Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums

The Rise Of Christianity


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

How about everyone keep the argument academic and less snarky? Consider this an official warning. Further offenses will result in sending this thread to rot in Tartarus and the offending parties placed on moderated status.

 

And I would find that a shame because it is otherwise a fascinating thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ave Ursus

I shall comply :unsure:

An interesting thought - We already mentioned that Cyrus was called the Messiah in the OT just as Jesus was to a later generation.

Obviously the two have very little in common except for one very interesting thing - Cyrus actually was seen as a liberator that freed the Children of Israel from a foreign yoke, and in that respect he fully deserved the title as he actually did free the Israelites from Babylonian bondage. In other words he was seen as the person chosen by God, or the Ha Mashiach in Hebrew, to perform this function.

I believe this is fully the expectation that Jesus's people had regarding him - a person divinely ordained to free his people from the Roman yoke. In a Judaic context that would make perfect sense. That Jesus did not succeed in his mission is through no fault of his own. The later concept of the Saviour dying to wash away the sins of the world is a later accretion from pagan mystery religions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote: Modern Christianity is a pagan aberration. It has NOTHING to do with the "Law" that Jesus spoke about. It completely condradicts everything in the Law. The law has dietary laws, Christianity threw them out the window.

 

Gladius xx, your comments above are somewhat troubling. First of all, why would Jesus Christ heal on the Sabbath? I agree that there are these antinomian heretic religions out here today that follow NO laws but their own, but the majority of Christians teach and follow, or should follow, the 10 commandments and the

Edited by Theodora
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ave Theodora

I read your above comments with interest. A few points I would like to make:

1.Jesus healing on the Sabbath is not contrary to Judaic law as is commonly assumed. Remember there were two schools of thought in Rabbinical Judaism, the one founded by Hillel, considered rather liberal, and a more conservative one founded by Shammai. The Pharisees that questioned Jesus about healing on the Sabbath were not accusing him of being a sinner, they were just asking him to defend the particular school of thought that he was following (in this situation he seems to have been following Hillel, who allowed healing on the Sabbath)

2. Abraham was certainly considered righteous before the Mosaic Law, but there is nothing odd about that. The Mosaic Law applied to people that lived during or after the time of Moses himself. Since Abraham lived long before that, him being considered righteous would not be unusual among Jews of Jesus's time. On the other hand someone violating Mosaic Law during and after Moses's era, e.g. the Jews during Paul's time :rolleyes: ,would certainly be considered sinful

3. Whether Jesus was God or not is a theological issue that Christians are going to resolve among themselves. As a student of History I can only observe that it is highly unllikely that Jesus would have made such a claim and therefore it is a later Pauline accretion.

4. As for the Logos debate, it would be wise to keep the following in mind:

The opening words of St. John's gospel are what people use to equate Jesus with God. If we go back to the original Greek, we get a different idea. When it says "the word was with God", God is translated as tontheos, meaning god-like or godly. When it says "the word was God", God is translated as hotheos, which means God or Deity. So what is being implied is actually something different. It is saying that God is God and Jesus is a god-like or godly person. Another thing to bear in mind is that these are not the words of Jesus, but of the evangelist (whoever that may have been)

Regards, Gladius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caldrail,

 

do you realize Jesus wanted to also teach humility and how to be humble? Did he have to be born in a manger? No, he could have been born in Jerusalem or a nicer city such as Athens, Rome, heck he could have been born in a lavish court in Alexandria! No, he was humble and was born in a manger in Nazareth with humble beginnings and a humble life. Always showing respect to the Romans, Jews, and gentiles the people that hated him.

 

He fulfilled every bit of the prophesy and died for man. There were no longer supposed to be any Jews, but they did not believe.

 

BTW, if there was an uprising in Judea Jesus would take it upon himself to stop it. :ph34r:

 

No, its the bible that records that Jesus wanted to teach humility. The early christian leaders wanted their flocks to behave in a decent controllable fashion. Jesus actually wanted to be king in judaea, and shamelessly used religion to attract followers. As for being born in manger, thats merely a scene in a story written about the man and may well be complete nonsense. Furthermore, jesus's family were not as poor as the bible would have us believe. They of of royal descent, and in his childhood I really do think his parents browbeat him on that subject to ensure his good behaviour. Jesus did not always show respect. He did kick a few tables over did he not? And the only reason he deferred to caesars status was because he was in dire danger of being executed. As for dying for Man - Pardon? He died because the romans saw him as a potential rebel. because he wouldn't keep his mouth shut. Because he stirred up public disorder. In a sense his parents failed because he did not become the good son they wanted - they even disowned him. On the other hand, they ensured that jesus made the attept to secure what he considered his birthright - to sit on the judaean throne. As for stopping an uprising, I meant after jesus's death as an expression of outrage. Truth is, no-one gave a monkeys after he was killed, something the bible fails to explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, its the bible that records that Jesus wanted to teach humility. The early christian leaders wanted their flocks to behave in a decent controllable fashion. Jesus actually wanted to be king in judaea, and shamelessly used religion to attract followers. As for being born in manger, thats merely a scene in a story written about the man and may well be complete nonsense. Furthermore, jesus's family were not as poor as the bible would have us believe. They of of royal descent, and in his childhood I really do think his parents browbeat him on that subject to ensure his good behaviour. Jesus did not always show respect. He did kick a few tables over did he not? And the only reason he deferred to caesars status was because he was in dire danger of being executed. As for dying for Man - Pardon? He died because the romans saw him as a potential rebel. because he wouldn't keep his mouth shut. Because he stirred up public disorder. In a sense his parents failed because he did not become the good son they wanted - they even disowned him. On the other hand, they ensured that jesus made the attept to secure what he considered his birthright - to sit on the judaean throne. As for stopping an uprising, I meant after jesus's death as an expression of outrage. Truth is, no-one gave a monkeys after he was killed, something the bible fails to explain.

 

There is an awful lot here. (Jesus' parents disowned Him.) Where did you get this from?

Edited by Gaius Octavius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and if one is trying to 'sell' Christianity to the Romans, as was the case post 312, one would only preserve texts which show Jesus showing deference to Romans. Likewise, Romans being impartial, or in Pilates case, good guys having their hands forced to do bad things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and if one is trying to 'sell' Christianity to the Romans, as was the case post 312, one would only preserve texts which show Jesus showing deference to Romans. Likewise, Romans being impartial, or in Pilates case, good guys having their hands forced to do bad things.

 

We're talking about the Romans as being opressive to the Jews. Jesus always showed respect to the Romans and was put in the position to begin with. I recall the Persians as being opressive, yet no one showed respect to them. Imagine the Romans who were worse then the Persians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and if one is trying to 'sell' Christianity to the Romans, as was the case post 312, one would only preserve texts which show Jesus showing deference to Romans. Likewise, Romans being impartial, or in Pilates case, good guys having their hands forced to do bad things.

Good point. And both scenarios are highly improbable. The idea that a known Jew-hater like Pilate could be forced to do anything by Jews of all people, especially a judicial execution at a predawn hour when the whole world is sleeping, is just patently ridiculous. On top of that we're supposed to believe that important men in Judea, on the eve of the most important festival in Judaism, had nothing better to do with their time than twiddle their thumbs in expectation of trying and executing Jesus. I've often wondered - what was the frigging hurry? Why could it not have been done after the Passover when things generally quietened down in Jerusalem? The Passover season was a tinderbox waiting to explode. Every year at that time the Romans used to double the size of their garrison in the Antonia fortress in anticipation of trouble. The whole scenario is absurd. That on top of a dozen other absurdities and one is reminded of Josef Goebbels dictum that the bigger the lie the more ready people are to believe it

Edited by Gladius xx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inappropriate?All i said is that tacitus said mean and funny things about jews you can find it here,www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/tacitus/histries/chap18.htm,if it does not come up just click on www.ourcivilisation.com and do a search,i typed in Tacitus on the jews,meaning his writing about jews in the rebellion.Its one thing to censor me,but to censor one of the best ancient roman writers in all of its history is kind of funny.

Edited by Titus001
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an awful lot here. (Jesus' parents disowned Him.) Where did you get this from?

 

Who's Who In The Roman World.

 

I agree I'm filling the blanks a little. But you have to understand that I'm looking at jesus as a historical person. There's a definite trend in jesus's story that emerges once you realise the bible isn't a historical document. Remember that the stories about him were written decades after his death. Jesus actually achieved diddly squat - it was the people who used his story as the basis of their own cults that achieved the great change in roman religion. Almost everything that survives today about jesus is grossly distorted by the earlier christians who edited and added features of the story to justify the claim that he had holy credibility. He's refferred to as the 'only begotten son of god', when clearly his parents had a better claim. The bible depicts jesus as poring scorn on the idea of kingship when in fact its fairly obvious thats exactly what he was after. Gospels that didn't fit the image were discarded.

 

Now I can accept that jesus was a gifted child. I can accept that he had a brief period of popularity as a preacher. I can accept the romans crucified him. But these are all very human things. If you look closely at the story you can spot the clues toward his personality and behaviour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're talking about the Romans as being opressive to the Jews. Jesus always showed respect to the Romans and was put in the position to begin with. I recall the Persians as being opressive, yet no one showed respect to them.

Yes, but that only applies if one follows the 'official' line on Jesus. And the official line comes from Romans cherry picking and altering the scriptures to suit themselves. How could Constantine possibly expect his subjects to accept Christianity, if the Bible stated that Jesus was a focus of rebellion against them, and that a Roman Governor had him mercilessly tortured and killed? Furthermore, the Jews were once again becoming rebellious at the this time. So, blame them for forcing Pilate's hand, and being responsible for killing Jesus. Even as a child at primary school, I used to think: 'why didn't Pilate, who seems not to have wanted to kill Jesus, just tell the jews to get lost, or he'd send in the troops?' The whole story just doesn't bear up.

 

Whilst I have no issue whatsoever against the spiritual message of Jesus itself - in as much as it can be discerned amongst the later waffle - it is sad, but true, that the Bible was like many pre-modern historical accounts. Written by the winners.

Edited by Northern Neil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...