of this is diffcult
> >> to quantify. How extensive the alleged expulsions from the
> >> Hellenistic cities actually was is disputed ,
> >
> > Expelled? Where to?
> >
> >> but Jewish
> >> settlers at the least were granted sovereignty  over those cities.
> >
> > What settlers? is it inferred from Jesus' lineage perhaps?
>
> Jesus lineage appears to be Jewish on both sides (putting aside divine
> birth)

The Messias was supposed to come from the house of David. As such these
lineages are about as reliable as the information that he was born in
Betlehem.

> >> Archaeological investigations in upper Galilee for the time in
> >> question show a decline in the production of Phoenician jars and
> >> Galilean coarseware and a rise in Hasmomean coins, indicative of
> >> massive resettlements.
> >
> > How does such indicative massive resettlements?
>
> Of course it may simply mean Hasmomean economic domination.

Yes, such may simply reflect the fact that the territory which was
first in the sphere of Tyre had now been brought under control of
Jerusalem.

> > Who invented this
> > theory ?
>
>
>

[JTEM]

Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> JTEM wrote:

> > Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Well, yes, but as "corruption" means running
> >> two or more words together,
>
> > No it doesn't.

> Er, yes it does.  From Latin "cum" and "rupo"

Great. We're not roman and this entire
exchange between us is in English. And
"corruption" does not have that limited
meaning that you're pretending it does.

Argue something useful, if not factual.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:

> Italo wrote:

> > For sure that in the 1st c bce the overwhelming majority of adherents to
> > Judaism did not live in Palestine (nor of 'Israelite' origins) but a
> > total of over 8 million Jews as that article claims is not credible.
>
> Why is it not credible?

Speaking of ancient revisionism (ala "the
invention of Christ"...)

Either there were very large numbers of Jews,
as you suspect, or a massive historical hoax
was pulled off by the empire -- just the sort
of hoax the opponents to the Jesus-invention
say could never happen.

IF there weren't that many Jews than how do
we explain three large revolts? How do we
explain a five-year long rebellion spanning
north Africa, the Levant and deep into
Anatolia?

It is feasible, assuming antiSemitism was
ripe in ancient times, that the Empire could
have sought to tarnish rebellions with the
"Jewish" label (there by combating popular
support amongst an antiSemitic populace), but
that is itself a revisionism. right?

Thus, either the Jewish population was rather
large in ancient times (as we both suspect)
or the Romans pulled of a much more difficult
hoax than the invention of Jesus.

After all, Jews believe this hoax, and they
would have been the victims of it.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[SolomonW]

That is what educated guesses are.

> A better discussion in "Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman cities"
> J.F.Bartlett, p.88 ff.
>
>>> It posits up to 2,500,000 in
>>> Roman-era Palestine.
>>>
>>> For sure that in the 1st c bce the overwhelming majority of
>>> adherents to Judaism did not live in Palestine (nor of 'Israelite'
>>> origins) but a total of over 8 million Jews as that article claims
>>> is not credible.
>>>
>>
>> Why is it not credible?
>
> My impression is that at any time the number of Jews in Egyptian cities
> (by then over one million?) exceeded those in Palestine (perhaps a
> similar total population in Palestine, but not all were Jewish).
>

Maybe one point here at this period there was no formal way for a non Jew
to become Jewish. Many people in Palestine probably just drifted into it.

>>>>>> Going from thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Hebraeus
>>>>>> it appears that he is considered today to being a serious source.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To be fair, some historians debate the authenticity of Gergory
>>>>>> bar Hebraeus's report and claim as you state it was a census of
>>>>>> Roman citizens,
>>>
>>> Bar-Hebraeus is a medieval author.
>>
>>
>>
>> I had similar thoughts too. On the plus side we do know that Gergory
>> bar Hebraeus did have access to information that we do not and what
>> we do know suggests that he accurately recorded it.
>
> I haven't yet located his mention of the above number, but he more as
> once deviates from the usual (e.g. where he says that Jesus arrived
> in Betlehem at the age of two - http://rbedrosian.com/BH/bh9.htm )
>
>>> Some coincidence that Jerome (which
>>> he would have read) has the same number (6,844,000 in another copy)
>>> from this census.
>>>
>>
>> It hardly seems like a coincidence.
>
> May be that he noted the number but misremembered what it referred to.
> Or perhaps he simply put a number to a view which put Jews vs. Romans
> as evenly matched / mirrored.

It is possible, but as I stated most people accept that the figure sounds
right.

[SolomonW]

This is probably true only a people with significant numbers could have
done this.

[Christopher Ingham]

On May 2, 8:43 am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe one point here at this period there was no formal way for a non Jew
> to become Jewish.

For males there was at least one formal way to become Jewish.

[JTEM]

Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net> wrote:

> For males there was at least one formal way to become Jewish.

But we know even THAT wasn't necessarily
the case, hence "The Court of the Gentiles."

Apparently there were enough uncircumcised
Jewish adherents to warrant the construction
of a place for them within the temple... which
suggests some sort of pilgrimage...


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Martin Edwards]

So, er, it does not have just its actual meaning, but also any meaning
the user wants it to have. I'm sorry, Mr Dodgson, people just aren't
buying that kind of book at the moment.

[Italo]

SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com> schreef:

The article has it from Josephus et al.

> > A better discussion in "Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman cities"
> > J.F.Bartlett, p.88 ff.
> >
> >>> It posits up to 2,500,000 in
> >>> Roman-era Palestine.
> >>>
> >>> For sure that in the 1st c bce the overwhelming majority of
> >>> adherents to Judaism did not live in Palestine (nor of 'Israelite'
> >>> origins) but a total of over 8 million Jews as that article claims
> >>> is not credible.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Why is it not credible?
> >
> > My impression is that at any time

That is, since some time after the Persian conquest of Egypt.

> > the number of Jews in Egyptian
> > cities (by then over one million?) exceeded those in Palestine
> > (perhaps a similar total population in Palestine, but not all were
> > Jewish).
> >
>
> Maybe one point here at this period there was no formal way for a non
> Jew to become Jewish. Many people in Palestine probably just drifted
> into it.

Formally; circumcision.
Ancestry was not an issue for conversion, only for intermarriage:
"Ten different genealogical classes went up from Babylon: Priests,
Levites, Israelites, halalim, proselytes, emancipated slaves,
bastards, nethinim, shethuki and asufi. Priests, Levites and
Israelites may intermarry with one another. Levites, Israelites,
halalim, proselytes and emancipated slaves may intermarry with one
another. Proselytes, emancipated slaves, bastards, nethinim, shethuki
and asufi are permitted to intermarry with one another.'"
- Yebamoth 85a

Anyway, there remained throughout the Hasmonean period people in
Palestine that did not become Jewish, among the "Greeks and
Phoenicians" along the coast and at Scythopolis and Samaritans)

> >>>>>> Going from thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Hebraeus
> >>>>>> it appears that he is considered today to being a serious
> >>>>>> source.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> To be fair, some historians debate the authenticity of Gergory
> >>>>>> bar Hebraeus's report and claim as you state it was a census of
> >>>>>> Roman citizens,
> >>>
> >>> Bar-Hebraeus is a medieval author.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I had similar thoughts too. On the plus side we do know that
> >> Gergory bar Hebraeus did have access to information that we do not
> >> and what we do know suggests that he accurately recorded it.
> >
> > I haven't yet located his mention of the above number, but he more
> > as once deviates from the usual (e.g. where he says that Jesus
> > arrived in Betlehem at the age of two -
> > http://rbedrosian.com/BH/bh9.htm )
> >
> >>> Some coincidence that Jerome (which
> >>> he would have read) has the same number (6,844,000 in another
> >>> copy) from this census.
> >>>
> >>
> >> It hardly seems like a coincidence.
> >
> > May be that he noted the number but misremembered what it referred
> > to. Or perhaps he simply put a number to a view which put Jews vs.
> > Romans as evenly matched / mirrored.
>
> It is possible, but as I stated most people accept that the figure
> sounds right.

At a glance there seem more modern historians who accept lower
estimates, such as 100000 for Judah (with only one major city).
2500000 inhabitants in Roman era Palestine and 8000000 Jews in total is
disproportionate.

[JTEM]

Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> So, er, it does not have just its actual meaning, but

You're trying *Way* too hard here. It makes
you look dumb. Like, you're incapable of
being subtle.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[SolomonW]

It was actually a place where non Jews could go officially no further into
the temple.



What I remember reading was there was a three generation conversion process
where people joined Jewish people but did not convert but their children
were circumcised. I am not sure of the details.

I found this though

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselytes

On the historical meaning of the Greek word, in chapter 2 of Acts of Pilate
(roughly dated from 150 to 400 CE), Annas and Caiaphas define "proselyte"
for Pilate:

"And Pilate, summoning the Jews, says to them: You know that my wife is
a worshipper of God, and prefers to adhere to the Jewish religion along
with you. ... Annas and Caiaphas say to Pilate: All the multitude of us cry
out that he [Jesus] was born of fornication, and are not believed; these
[who disagree] are proselytes, and his disciples. And Pilate, calling Annas
and Caiaphas, says to them: What are proselytes? They say to him: They are
by birth children of the Greeks, and have now become Jews"



>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com

[SolomonW]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans

The Samaritans (Hebrew: שומרונים‎ Shomronim, Arabic: السامريون‎
as-Sāmariyyūn) are an ethnoreligious group of the Levant, descended from
ancient Semitic inhabitants of the region. Religiously the Samaritans are
adherents of Samaritanism, an Abrahamic religion closely related to Judaism

>>> even before the Persians sanctioned the cult to establish
>>> itself in Jerusalem.
>>
>> The Persians nor the Babylonians before them never did NOT sanction
>> it.
>
> Jerusalem was under Persian control, the undertaking would've been
> impossible if it was anything other as a political decision to place
> Babylonian Jews there and grant to them control over the city's
> temple site, supplanting the rule of local Judeans (who, as the
> bible states, practiced other religious traditions besides Jahwism,
> btw).
>

Indeed but never was Judaism under any sanctions.

>>>> were left alone),
>>>
>>> No they were defeated in war and were repressed.
>>> However Samaria held/regained some degree of autonomy in the
>>> Herodian/Roman period.
>>>
>>>> there were expulsions from the Greek cities of southern Syria and
>>>> the coast of Palestine, idols in temples were destroyed, coins with
>>>> aniconic features were distributed, etc. Much of this is diffcult
>>>> to quantify. How extensive the alleged expulsions from the
>>>> Hellenistic cities actually was is disputed ,
>>>
>>> Expelled? Where to?
>>>
>>>> but Jewish
>>>> settlers at the least were granted sovereignty  over those cities.
>>>
>>> What settlers? is it inferred from Jesus' lineage perhaps?
>>
>> Jesus lineage appears to be Jewish on both sides (putting aside divine
>> birth)
>
> The Messias was supposed to come from the house of David. As such these
> lineages are about as reliable as the information that he was born in
> Betlehem.
>

Yes but from what is given to us, he was Jewish on both sides.

[JTEM]

SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:

> It was actually a place where non Jews could
> go officially no further into the temple.

People who worshiped the God of the Jews... or,
alternatively, "Jews."

> What I remember reading was there was a three generation conversion process
> where people joined Jewish people but did not convert but their children
> were circumcised. I am not sure of the details.

Previously you were arguing that there was no
formal conversion process, and now you've got
a rather complicated one stretching across 3
generations...

Fact is, it's irrelevant. According to the
Samaritans they're the only "True" believers
and everyone else -- everyone calling themselves
"Jews" -- is a pretender.

It was the Samaritans who absolutely forbid any
kind of intermarriage...

At issue isn't what YOU living TODAY consider a
Jew to be, it was what people in ancient times
called themselves -- however rightly or wrongly
in your eyes.

We have legends of three major Jewish revolts
over a relatively short time -- about 70 years --
and no way to account for the numbers necessary
unless we posit non-Jewish "Jews."

There's no other way.

The claim is for upwards of a quarter of a million
Roman citizens killed in Cyprus alone!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitos_War

NOTE: The Bar Kokhba revolt is often
erroneously identified as "The Second"
Jewish revolt, ignoring the large scale
fighting reported for Kitos War...

There just aren't enough "Jews" to account
for all, not pretending that we're talking
about some specific ethnicity nor even a
complex (not to mention LENGTHY) conversion
ritual.

This leaves us in a terrible predicament where
no matter what "solution" we apply we are left
to conclude revisionism -- a false history
handed down to modern times -- history "Revised"
to suit an agenda.

Maybe the Jewish revolts never happened. Maybe
revolts did happen but they were labelled as
"Jewish" to dissuade an antiSemitic populace
from lending them support. Maybe they did happen
and they were Jewish, but they were tiny and
the length & scale has been fictionalized by a
people who wanted to glorify their past as well
as Roman generals who wanted a reputation. Maybe
the revolts happened, maybe they were approximately
as big as has been handed down to us and maybe
"Jewish" included anyone who considered themselves
a follower of the Jewish God....

I'll tell you why I believe the rebellions did
happen:

The Dead Sea Scrolls. The whole "Essenes" thing
was always very much in doubt -- outside Biblical
Archaeology there was always powerful evidence
against the notion -- and yet we find in them the
precise "Doomsday" / "Final Battle" teachings that
we see reflected in the rebellions. But another
way:

We find the Jews of the period preaching their
final battle against evil -- as personified in
Rome -- with the ultimate victory for the Jews.

We have that much. We have it in the DSS. We
have a belief in a rebellion, in a conflict with
Rome (as the representation of evil) in the Jewish
religion during the same period that we have
reported revolts by Jews.

So it makes sense.

So once we accept the premise that the rebellions
did happen, we next have to account for the numbers
necessary. Well...

: According to the Jewish historian Salo Baron,
: in great part because of proselytizing, the
: number of Jews grew from 150,000 in 586 B.C.E.
: to eight million in the first century C.E.—at
: which time they constituted 10% of the Roman
: Empire! Jews were working very hard then to
: convert pagans; the Gospel of Matthew reports
: that Jewish proselytizers traveled over sea
: and land to make a single proselyte (23:15)
http://reformjudaismmag.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=1850

Now I'm not claiming to accept the idea of
non-Jewish "Jews" from this cite or any one
cite. I post this simple to demonstrate that
the idea is not mine alone, I did not originate
it and I am far from the last to suggest it.

It's logical, all the MORE SO because of the
anti-Roman, pro-war teachings. Greco-Roman
religion was just plain AWFUL as far as spiritual
release/fulfillment goes. The masses who weren't
slaves were for the most part impoverished -- with
ZERO status, ZERO hope -- and their religions
glorified those who dominated them even as it spat
on them for being poor and disenfranchised. Plus,
for an afterlife, Greco-Roman religion offered them
a final resting place that looked little (if any)
different from the Christian concept of Hell.

But the Jewish religion offered the masses even
more than a better alternative to the Greco-Roman
afterlife, it offered the masses hope for this
life. It promised them that evil -- in the form
of the empire -- would be defeated, that God was
on their side, and that they could have their reward
in this life. They wouldn't have to die to get it,
they could have an earthly reward once the evil
(empire) had been defeated, which of course was
guaranteed to happen because God was on the side of
the Jews....

It just all makes sense, it all *Clicks*. We have
a Jewish tradition in a defeat of evil (i.e. the
empire) as recorded in the DSS, we have the recorded
rebellions of the people acting on those beliefs and
we have evidence of Jewish proselytizing to account
for all the numbers needed to fight these rebellions.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Martin Edwards]

Actually I'm not trying at all: this stuff just comes naturally.

[JTEM]

Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Actually I'm not trying at all: this stuff just comes naturally.

Like ear wax. Or snot. Bon appetit!



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Martin Edwards]

I didn't know you were Cajun.