• prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I think you’re misunderstanding a bit what I mean.

    The Roman people have every reason to change the narrative to make it the others who killed him.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      No I think I totally agree and understand exactly what you mean. 🙃🙃

      I promise my comment is only saying what it said, face value. No subtext lol :)

      • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        There is a lot of anti-Semitic history in the retelling of this myth so sometimes it’s hard to understand where people are coming from.

        Judaism was not compatible with the polytheistic religions of the time, it specifically had a militaristic bend to it which is part of why they were persecuted and chased off time and again and also fought hard for their land. It was a seed change in ideas, suddenly your god was a problem because this god said no others.

        That inherently isn’t bad, human nature and whatnot.

        The Roman’s didn’t give a fuck beyond enforcing the local peace and getting their due. Their whole system relied on being pragmatic and open to the local religions.

        Who decided that this mythological person needed to be executed is here-say, whether it even happened is here-say.

        What is easy to pick out is the push for the narrative to be at the hands of the evil bad guys which is where things get kinda gross.

        With no records of the event why are we saying one side did it over the other.

        • spujb@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          understood! yeah sorry if i gave any impression of the opposing position. that’s not at all the case.