Matt Stone

First post, sorry. New on IIDB, not new on the 'net.

Does anyone see a similarity between Scientology's modern influence on prominent Hollyweird-ites, and the gradual influence Xtianity had in Rome? A fringe cult, with bizarre claims, starts out insignificantly, gradually gains a few semi-well-respected pretty faces in prominent positions, momentum for conversion builds, then... New Popular Religion? :huh:

Just curious, since Scientology's refutation came up...

*goes back to reading in order to avoid speaking out of turn on subjects already covered*

Toto

Interesting that you point that out.

Rodney Stark, who wrote the book on early Christianity in Rome, got his start by studying "new religious movements" such as the Unification Church. He seemed to think they were part of the same phenomenon.

However, Scientology seems to be content to stay a minority religion, as long as they can continue to recruit. Christianity was changed drastically when it became an official religion. There are modern Christians who think that was a wrong turn.

JGL53

Well, sure, no one can predict what dumb ass cult of today will gain hegemony over half the planet two thousand years from now. Crap, we can't even predict with any reliable accuracy what dumbasses will win the Iowa caucuses.

I wouldn't count Scientology completely out, but I would more likely bet on Elvisanity. The god of the future could turn out to be a hunka hunka burning love in blue suede shoes and white jump suit, complete with cape. Beats the shit out of the gods we have now.

Diogenes the Cynic

Crucifixion was forbidden under Jewish Law. It was purely a Roman form of execution and was only administered in Judea for crimes against the Roman state.

Also, Herod Antipas had no jurisdiction in Judea (he was only a tetrarch in Galilee) and had no authority to order a public execution there at all, much less a crucifixion (which he coudn't have done even in his own jurisdiction).

storytime

Crucifiction may have been forbidden under Jewish law but the death penalty was not. We can only speculate when reading the story but I would guess that the governing Jewish leadership in those days would not have cared by which way the execution was carried out. As Herod was a puppet of Rome, so to speak, then his using Roman soldiers to inflict the execution in manner of crucifiction of Jews would be a common practice. Again I'm only speculating as to the cruelty of leaders in both Jewish and Roman judgments. Also, the story reads as if Roman authority could not overrule or desire to offend Jewish law in the matter and so Jesus was extradited back to his country for judgment and execution. Not finding fault in Jesus as an enemy to the state of Rome, and to silence the Jewish protest in order to avoid more troublesome behavior in the region, seems likely as the reason for Pilate's returning Jesus to his Jewish brethren. What did he care anyway as Rome had no laws of blasphemy against a Hebrew god?

Solitary Man

There are other cults which probably fit the movement better, but a parallel is there.

storytime

Well, I'm still trying to figure out why a non-Jewish people would have adopted a Jewish god and a messiah that excluded them. This in itself doesn't make sense. But then the Gentiles had "faith" that somehow this odd reasoning would eventually sink into everyones brain and we all would just accept that Jesus and his tribal god really loved everyone. And it came to pass that literacy began a movement of actually reading the bible story and questioning it's authenticity, not to mention its piecework in metaphors, allegories, tale tales and legends galore. And the wise who were once foolish said "What the hell?"

Malachi151

This is a common modern apologetic ruse pulled out by Christian apologists. The ruse consists of pretending that the ancient Romans were on par with modern society when it comes to historical and social sciences.

The fact is that people simply didn't think that way back then. "Proving that a god didn't exist"? Show one instance where anyone in the ancient world, Roman or otherwise, went about proving that any god didn't exist.

Show where any of the heroes were "proven" not to exist, such as Hercules, Dionysus, Adonis, Romulus and Remus, etc., etc., all of whom supposedly walked the earth.

Even the most learned of people believed in fantastic things back then, and there simply was no means of or sense of verifiability or historical rigor as we know it today.

The idea that such a thing could even be done didn't exist at that time. There was no science of forensics, there was no verifiable press, there was no systematic means of investigation of social phenomena. There was no concept of proving that a god-man never existed in a culture filled with literally thousands of god-men.

Malachi151

I've gone over this several times here. Firstly, your question shows that you don't understand Christian or even Jewish theology.

Much of the Jewish scripture is preoccupied with prophecies that the Jewish god would destroy the Jews and turn his favor over to the Gentiles.

The claims of Christianity are the these prophecies are being fulfilled and that indeed by the act of killing Jesus the Jews had done the deed that resulted in God brining his wrath to destroy the Jews and become the God of the Gentiles.

The Romans were obsessed with prophecy. The early Roman apologists and church elite were likewise obsessed with prophecy, and they focused on this subject extensively, and they created a number of "proofs" to demonstrate that this was the first case in history as they knew it of solid proof that major prophecies had been fulfilled, and that these prophecies proved that this must be the one true religion. They argued that it was proven beyond doubt that the Jewish scriptures were prophetic, and that furthermore, not only did this prove that Christianity was the true religion, but also that the Romans would be able to decipher the Jewish scritpures and use them to predict the future to help them gain more power by knowing the events of the world before they happened.

I'm not kidding, this is a MAJOR aspect of the appeal of Christianity to the Roman elite.

But what was all of this prophecy business based on? Well, the problem of course is that the concept of Jesus and the stories of Jesus in the Gospels, are all based on the Jewish scriptures in the first place, such that Paul's description of Jesus is simply a regurgitation of the messianic scriptures, and the Gospels are constructed simply of stories that use the Hebrew scriptures as their source material, thus, yes, events in the Gospels are directly portrayed as fulfillments of the Hebrew prophecies, but the problem is that such "fulfillments" are merely a product of the author, not reality.

DrZoidberg

I don't think the reality of Jesus was the pagans problem. If I remember correctly, the pagans beef with Christianity was how intolerant it was. Pre-Christian Roman society was, as far as religion is concerned, pretty liberal and depended on religious tolerance for political stability. Christians were challenging that stability, and anything that threatens status quo is always persecuted. S:t Nicholas, (yes, Santa Clause) was famous for sneaking out at night and burning down pagan churches. This was before Christianity was state religion.

My long winded point was that if the Romans would have denied Jesus they would be shooting themselves in the foot.