The Roman Empire and Christianity.

[°Leprechaun]

IIRC

Although Jesus was not popular with the orthodox leaders of the Judaism of his time, crucifixion was a Roman, not a Jewish, form of punishment.

It is worth noting also that it was the Roman Empire that ultimately was responsible for the growth of Christianity.

Regardless of my opinions on the subject, these are the facts as I understand them.

Do you have comments as to the relevance of these facts?

[PSOL]

Well, apparently after Jesus was crucified, church leaders actually took a more moderate tone and distanced themselves from the more separatist-Jewish movements of the Pharisees and zealots. The events can be seen then as the real break between Christianity and Judaism.

[°Leprechaun]

Well, apparently after Jesus was crucified, church leaders actually took a more moderate tone and distanced themselves from the more separatist-Jewish movements of the Pharisees and zealots. The events can be seen then as the real break between Christianity and Judaism.

yes

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Well, apparently after Jesus was crucified, church leaders actually took a more moderate tone and distanced themselves from the more separatist-Jewish movements of the Pharisees and zealots. The events can be seen then as the real break between Christianity and Judaism.

Well Judaism itself after Jesus violently radicalised between the Jewish Revolt, the destruction of the temple and the Bar Kokhba revolt. That was the important break between Christianity and Judaism, because Christians had a very real incentive to avoid the stigma of being associated with an enemy people and having to pay the Fiscus Judaicus levelled on Jews, and could reasonably interpret the destruction of the Temple as divine punishment for the Jewish people's collective rejection of Christ. The Jerusalem church was also likely devastated by the war (plus a Roman army genocided Galilee) and declined in importance relative to Gentile cities outside Palestine. Before 70AD the relationship between Christians and Judaism was probably more amorphous, Paul at least doesn't indicate he's anything other than part of a sect with an ultimate mission to redeem Israel.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Roman history ceased being interesting once monotheism from the Arabic lands took over. 

What has the rise of Islam got to do with any of this?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Roman history ceased being interesting once monotheism from the Arabic lands took over.   

Yes, I've travelled all throughout those lands when you people were suckling on your mammies titties.

Indigenous paganism >>>> the cult of Mithras/Christ. 

This is such a cursed post.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Roman history ceased being interesting once monotheism from the Arabic lands took over.

What has the rise of Islam got to do with any of this?

More to the point, who in the world could find such characters as Julian the Apostate, Theodosius, Justinian and Theodora, #gaslight Pulcheria, #gatekeep Irene, #girlboss Zoe, Basil Bulgar-Slayer, and Andronicus Hater-of-Sunlight uninteresting?

[Georg Ebner]

Although Jesus was not popular with the orthodox leaders of the Judaism of his time

It were finally the westernized and realPolitics-obsessed liberals (inclusive nationalists), who brought HIM onto the cross. And the Essenians as the most pious ones (albeit not entirely orthodox either) were seemingly quite open.

[Georg Ebner]

Roman history ceased being interesting once monotheism from the Arabic lands took over.  

Yes, I've travelled all throughout those lands when you people were suckling on your mammies titties.

Indigenous paganism >>>> the cult of Mithras/Christ.  

Contrary to GIBBON and others it must be stressed, that the protomodern deCadence of the ancient world was slowed down by 3 elements:

- Greek intelligence (too intelligent for forgetting the human limits)
- Roman stupidity (too stupid to understand the poison of the Stoa aso.)
- Orientalic religions

But of course: Less deCadence can be called "ceased being interesting"...

Following anaLogies with other religions as done by the "Religionsgeschichtliche Schule" is highly interesting, but concluding dependencies is usually wrong&premature. (A leading rePresentative of that school, with whom i was in contact, fully admitted this.)
Since Th.v.ZAHN (sonInLaw of A.v.HARNACK) we can know, for example, that contrary to the popular picture the EvAngelia are a kind of literature sui generis without anything similar anywhere else.

[vitoNova]

I deleted my original comment, because I found it too "edgy" for you sensitive people, but it's actually 1000% true, and people are still responding to it:


Roman history ceased being interesting once monotheism from the Arabic lands took over.  

Yes, I've travelled all throughout those lands when you people were suckling on your mammies titties.

Indigenous paganism >>>> the cult of Mithras/Christ.




I was 18 and devouring books on "European History for Dummies" once I found out I was shipping out to Germany, and my dick went automatically limp after Caesar's assassination and I stopped reading.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

They use Angels as Mary and Joseph as the same as Christ I have nothing against it we're all children of God whether it was a Virgin Birth or Not or Ossuary Box that Joseph was the real father of Christ because James was thru Joseph first wife and is the real brother of Christ


But, everyone knows God can be a force of nature, an alien or whom you think he is, no one knows unless you die

In Buddhism the Monks call GOD CAUSE AND EFFECT WHATEVER YOU PUT OUT GOOD OR BAD DEEDS COME BACK

[The Mikado]

I deleted my original comment, because I found it too "edgy" for you sensitive people, but it's actually 1000% true, and people are still responding to it:


Roman history ceased being interesting once monotheism from the Arabic lands took over.  

Yes, I've travelled all throughout those lands when you people were suckling on your mammies titties.

Indigenous paganism >>>> the cult of Mithras/Christ.




I was 18 and devouring books on "European History for Dummies" once I found out I was shipping out to Germany, and my dick went automatically limp after Caesar's assassination and I stopped reading.

This is just impossible for me to relate to as most of my favorite periods of Roman history are after the end of the Western Empire, sometimes centuries after. When earlier are you going to get something like Justinian II the Slit-Nosed, who gets his nose cut off and a boatride to Crimea on the understanding that a mutilated cripple can't hold power, only for him to reinvade, retake his throne and prove that, yes, yes he can? Or Empress Irene blinding, castrating, and eventually killing off her own son Constantine VI? Or, well, the Islamic Conquests of the 7th centuries and the desperate rearguard actions after Syria and Egypt were lost to try to hold onto everything else?

[All Along The Watchtower]

I was 18 and devouring books on "European History for Dummies" once I found out I was shipping out to Germany, and my dick went automatically limp after Caesar's assassination and I stopped reading.

Are you by chance doing a parody of an American Founding Father?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Well, apparently after Jesus was crucified, church leaders actually took a more moderate tone and distanced themselves from the more separatist-Jewish movements of the Pharisees and zealots. The events can be seen then as the real break between Christianity and Judaism.

Well Judaism itself after Jesus violently radicalised between the Jewish Revolt, the destruction of the temple and the Bar Kokhba revolt. That was the important break between Christianity and Judaism, because Christians had a very real incentive to avoid the stigma of being associated with an enemy people and having to pay the Fiscus Judaicus levelled on Jews, and could reasonably interpret the destruction of the Temple as divine punishment for the Jewish people's collective rejection of Christ. The Jerusalem church was also likely devastated by the war (plus a Roman army genocided Galilee) and declined in importance relative to Gentile cities outside Palestine. Before 70AD the relationship between Christians and Judaism was probably more amorphous, Paul at least doesn't indicate he's anything other than part of a sect with an ultimate mission to redeem Israel.

I always found it more than a little suspect that “the Jewish crowd” pushed an allegedly reluctant Pilate to crucify Jesus. But it kind of makes sense if you’re a Christian writing this down in the latter decades of the first century—and you’re a subject of the Roman Empire…

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

my dick went automatically limp after Caesar's assassination and I stopped reading.

Interesting wording. Are you sure you're not secretly the King of Bithynia?

Well, apparently after Jesus was crucified, church leaders actually took a more moderate tone and distanced themselves from the more separatist-Jewish movements of the Pharisees and zealots. The events can be seen then as the real break between Christianity and Judaism.

Well Judaism itself after Jesus violently radicalised between the Jewish Revolt, the destruction of the temple and the Bar Kokhba revolt. That was the important break between Christianity and Judaism, because Christians had a very real incentive to avoid the stigma of being associated with an enemy people and having to pay the Fiscus Judaicus levelled on Jews, and could reasonably interpret the destruction of the Temple as divine punishment for the Jewish people's collective rejection of Christ. The Jerusalem church was also likely devastated by the war (plus a Roman army genocided Galilee) and declined in importance relative to Gentile cities outside Palestine. Before 70AD the relationship between Christians and Judaism was probably more amorphous, Paul at least doesn't indicate he's anything other than part of a sect with an ultimate mission to redeem Israel.

I always found it more than a little suspect that “the Jewish crowd” pushed an allegedly reluctant Pilate to crucify Jesus. But it kind of makes sense if you’re a Christian writing this down in the latter decades of the first century—and you’re a subject of the Roman Empire…

A persistent subtext in the Johannine corpus, and to a somewhat lesser extent in Luke-Acts, is "okay, we know this looks bad, but we promise we're not disloyals; PLEASE don't go Titus on us".

[vitoNova]

I was 18 and devouring books on "European History for Dummies" once I found out I was shipping out to Germany, and my dick went automatically limp after Caesar's assassination and I stopped reading.

Are you by chance doing a parody of an American Founding Father?

I suppose if I was truly channeling an American Founding Father, I'd reference my slathering devotion to Cato or Cicero, as opposed to the tyrannical, anti-republican Caesar, but I see what you're saying.   But just to be clear, I do not like nor admire Julius Caesar.   I simply find pre-Christian history marginally more interesting than post-Christian history. 

I regard pre-Christian (Euro and global) history more engrossing because:

a) I was raised Roman Catholic.  So naturally, if I heard it in Catholic school already, chances are I don't really find it all that particulary interesting.

b) that whole whirlwind drama of Caesar/Cleopatra/Marc Antony seemed like a genuine 'dénouement' point in world history, and all that stuff that followed was just a slow slog towards the Dark Ages...that continues to this present day.

c) when I was 18-19 years old and found myself stationed in Europe in the military, I just assumed I'd absorb most of that post-Christian history anyway via simple osmosis.

Also, my original statement was a tad inaccurate.   I should have stated: "I lost interest in Roman history in the aftermath of the Battle of Actium, and upon Augustus' inauguration of the Roman Empire." 

[LabourJersey]

my dick went automatically limp after Caesar's assassination and I stopped reading.

Interesting wording. Are you sure you're not secretly the King of Bithynia?

Well, apparently after Jesus was crucified, church leaders actually took a more moderate tone and distanced themselves from the more separatist-Jewish movements of the Pharisees and zealots. The events can be seen then as the real break between Christianity and Judaism.

Well Judaism itself after Jesus violently radicalised between the Jewish Revolt, the destruction of the temple and the Bar Kokhba revolt. That was the important break between Christianity and Judaism, because Christians had a very real incentive to avoid the stigma of being associated with an enemy people and having to pay the Fiscus Judaicus levelled on Jews, and could reasonably interpret the destruction of the Temple as divine punishment for the Jewish people's collective rejection of Christ. The Jerusalem church was also likely devastated by the war (plus a Roman army genocided Galilee) and declined in importance relative to Gentile cities outside Palestine. Before 70AD the relationship between Christians and Judaism was probably more amorphous, Paul at least doesn't indicate he's anything other than part of a sect with an ultimate mission to redeem Israel.

I always found it more than a little suspect that “the Jewish crowd” pushed an allegedly reluctant Pilate to crucify Jesus. But it kind of makes sense if you’re a Christian writing this down in the latter decades of the first century—and you’re a subject of the Roman Empire…

A persistent subtext in the Johannine corpus, and to a somewhat lesser extent in Luke-Acts, is "okay, we know this looks bad, but we promise we're not disloyals; PLEASE don't go Titus on us".

I thought a lot about this during Holy Week (as I mentioned in a different post I'm getting confirmed and so I went to all the Holy Week services at my church). The portrayal in scripture of Pilate being so reluctant and suspicious of the mob felt quite jarring given, well, just about everything I understood about Pilate and the Roman Empire.

The social (and political) context of the Gospels after the destruction of the Temple and the status of Judaism in the Empire does make sense, but frankly it's a little hard for me to reconcile the belief that the Gospels are true with the idea that these bodies of work were revised for the sake of making the Passion story less anti-Roman

[Edu]

This is just impossible for me to relate to as most of my favorite periods of Roman history are after the end of the Western Empire, sometimes centuries after. When earlier are you going to get something like Justinian II the Slit-Nosed, who gets his nose cut off and a boatride to Crimea on the understanding that a mutilated cripple can't hold power, only for him to reinvade, retake his throne and prove that, yes, yes he can? Or Empress Irene blinding, castrating, and eventually killing off her own son Constantine VI? Or, well, the Islamic Conquests of the 7th centuries and the desperate rearguard actions after Syria and Egypt were lost to try to hold onto everything else?

Yeah, reading about the Roman Empire in the middle ages is wild lol. Sure, chronicles were made to made some look bad and blah blah blah, it's still awesome.

we also have Nicephorus I who:

In 811, Nikephoros invaded Bulgaria, defeated Krum twice, and sacked the Bulgarian capital Pliska. The Chronicle of the 12th-century patriarch of the Syrian Jacobites, Michael the Syrian, describes the brutalities and atrocities of Nikephoros: "Nikephoros, emperor of the Roman Empire, walked into the Bulgarians' land: he was victorious and killed great number of them. He reached their capital, seized it and devastated it. His savagery went to the point that he ordered to bring their small children, got them tied down on earth and made thresh grain stones to smash them." During Nikephoros' retreat, the imperial army was ambushed and destroyed in Varbishki mountain passes at the Battle of Pliska by Krum. Nikephoros was killed during the battle, whereafter Krum ordered his decapitation. Krum is said to have made a drinking-cup of Nikephoros' skull.

His son was paralyzed because of injuries in the battle but still became emperor (and died shortly thereafter)


And what about Leo V who was hilariously murdered:

Leo V appointed competent military commanders from among his own comrades-in-arms, including Michael the Amorian and Thomas the Slav. He also persecuted the Paulicians. When Leo jailed Michael for suspicion of conspiracy, the latter organized the assassination of the Emperor in the palace chapel of St. Stephen on Christmas Eve, 820. Leo was attending the matins service when a group of assassins disguised as members of the choir due to sing in the service[14] suddenly threw off their robes and drew their weapons. In the dim light they mistook the officiating priest for the Emperor and the confusion allowed Leo to snatch a heavy cross from the altar and defend himself. He called for his guards, but the conspirators had barred the doors and within a few moments a sword stroke had severed his arm, and he fell before the communion-table, where his body was hewed in pieces. His remains were dumped unceremoniously in the snow and the assassins hurried to the dungeons to free Michael II. Unfortunately for them Leo had hidden the key on his person, and since it was too early in the morning to find a blacksmith Michael was hastily crowned as emperor with the iron clasps still around his legs.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I just saw on You tube that the crucifixion, is depicted wrong according to findings in an Ossuary Box that Protestant Priests don't want to let the Laity know that Jesus ankles weren't nailed thru the feet it was nailed across the ankles and there were extras nails thru the wrist as well as the hand to discourage peasants from tearing body from the cross, and it's a discrepancy if it was a cross it could of been a tree branch or a stake


So, there you have it Jesus according to History was just a mortal man and there hasn't been no rapture but who knows

But everyone knows Catholics we're the first Christians and pumped up Jesus before Protestant sect anyways