(March 26, 2018 at 1:20 pm)Aegon Wrote: What is considered "early Christianity"? It seems to me from the little I know the Romans scapegoated Christians like Hitler scapegoated the Jews (perhaps not to the same extreme though...) Didn't they blame the Great Fire on them, sometime around 60 AD?

Probably not.  They didn't even know wtf a christian -was- in 60 ad....they were still foggy on that 40 years later.   The position of subsequent emperors was "meh, fuck em, but don't go out of your way"..until .......*

Quote:Christian martyrs were a big deal early in the faith's history... it was part of why it was spread.

Mythical and/or legendary.

Quote:And it was mainly the Roman Empire that oppressed them.

*.........there came a time....in 303ad.....by 380 it was the state religion and they turned that persecutorial bent inward.  The persecution produced mass renunciation of the faith, btw, hardly a bunch of stalwart martyrs going confidently to their deaths.

Quote:It'd make more sense for the anti-Rome sentiment to disappear later on in Christianity's history, rather than early on. And I suppose saying that those who lived in Judea were Jews is oversimplification, since there was no such thing as a cohesive Judaism at that time. I know is that there were Jews who were quite wealthy and contributed to the oppression of the population, meaning that the rich Jews sitting pretty with the Romans were just as bad. Hence that time Jesus went beserk and fucked up that temple*. But there are several instances of Jesus, on behalf of the majority of the population, speaking out against both Roman rule and those who supported them.

*Excuse me, I meant cleansed the temple.

Tell me if I got any of that wrong.

Well, other than the fact that there's the christian story....and then actual history, you got it about right.  Tell me if you notice a problem with the christian narrative, up above, in those dates? When -was- "early christianity"......if early christianity was all about persecutions? 30ad..or 300ad?

(March 26, 2018 at 12:51 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Early christianity wasn't anti-roman in any way, so far as we can tell.  A significant portion of them appear to have cast the god of the OT as vader.  It didn;t even take off with the jews, it took off with the gentiles.  It became anti-roman at some point but was quickly rehabilitated to facilitate romanization..thus all the effort and trouble to say that it was the jews what killed jesus.  The book most refer to as so explicitly anti-roman would be rev..but recall it was romans that included it in canon..they were unlikely to have seen themselves as the beast.

Wishy washy little cult, aint it?

Early Christianity probably was anti-Roman in a passive aggressive way, pushing the envelop where it found tolerance and beating cowardly retreat where it found firmness, all the while being totally two faced as they Christian church had never failed to be in its entire history, saying honorable sounding things while doing anything that seemed likely to help subjugate more minds, open more wallets, and extending its own influence.

The monotheism of Christianity certainly did not dovetail with the roman equivalent of patriotic indoctrination practiced at the time.   There is no doubt that anyone who is world-wise and not indoctrinated at an early age to the Christian world view could not but find Christian eschatology disgusting and the interest of that Jesus cult antithetical to the greater good of any enlightened society.   So I don’t find it unbelievable that hostility between Roman administration and the Christianity began early on.

I personally doubt that they were passively anti roman or even monotheists, lol. They were mystery cultists - bog fuckin standard in rome at the time, jesusism was a later addition.

(March 26, 2018 at 1:32 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(March 26, 2018 at 1:20 pm)Aegon Wrote: What is considered "early Christianity"? It seems to me from the little I know the Romans scapegoated Christians like Hitler scapegoated the Jews (perhaps not to the same extreme though...) Didn't they blame the Great Fire on them, sometime around 60 AD?

Probably not.  They didn't even know wtf a christian -was- in 60 ad....they were still foggy on that 40 years later.   The position of subsequent emperors was "meh, fuck em, but don't go out of your way"..until .......*

Are we trusting Tacticus here? He wrote that Nero scapegoated the Christians for the fire.

Quote:

Quote:Christian martyrs were a big deal early in the faith's history... it was part of why it was spread.

Mythical and/or legendary.

I don't doubt the specific accounts we know are largely fabricated, but for the same reason I believe Jesus existed I believe there were martyrs that inspired others.

Quote:

Quote:And it was mainly the Roman Empire that oppressed them.

*.........there came a time....in 303ad.....by 380 it was the state religion and they turned that persecutorial bent inward.  The persecution produced mass renunciation of the faith, btw, hardly a bunch of stalwart martyrs going confidently to their deaths.

Large-spread persecution in the 300s. The oppression was fairly localized before that, though. In the same way the story of Jesus would have died without the apostles and the Gospels, the stories of many instances of persecution for a century were probably lost as well; one could argue, anyway.

Quote:

Quote:It'd make more sense for the anti-Rome sentiment to disappear later on in Christianity's history, rather than early on. And I suppose saying that those who lived in Judea were Jews is oversimplification, since there was no such thing as a cohesive Judaism at that time. I know is that there were Jews who were quite wealthy and contributed to the oppression of the population, meaning that the rich Jews sitting pretty with the Romans were just as bad. Hence that time Jesus went beserk and fucked up that temple*. But there are several instances of Jesus, on behalf of the majority of the population, speaking out against both Roman rule and those who supported them.

*Excuse me, I meant cleansed the temple.

Tell me if I got any of that wrong.

Well, other than the fact that there's the christian story....and then actual history, you got it about right.  Tell me if you notice a problem with the christian narrative, up above, in those dates? When -was- "early christianity"......if early christianity was all about persecutions? 30ad..or 300ad?

Whatever Wikipedia tells me it is

(March 26, 2018 at 1:48 pm)Aegon Wrote: Are we trusting Tacticus here? He wrote that Nero scapegoated the Christians for the fire.

He didn't -quite- write that, and that's just one disputed account.  

Quote:I don't doubt the specific accounts we know are largely fabricated, but for the same reason I believe Jesus existed I believe there were martyrs that inspired others.

Sure, but the scale and timing is a bit of a non-starter.  The earliest account we have of christians, specifically, running afoul of the law it's two deaconesses (yeah, in the feminine) and the response was to let them off the hook if they paid their taxes and mouthed some words.  Whether or not they were jesusists yet isn't actually clear from that, even.

Quote:Large-spread persecution in the 300s. The oppression was fairly localized before that, though. In the same way the story of Jesus would have died without the apostles and the Gospels, the stories of many instances of persecution for a century were probably lost as well; one could argue, anyway.

.....that;s the story, but who's telling it. when were they telling it...and now we're referring to lost stories?  Trouble abounds.  

Quote:Whatever Wikipedia tells me it is

LOL. 

Aegon is on a right track. The real birthplace of Jesus was on the pages of a story written in the last quarter of the first century, by an unknown writer in an unknown place far removed from pre-war Judea by both time and space.

The anonymous Gentile author of The Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God we call "Mark" has drawn upon on a variety of sources: classic Homeric themes, snappy one-liners from Cynic and Stoic philosophy, bits of astrology and gematria ("sacred geometry"), pharisaic parables and proverbs, teachings from Paul, names from Paul's epistles, and above all, also like Paul, motifs from Hebrew scripture.
He even creates a reason/plot device why no one has heard any of this before: the silly women were so scared, they ran away and didn't tell anyone.

"Mark" wasn't writing to the entire Christian world, just his own scattered community. They are in pockets somewhere far away from Jerusalem. We can only guess where and who they were, but their knowledge of Judaean and Galilean geography is spotty at best and they have little if any knowledge of what everyday Jewish life in Judea had been like. And they are poor since Jesus in Mark always praises the virtuous poor while lambasting the rich.

He certainly doesn't think there will be any future Christians around to read his work. In his mind, he is writing to the very last generation on earth, the people who would live to see the end of the world (Mark 13:30), and the only ones who will survive it.

Remember, regular offerings in the temple ceased in July of the year 70; the temple burned in August and later that month, the Roman army took over the temple and offered sacrifices to it for their victory. For Mark, both of those signs occurring meant that only three and a half years ("one thousand two hundred ninety days") were left on Daniel's timeline until the end of the world because, like so many of the aspiring apocalypts, he also thinks Daniel's prophecies were written especially for his time. He is not just citing Daniel's "Abomination of Desolation" he is starting the timer on Judgment Day. Daniel 12:11 said:
"From the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and the abomination that desolates is set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred ninety days."

All of this means that Mark's Gospel was written during that interval, sometime in 71-73, and he expected the Lord would come sometime early in the year 74. The only problem is, the Lord never shows that year, and the world keeps rolling along as usual.

(March 26, 2018 at 7:09 am)Banned Wrote:

(March 25, 2018 at 5:53 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The very last thing a shithead like him would ever do, Vulc.

Facts are his enemy.  He prefers fairy tales.

How come you never feel any better after you have tried to put someone else down?

Haven't you had so much misery, confusion and rage that topping yourself was running through your thoughts?

Because I am tired of ignorant superstitious fucks like you who think they are somehow morally superior because they believe absurd ancient fairy tales.

Got it now, fuckhead?

The Romans rarely persecuted Christians and certainly never as a empire wide policy . Hell many governors had no policy on Christians or even knew what a Christian was.  As for martyrs most of those are fabrications or were stolen from the Jews and the few cases that could be legit were Christians not being persecuted . And Tacitus writings are contradicted by his contemporaries who don't mention a persecution and certainly not the feeding to the lion etc .

Christians do love their drama: oh, I'm being persecuted, WAHHHH.

(March 27, 2018 at 9:58 pm)Lutrinae Wrote: Christians do love their drama: oh, I'm being persecuted, WAHHHH.

Yes, a disgusting unscrupulous, unprincipled, double dealing, double speaking, cunning, gutless, pitiless, ruthless, opportunistic cult from its first moment of existence and every second thereafter and shall forever be utterly incapable being anything other than that until it is utterly consumed in the trash heap of history.