In Biblical times, people were identified by whom they descended, from where they came from, and which ethnicity they were (which is why names were listed like the following: Jesus of Nazareth, Lydia of Thyatira, etc.). This is because, in these times, others judged people according to these different aspects. Now let’s look at the second of three ‘strikes’ against Jesus: He was from Galilee.
Galilee was like the Iraq of yesteryear, and mentioning this land to the Romans would have much of the same effect. The Jewish historian Josephus said that Galileans “from childhood were trained for war” and “[Galilee] produced the most notorious leaders of the [Jewish] fight against Rome.” It would be safe to say that the Romans would be incredibly suspicious of anyone who came from this place, and would become hostile against any Jew from Galilee, knowing that these people were most likely trying to undermine and overthrow the Roman social order. Add to that trying to preach the crucifixion of Jesus, the punishment for rebels against Rome, and this would have greatly supported the already negative stereotype of the Galileans.
Why would a Roman follow some rebel who is thought to be trying to overthrow Roman rule? Supporting Jesus would have been like treason to the Roman Empire. By following Jesus, a Roman would have been cut off, mocked, or even killed along with the other rebels. Only something like the resurrection of Jesus, firmly backed up by evidence and eyewitnesses, would have explained the uncanny spread of Christianity into Rome.
(For those who want to object to Jesus’ existence and crucifixion, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aesLSOLuapM )
http://www.livingwaters.com/good/
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html
2007-11-19
14:31:51
·
15 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Religion & Spirituality