• Neato@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Longinus (/lɒnˈdʒaɪnəs/) is the name given to the unnamed Roman soldier who pierced the side of Jesus with a lance;

      The name is probably Latinized from the Greek lonche (λόγχη), the word used for the lance mentioned in John 19:34.[9]

      They didn’t know this soldier’s name so they essentially named him “Lancer”. Amazing.

  • Sibbo@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    If they just wouldn’t have killed him he wouldn’t have been able to come back and prove that he’s holy. Then Christianity may not have come to existence, and we’d instead have the much cooler Roman gods.

  • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Note that Jesus was crucified partially because the Romans did not believe he was God or had any powers

    (i get the joke)

    • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Idk, I think he was crucified because he was a political activist that threatened the power of the state and forced people to question the authority of said power, just like the Romans crucified all political activists that were critical of the Roman Empire.

      • bstix@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Maybe he was killed because an acorn dropped on some chariot. You never know.

      • kromem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Or he was crucified because he was gay (kisses the guy he put in charge of the group’s money around that time, had a beloved disciple reclining on him when feeding same disciple he kisses dipped bread at his last meal before being turned in). That was a capital charge under Jewish law.

        In fact, it’s extremely sus that Peter is alleged in his own tradition to deny Jesus three times right around the time Jesus is going through ~3 trials, at least one of which Peter is acknowledged as going back to the guarded area where the trial was taking place to deny him in.

        He could have also been killed for promoting atheist ideas at the time, given the earliest Christian ‘heresy’ was Simon Magus who after leaving the early church is talking about an “indivisible point” and later heretics and apocrypha have Jesus seeming to be quoting Lucretius’s naturalism and atomism. This is the same century Rabbi Elazar allegedly said “why do we study the Torah? To know how to answer the Epicurean.” So Jesus promoting Epicurean ideas might not have gone over very well (and might explain why Paul was so adamant Corinth ignore “other versions of Jesus” that they accepted saying things like “everything is permissible” or denying physical resurrection - very Epicurean statements).

        Or it could have been the official story, though personally I don’t really buy it. If he was a threat to Rome it’s bizarre he gets such different treatment from the several other messianic upstarts in Josephus who are killed immediately without trial by Roman forces with their followers included. And why would the Sanhedrin be peeved about messianic claims when the other examples of messianic claimants were solely depicted as opposed by Rome?

        But possibly gay Jesus teaching evolution and atomism while criticizing dynastic monarchy? Yeah, I can see that dude ending up dead pretty fast in that time and place by Sanhedrin demand and Roman hands.

        • bstix@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          I remember reading about how investigations into the translations of the Bible support the gay Jesus. (Disclaimer I’m not gay, so I have no affiliated interest in promoting gayness, I just find it historically interesting).

          “Washing feet” was a actually a mistranslation of some kind of general “servicing” that had several meanings, including removed sucking or accepting being bottom. Jesus “washed a lot of feet”, but one thing is certain: It didn’t mean literally washing feet. That part was definitely made up according to the people who looked into it.

          Anyway, it’s been thousands of years and learning of how cultures and acceptance of certain things can change rapidly, I wouldn’t be surprised.

          Keep in mind that Romans were also at war with the Greek shortly before the alleged time of Jesus. We know that the ancient Greeks practiced gay sex not just casually, but even expectedly. The Romans did not. The empire had an expansion strategy that looked a lot like the Nazis Third Reich: Expansion by breeding.

          Personally I find it likely that historical Jesus was killed for a whole lot of other reasons than for claiming to be the king of Jews or for betrayal of the state, and he sure as fuck did not die “for our sins”.

          • kromem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            We know that the ancient Greeks practiced gay sex not just casually, but even expectedly. The Romans did not.

            Huh? The Romans were even more extreme with it. The Greeks would court young boys coming of age with a lengthy courting ritual that involved a lot of focus on consent - the Romans were straight up castrating prepubescent children to preserve their femininity.

            In fact, it’s probable that the “marriage is between a man and a woman” in the NT was an anachronistic reactionary response to gay marriage having become a legitimate Roman institution in the 60s CE following Nero marrying two men, first playing the role of the bride and then the role of the husband (the latter time with someone who had been castrated when prepubescent).

            Even before the empire there were rules related to homosexual senators losing their voting rights if they were the bottom, and they weren’t likely to create a rule for something that didn’t happen.

            So I’m not sure where you get the idea Rome didn’t have homosexuality.

            “Washing feet” was a actually a mistranslation of some kind of general “servicing” that had several meanings, including removed sucking or accepting being bottom.

            I’d really need to see a source for this claim, as it sounds extremely spurious. There’s a lot of literature around Christianity that claims secret coded language use, but generally they are all quite ridiculous claims.

            While ‘feet’ or ‘thigh’ as words sometimes have euphemistic meaning for genitals, I’m unaware of any idiomatic use of “washing feet” as reference to sex. You can see some related discussion about the OT usage of a similar phrasing/theory here.