Didn't Nero launch Christianity?

[The Grand Nudger]

I've elaborated at length.  Common and easily researched facts. Those facts were facts of marcions beliefs, insomuch as we know them, regardless of what you believe, or believe about them. He was in no way recognizable today, a christian, and yet he had an immense effect on the institution of christianity, and through them, your beliefs. So much so, in fact, that the charge of "modern day docetics" is commonly leveraged at american christianity.

Just as nero in no way launched christianity, though the institution of chistianity used nero (and many others) as a foil, which in turn effects your (and many other peoples) beliefs about the development of the faith. Ultimately, there's no clear reason for you to persist in these fantasies as they in no way alter or diminish the faith you have today, which isn't the faith of any of those nominal christians then. These are comments on the history of a movement, and what the people who deeply influenced that movement believed.

Christology was one of the first hurdles of building a christian orthodoxy, and the resolution of that dispute isn't in any way the factual recording of events, just a record of who won the disagreement, which played out in the streets, literally, and cost many people their lives.

[vulcanlogician]

You're sympathizing on the basis of fiction explicitly created to whitewash a bloody history, lol.  It's like feeling bad for the romans from when rome was a backwater in nowheresville on account of how they swore that the rape of the sabine women was all the fault of those greedy sabine townspeople keeping the pussy to themselves.  

I forgot that you're into some writers from late Rome. You have me at a disadvantage in that regard. Unless your talking Seneca. And speaking of Seneca, Seneca is proof that Nero was at least somewhat of a dick. Even if he didn't persecute the Christians, he ordered a great Roman Stoic to kill himself...

Trust me, I approach the Christians' accounts with skepticism. But I remember reading some accounts (in a university history class-- not Sunday School) by authors from the era recounting cases of abuse of Christians for not honoring the Roman gods. Nero's fire aside, this seems somewhat plausible. After all, it did eventually become the "Holy" Roman empire... and it was certainly pagan from the outset. Ancients being ancients, it seems plausible that most minority religions could have endured some kind of bullshit before the Edict of Milan.

And that's another thing, why would the Edict of Milan be considered an historic event were religious minorities in Rome not being "bruised a bit" by the religious majority?

[The Grand Nudger]

The Holy Roman Empire was well and thoroughly christian, and not particularly roman.  

Constantine, the first christian emperor, lobbied for the edict of milan, whatever that was.  Approach it in a political context, not a religious one.  It was meant to curtail social unrest. There is little to no indication that this was a response to the fictional accounts of christian persecution. Nero certainly wasn't going to win any popularity contests, nor were the christians, just not for the reasons the christians later invented.

When you see that this has been granted to [Christians] by us, your Worship will know that we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases; this regulation is made that we may not seem to detract from any dignity of any religion.

This, from Lactantius, the guy who didn't know anything about those earlier persecutions, Constantines religious advisor. The "persecutors" he was speaking of were actually in the eastern roman empire (christianity was already being given the imperial treatment by this time in the western empire), the old chestnut about christian dissenters to secular authority being made to work the mines. A story which has since come under heavy scrutiny, itself.

The "history" of christianity and it's relationship with rome isn't something to take with skepticism, it is something entirely comprised of self serving propaganda, written centuries after the fact under complete and utter christian domination, from start to finish. This isn't to say that rome (or romans, for that matter) were a bunch of really nice guys, they just weren't the specific types of assholes they were made out to be as a part of christianity's foundational myth. Christianity simply wasn't relevant or noticeable to rome until some time after 115 ad...it wasn't the christianity that anyone today would have in mind. By 235 ad they were big enough that people made bids for authority as being either anti christian or pro christian, and by the 300's the emperor -was- a christian, by 380 it was the state religion and all others were in the process of being outlawed

Christianity was a slow rolling theocratic and political coup. Where officials shored up their support by appealing to urban bishops who commanded literal mobs.

[Acrobat]

I've elaborated at length.  Common and easily researched facts. Those facts were facts of marcions beliefs, insomuch as we know them, regardless of what you believe, or believe about them. He was in no way recognizable today, a christian, and yet he had an immense effect on the institution of christianity, and through them, your beliefs. So much so, in fact, that the charge of "modern day docetics" is commonly leveraged at american christianity.

Just as nero in no way launched christianity, though the institution of chistianity used nero (and many others) as a foil, which in turn effects your (and many other peoples) beliefs about the development of the faith. Ultimately, there's no clear reason for you to persist in these fantasies as they in no way alter or diminish the faith you have today, which isn't the faith of any of those nominal christians then. These are comments on the history of a movement, and what the people who deeply influenced that movement believed.

Christology was one of the first hurdles of building a christian orthodoxy, and the resolution of that dispute isn't in any way the factual recording of events, just a record of who won the disagreement, which played out in the streets, literally, and cost many people their lives.

Lol what a tool,, when did I say Marcion would classify as a Christian?

What I pointed out was that Marcion believed in a Jesus who lived in the first century, was viewed as the Christ, went around preaching about the Kingdom of God, was brought in front of Pilate, and subsequently crucified by the romans, all of which I’ve quoted his Gospel on.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm done repeating myself.  Either we can work from a common basis of easily researched facts, or not.

[Acrobat]

I'm done repeating myself.  Either we can work from a common basis of easily researched facts, or not.

Exactly, and I provided easily researched facts about Marcion beliefs, directly from his Gospel.

Marcion believed in a Jesus who lived in the first century, was viewed as the Christ, went around preaching about the Kingdom of God, was brought in front of Pilate, and subsequently crucified by the romans, all of which I’ve quoted his Gospel on.

Here’s a common basis of easily researched facts, which you refuse to acknowledge.