spin

Macche' dici? Ci sara' sempre la bomba alla crema e il cappuccino. Osso buco. Carciofi alla romana. Scamorza. Pizza a nutella. :Cheeky:

figuer

Ignorance is a "venial sin", but outright denial or manipulation of facts is another thing.

That post was <wrong>, not for the minor (and rather silly), technicality of the implications of the term Empire, but for daring to acert that the Romans did not take possession of the lands they conquered (conquest and colonization of Hispania), or always respected the religion of the conquered (Jewish revolt).

S.C.Carlson

Si mangia bene a Roma, non e' vero?

Clivedurdle

Not sure Palestine is a good example - a people were not willing to accept the pax romana and got hammered.

I think it is an important distinction to make between Empires that are basically under a dictatorial emperor - Persia is an excellent example, and "Empires" that probably are muddled between democratic and hierarchical tendencies - Rome being a good example. Greece arguably got a better democratic balance as it was far more innovative than Rome and Persia.

Has anyone correlated democracy and scientific, humanistic thinking?

Maybe Roman Catholicism can be seen as the victory of Persian ways of thinking?

And can we explore the effect of Islam further? It's concept of one god and submission feels very Persian but with strong puritanical parts, in contrast to the opulence of Persia. Is its lack of a priesthood evidence of it actually being a fascinating hybrid?

One of the major arguments between Greeks and Persians was about centralised priesthoods and priesthood of all believers.

figuer

One of the reasons they were unwilling to accept the Pax Romana is that it required them to accept the concept that the Emperor was divine. This violated their religious freedom.

Amedeo

Oh.... ma tu parli della cultura che si chiamava "mores" o usanze, non dell'arte, l'eloquenza, la filosofia, la giurisprudenza e simili.
Comunque tutto cio` che elenchi appartiene alla seconda Roma o all'Italia rinscimentale.

La pizza va bene, la nutella va bene, ma la pizza alla nutella non la vorrei nemmeno assaggiare.

Amedeo

There we go again!
Just as the term "Roman empire" has been used with drastically different meanings, so -- and you do not realize it -- the term "possession" is being used in drastically different ways by you and me. I'll be brief:

A king or a royal emperor who conquers a country APPROPRIATES the conquered land, its products, and the people. The farmers who owned and worked the land are no longer the owners of what they produces, and they are bound to the land: they are not free not to work it, to move away from it, to sell it, and so forth. The free farmers have becomes slaves or feudataries. Agd the kind or the emperor RULES all the conquered people, who no longer have rights within the political society and must live and believe according to the ways the ruler prescribes.

NO Roman Commander or Emperor who conquers a country [or who is invited into a country] does anything that a royal emperor does. The land of the farmers is not expropriated, and the freedoms or rights which the people have are not suppressed. He never interferes with or tries to control the customs, religion, and daily activities of the people, nor does he create laws for them. Positively speaking: Normally any conquered country attained Roman citizenship; that is, acquired all the rights which the original citizens of the Republic had. The emperor maintains a military praesidium, which precludes the armament of that country's government, which might become an enemy of Rome again. And, as part of the Roman republic, the country has a praetor (or judicial officer of Roman jurisprudence) so that the new citizens of Rome may want to have their legal complaints adjudicated by him. (The Jew-of-Jews Saul of Tarsus had a complain but he, as a Roman citizen, decided to take the case to Rome, etc. etc.) / Consider the case of Judea, where the Roman standing army was the supporter of the local Herodian government -- which happened to be hated by many Jews intent on having a Jewish king-- and where Jews against Jews took their case to be adjudicated by Pilate. Now you have the picture of what the Romans did and did not do in another country. To be sure, sometimes they did something illegal. In Judea they took money from the Temple in order to build a needed acqueduct for the Herod-ruled Jerusalem, and this was the sin the subjects of the king never forgave. (Never touch God's money!)

If you understood what I just described, you will also understand what the trial of Jesus was all about. // While there were several nationalist movements that wanted to oust the non-Jewish Herods (protected by the Roman army), a man came up from nowhere claiming that he was the legitimate king of the Judeans, as he descended from David, and, to boot, he was also the expected messiah. Now that's all the leaders of the movements needed -- an unknown man who would sit on the throne procured by them, the fighting rebels! Jesus was never recognized by the Judeans as their king and messiah. He was even tried for his claim that he was the son of God (that is, anointed or appointed as their Messiah... or King-Messiah). His practice of forgiving sins, which is God's prerogative, was sheer blasphemy! {Today somebody might diagnose Jesus as having a god-complex, for he even claimed -- or told stories -- that he performed miracles, which only God can perform.} Even though Jesus was formally charged for his claimed divine powers, the cross tells another story: he was crucified on political grounds. The cross verbally identified him in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek as "Jesus of Nazareth King of the Judeans." But the Gospels don't report anything concerning his kingship as a matter in the trial or trials.

Everything I stated above is contrary to the traditional official theories by the Jews and by the Christians as to:
who Jesus was (officially believed to have the mission of saving MANKIND of something or other); what the Romans were (were doing); and what the objectives of the Judean movements were.

I strive to write history through studies; others concoct and advertize their pious opinions. (The Romans who emerge out of Hollywood documentaries and get pounded on television-stuck brains are dramatizations of false opinions. But the general viewers have faith they are truthful accounts.)

ORTHODOXY IS A LIE NINETY-NINE PER-CENT OF THE TIMES, believe it or not.

stuart shepherd

Originally Posted by stuart shepherd
No matter when we date the fall of the Roman Empire, is there an agreement that the Roman Empire has fallen?

Stuart Shepherd

The fall of the Roman Empire and even the date of the fall are very important to Bible prophecy.

At the arrest of Jesus, the following took place.......
Mark 14:61-62 (King James Version)
61But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

62And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Jesus was referring to a prophecy in the book of Daniel.
Daniel 7:13-14 (King James Version)
13I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

14And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

In this portion of Daniel [read it for yourself] there are 4 beasts.
The first beast represented the Babylonian Empire.
The second beast represented the Medo-persian Empire.
The third beast represented the Greek Empire.
The forth beast represented the Roman Empire.

See what it says about the forth beast......
Daniel 7:23-27 (King James Version)
23Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

24And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

25And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

26But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.

27And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

When the forth beast falls, Jesus will return. [Mark 14:62]

So if the Roman Empire fell and Jesus did not return, then Jesus is a false prophet.

Stuart Shepherd

spin

This should help you see that the gospel writer didn't understand his source material.

First, note that Mark says "the son of man", whereas Daniel says "one like a son of man". To understand Daniel's expression you need to know that "son of man" was a Hebrew expression that meant something like "mere mortal" and was a term of relative scorn as seen in the book of Ezekiel. This figure, like a "son of man", ie he looked human, represented the children of Israel, as the one like a lion represented the Babylonians. The one like a son of man merely had a human appearance, while the one like a lion had the appearance of a lion.

Secondly, you'll notice in Daniel that the one like a son of man was going up into heaven where the Ancient of Days is found. However, in Mark the Son of Man was coming down towards us, so the scene is being perverted.

The passage originally had nothing to do with Jesus but has been misappropriated by early christian writers. The notion of the "son of man" was not a messianic figure to the Jews at that stage, if ever. He was a divine representative of the Jewish people as against the divine representatives of the Babylonians, the Medes, the Persians and the Greeks.

Christians have stolen the prophecy regarding the "one like a son of man" from the Jews.


spin

spin

Oh, and the Medo-Persian Empire is a myth. There never was one. The Persians defeated the Medes and took over their kingdom. This myth just suits the thieves of the original prophecy. (Start with the Persian_Empire.)


spin