IamJoseph

The term christian, christ and chrstianity emerged after 174 CE.

Its a bit haughty for christians to call Jews that way - the enemy can only honestly be directed to the Romans, not a people who stood steadfast against grotesque Roman degrees to worship their insane emperors. If there was any sacrifice here, why not of the 1.2 Million Jews who gave their lives for their beliefs - unpardonably omitted in the Gospels?

Truth be acknowledged, the sole and brave defense put up by the Jews against Mighty Rome - should be a global rememberence day celebration honoring the right to freedom of belief: this was the single most greatest act of faith ever seen in geo-history.

mountainman

Dear IamJoseph,

That's a nice year. Who mentions that year?
And where is the archaeological support?

Best wishes,

Pete

GakuseiDon

Well, first you have to understand that Jesus didn't exist. But if he did exist, he was just some guy who didn't say that. But if he did say that, he was a psychotic maniac.

mountainman

I left out "pagans". This was fourth century.

How many millions of Hellenistic pagans were put to the sword during the fourth and fifth centuries in the holy name of Jesus F. Christ? (See Vlasis Rassias). Many people do not seem to realise that this one little law of 326 CE (from the Theodosian Codex 16.5.1) **** "Religious privileges are reserved for Christians" **** was a statement of gross religious intolerance (at that time) and was novel and was accompanied by political and military persecution of "non-christians" in very large numbers.

The Arians wished to ameliorate the divinity of the honcho Jesus by saying that the new honcho name should not be equated with the same essence as divinity. They allowed that Constantine may be representing a religion where the head honcho had a "similar divinity" to what they were used to. (ie: See Nag Hammadi and Emperor Julian), but the christian orthoxy would not tolerate the honcho Jesus a status of just "similar divinity". It must be exactly the same as the old divinities. (homoiousios vs. homoousios )

The terms homoiousios and homoousios mean
"similar essence" and "same essence."

They were part of a controversy in Christianity
during the 4th century when people disagreed over
the nature of Jesus Christ and his relationship to God.

According to those who adopted homoiousios,
Jesus was not the same as God but simply had a "similar essence."

According to those who argued for homoousios,
the doctrine which was eventually adopted as orthodoxy,
Jesus and God had the exact same essence.

The Arians went down to the orthodox authorities by the sword.
The Arians were the Hellenistic civilisation in resistance mode to bullshit of christianity.

mountainman

Do you know what the cost would be in the fourth century to prepare fifty lavish vellum copies of the entire bible? It's all very well to say that that we have to understand that Jesus did not exist, or that if he did he was a psychotic maniac, or a partial ascetic on account of the fact that he drank wine after work, and gnawed on the bones of dead animals every passover, or in fact he was not a greenie over the incident with the fig tree, and much more. Or that he walked on liquid Ammonius, or jumped over the counter-earth (the Pythagorean moon), or had a confused logos, etc. Or did he have a substantial human body? Did he actually leave footprints on the planet or did his feet never touch the earth [aJohn]?

At the end of the day he was lavishly published in Greek as high technology backed by the imperial gravity, Nowhere near as lavish, but nevertheless under imperial sponsorship Apollonius of Tyana was published and publicised a century before. What say did the audience have in both cases? None! Harry Potter is very relevant as a canon, and so is Hans Eusebius Anderson as an editor/author.

Best wishes,


Pete

rizdek

Yes, but it's still an interesting quote that preachers usually don't mention in their sunday morning sermons. They leave that sour cherry on the tree, so to speak, and build sermons on sweeter fruit.

IamJoseph

I don't mean to minimise what other Europeans would have suffered under the church: their numbers were greater because their population was greater; the same occured when the Americas were conquered; the same is seen in Africa and Asia - the people were forcefully converted. The European church manipulated the Hebrew bible: it used the advocated 'chosen' people and came up with a far more horrific form of chosen - banishing all who never signed on the dotted line as evil.

In contrast, the Hebrew bible's version of chosen is 'by example' only, forbidding any inducement or enforcements ['TO BE A LIGHT UNTO THE NATIONS' = by example only.] One can tell christians were totally enforced, by how they remain silent of numerous follow-up errors by the church: like Beatifying those who commited the gravest crimes.

Joan of Bark

Instead, practising Jews celebrate Passover, the slaughtering of thousands of children and babies by the loving and merciful YHWH.

Solo

Or in the alternative, as Andrew suggests, Jesus was just quoting someone in a parable of the kingdom of God he made up.

Take your pick !


Jiri

bacht

Josephus saw nothing glorious in the demise of the Jewish state and temple. He put the blame on people like the Zealots (Jewish fundamentalists/isolationists) who followed fantasy instead of reality. Not only did they oppose Roman government, they slaughtered fellow Jews who didn't agree with their vision of Israel.

Hasmoneans, Romans, Herodians - none had great success governing Palestine. The presence of terrorists/holy warriors ready to enter the afterlife was a problem that built until the revolts in the 60s and 130s.

The Romans were interested in Palestine because of its location as a buffer state with the Parthians. The idea that Rome singled out the Jews for punishment ignores the geo-political realities of the time.