Daily reminder that the book of revelations was written during the intense persecution of the Christian Faith during the tenure of Domitian, the Roman Emperor from 81 - 96 AD and it's purpose was to provide the persecuted Christians with a sense of hope that would encourage them to remain faithful to Christ despite the fact that at any moment they could be put to death for the Faith and thus should not be considered canon.
>>1227863
There was no Christianity. The gospels were not even done at this point. The were indistinguishable from jews
Isn't that what they use the holy bible for in the Middle East where Christian persecution is going far beyond that which this century and the century before has ever seen?
>>1227863
That fact, that it was a message of faith and hope to the brotherhood in Christ on the mainland, should specifically make it canon. Also, the date is debatable, and makes just as much sense to me were it written later, but I have the idealist view of the text. We know second century people referred to it, so not too much later.
>>1227882
The epithet "Christian" existed by this time in Rome, maybe not all places in the Roman empire.
>>1227901
No it did not. Crestian was the word. Nothing to do with jeebus
>>1227907
What, exactly, do you think you're saying here? Also, "Jebus" and "Jebusites" are different subjects, but you know that because you've chosen to discuss this, right?
>>1227863
Most of Jesus parables were, like Aesop's Fables definitely Buddhist in origin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HAiTfOSP_w
>>1227907
I am saying that Christians were not distinguishable from jews. So there could be no persecution.
The word crestian which show up in documentation is the word that Christians like to use to point to an earlier separation of Christianity from Judaism, which is unfounded.
>>1227923
A couple of Jesus' expressed contentions were arguably from Sirach. Most else of what he said is directly from OT because, you know, he was a Jew.
>>1227923
Wait a minute, so we were Buddhas and other stuff?
>>1227927
Ok, not sure if trolling, but all you're doing is a slightly different transliteration, with one modified vowel, from Greek into phonetic letters. You could spell it "Krischun", it doesn't matter. It's the fact they were people who believe they were following their (to them) modern Messiah, or Greek "Christ".
>>1227936
Should be Greek to Roman, sorry.
>>1227936
I suppose it does not matter. All that matters is that they were not persecuted since that had not split from the Jews. You people and your persecution complexes.
>>1227941
Well, they were "persecuted". We know this from evidence of the fact they had to obscure their practices in hidden locations and use codes as ICHTHYS. Now, where I will meet you in the middle is the "extent" to which they were persecuted, and that in many parts of the Roman empire, people were a little more forgiving than the Levant, Anatolia and Rome proper. I'd agree it was probably myth that Christians' skins were used to make candles (although this could be metaphor for burnt at the stake which we know happened) or fed to lions (at least quite so often, but Romans fed everyone to lions in sport). So I argue the persecution did exist, but how much, how far, and how brutally might have been embellished.
>>1227936
Not him but are you trolling? Jews had special religious legal protection in the Roman Empire. If Christians aren't different from Jews they are still subject to the same legal protection.
The first documented Christian prosecution I can think of doesn't occur for like 30 more years bud.
>>1227988
Are you arguing they weren't persecuted in 35AD, are you arguing they weren't persecuted in 65AD, or are you arguing they weren't persecuted at all? Of course Christians were persecuted, of course they were "called Christians" for the better part of 2 decades after Jesus, and sure, I'll be your bud.
Not sure what you're arguing. Please be more clear.
>>1227995
I just woke up. They "were not called Christians" for the better part of 2 decades after Jesus' crucifixion.
>>1227985
I won't meet you half way. Obscuring certain. Symbols is not necessarily due to persecution. Certainly not by Roman's. Jews did not even see Christians as separate until mid second century. The Jews may have disciplined them due to them being heretics but nothing more than that. The persecution at Lyons is only attributed by church sources and is likely a fabrication like most 'persicutions'
>>1228013
I'm going to guess you're Muslim. That's a very Muslim way to be and what I hear often from them. Muslims themselves persecuted many, notably the Zoroastrianists into practical non-existence, for not allowing them to own land or have title. You might have a very different view of persecution because the practice is so inherent in their history. Muslims probably think they're not "persecuting people" who convert, from Islam, with death, because it's just a divine edict. I'm seeing here you either don't accept extra-biblical accounts or you just don't agree with the definition of the term persecution. Either way, if you aren't meeting part way on this, you're empirically wrong from all academically accepted viewpoints.
>>1228049
No I am not Muslim. Christians were mostly free they could even be wealthy. Most of the time they were not on the empires radar. How else do you think they became the state religion so soon? The only wrath they incurred were the occasion half-assed Crack downs when they refused to pay lip service to traditional Roman gods.
>>1228062
>How else do you think they became the state religion so soon?
So "soon" was in the late 4th century? Constantine decriminalized Christianity, but not yet made it the state religion. What does that tell you?
>>1228114
And that's not "Christian propaganda", that historicity. Now, how "lenient" various parts of the Roman empire was with the fact it was criminalized is a good discussion. Clearly the church thrived more freely in some parts than others.
>>1228114
Early 4th century. It was not criminal in an of itself. No religions were. Christians were just asshole about paying lip service to the old gods this what got them into any trouble.
If it was so criminal how were there enough clergy to have ecumenical councils soon after Constantines' conversion?
yes I do mean soon Judaism had existed for centuries and never got the spotlight but Christianity a religion indistinguishable from Judaism until 150 got to the front of the line in 200 years
>>1228135
>Early 4th century.
Fine. Cite anything wherein "Christianity was made state religion of Rome before Theodosius I, on 27 February 380. We will get this settled quickly who know what they're talking about.
There were churches around for various reasons. Primarily it's because they weren't overtly public about their existence, and/or the region was a little more tolerant, thus my use of the word "lenient". Constantine decriminalized Christianity in "the lawbooks". I'll wait, you go read, so I can be discussing this with someone who isn't guessing.
>>1228149
This Anon's right. It was only under Theodosius that anti-paganism became state directed.
>>1228149
The emperor himself converted. Quit being a silly bitch.
I don't need to read anything that I have not read before.
The churches were not so large as you assume because the big grandiose structures were not a Christian tradition they did a lot of home worship. As they gained power the got more grandiose.
Persicutions is simply to strong of a word for the status if Christians
>>1228169
"church", is not necessarily synonymous with "cathedral" or even "building". You have alot of learning to do before you're legitimately in a position to discuss this. I tried, though. Maybe you will listen to someone else, maybe I'm bad at it.
>>1228169
>The emperor himself converted.
So what? It wasn't state religion. You're bullshitting with half information and guesses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyifuNC0MT8
>>1228177
No I am saying you are holding on to a technicality to extend your persicution timeline. Yes you are technically correct, but you are dismissing the massive endorsement of the monarch choosing your religion.
>>1228174
No you just have blinders on and accept the churches narritive without question.
>>1228177
>Religion of ruling monarch in pre modern times isn't state religion
Wew lad
>>1228217
No no he's is technically correct. He just ignores the practical side of things.
>>1228217
You're fucking high. Precedent for this was set notably by the Achaemenids, but others to a lesser extent. The Persians practiced it openly and with consideration in law.
>>1228211
Calling a group of people with like-minded contention, or a "sect" as synonymous with "church" is not an aspect of "blinders" but vernacular. People worship "at a church", that church maybe "(this) classification" and those combined people of multiple "church buildings" are collectively classified the "(this classification) church". There are many physical catholic churches and cathedrals, but collectively they are "the catholic church". There are many Lutheran churches, and indeed many sub-classifications of Lutherans, and they are collectively "the Lutheran church". There are many churches and cathedrals of the Eastern Orthodox, and collectively they are "the Eastern Orthodox church".
You're just not fully educated. Settle down.
>>1228225
>Akhenaten practically coverts to Atenism
>Atenism is considered to be (briefly) state religion of Egypt; Atenism is somewhat popularised
>Mieszko converts to Christianity
>Christianity is considered to be state religion of Poland; Christianity is popularised
>Uzbeg Khan converts to Islam
>Islam is considered to be state religion of Golden Horde; Islam is popularised among Mongol elites
>Ghazan Khan converts to Islam
>Islam is considered to be state religion of Ilkhanate; Islam is popularised among Mongol elites
>Hlodwig converts to Christianity
>Christianity is considered to be state religion of Francia; Christianity is popularised
>Vladimir the Great converts to Christianity
>Christianity is considered to be state religion of Kievan Rus; Christianity is popularised
>>1228260
I am perfectly well educated.
What is happening it that we are not talking about the same thing.
Your argument about vernacular is irrelevant to my argument about the severity of Christian persicution.
>>1228269
Meaningless to the fact that A. Empires existed which did not solely propagate/support state religion, B. State religion was not Christianity in the time of Constantine. pls stop.
>>1228271
You're not really arguing anything. You're coloring all over the legitimate "board" with "crayon" and you're wrong. You might make one or two legitimate statements, and I worked to meet you half way, but the rest of your utter bullshit, which you take to be true on the basis of your couple "tru-ish" statements need refuted because we know them to not be so.
You can say, "well , the persecution of Christians wasn't all that bad", and to that, I said, indeed, some regions weren't so persecuting in practice. You're not going to win ANYTHING following up with implications as "Christians were never persecuted", "Christians were something else", "Christianity was the state religion before Theodosius", "Churches aren't just cathedrals but homes", and other completely contrived, bs statements which you know not to be true were you to take the opportunity in reviewing 2 or 3 sources, even non-Christian ones. You're just wrong, you're trying to make people stupid with your prejudice, and that's worse than being stupid in and of yourself. Knock it off.
>>1227892
>Bah my persecution complex
No one is persecuting anyone
>>1228301
No you are not paying attention. As I said you are technically correct about the state religion, but in practice you are full of shit. Especially in the first councils were held in 325 requested by Constantine. It was all but the state religion.
I never said that Christians were anything. What I said was that they were indistinguishable from jews until mid second century, which is factually correct.
The iy thing I am saying about the persicution it that it is to be taken with a pile of salt considering that most sources are from church father's.
The 'cathedrals as homes' was me misunderstanding a bullshit argument you were making tangentially to my own.
>>1228301
>Meaningless to the fact that A. Empires existed which did not solely propagate/support state religion
Utterly irrevelant to my post
>B. State religion was not Christianity in the time of Constantine. pls stop.
Constantine converted put Christianity above all other religions, like it or not it was both in practice and in theory state religion of Roman Empire.
>>1228346
>No you are not paying attention.
I am.
>As I said you are technically correct about the state religion,
Thanks, I guess.
>but in practice you are full of shit.
"In practice" is what Theodosius did.
>Especially in the first councils were held in 325 requested by Constantine.
Meaningless to the subject.
>It was all but the state religion.
I'd meet half way.
>I never said that Christians were anything.
You did by implication, maybe without realizing.
>What I said was that they were indistinguishable from jews until mid second century, which is factually correct.
Because they had 2 arms and 2 legs? Because you can't tell the difference in one fundamental ideology and another? No, you're just wrong.
>The iy thing I am saying about the persicution it that it is to be taken with a pile of salt considering that most sources are from church father's.
But it's not all "from church fathers". Not even all modern Christians respect all words of all church fathers. There are outside sources (Roman) which illustrate some persecution of early Christians. You haven't taken the time to look, you don't care.
>The 'cathedrals as homes' was me misunderstanding a bullshit argument you were making tangentially to my own.
Well, ok, your misunderstanding. Thanks for trying but it was a reply to your tangent against my use of the words "There were churches around for various reasons.". It's apparent, looking back, I could have been more clear and used the terms "Christian sects", but then, in the syntax, were I communicating with someone in the same nature and level of understanding, I wouldn't have to and that would not have had to become a peripheral statement of fact.
See, you continue to do it some more. You make a couple "ok" statements and follow up with this rapid succession of complete tripe. You care to learn? You care to teach people? Get it straight. Cite your sources, know your material, and don't come at people with a bunch of posits without some solid backing.
I really don't care.
I care enough to post on this thread and say how absolutely fucking boring Revelations is, but beyond that I really don't care.
>>1228397
Dude you are being pedantic.
No in practice us was Constantine did what theodosius did was legal technicality.
The first ecumenical councils being held during Constantines reign is very relevant. It demonstrates that he put into practice the preference of Christianity.
They were indistinguishable from jews because you had to convert to Judaism first. It's the fulfillment of a Jewish prophecy after all. Get tiles did not start to be converted end masse un til the mid second century.
I do know of other sources of persicution. As I said earlier. They did not pay lip service to traditional values so they got their hands smacked. Every other religion did it even the rambunctious jews.
You act as if there was not orthodoxy amongst Christians at this time. They were not as fractured as you want to imply.
>>1227863
>revelations
It's just Revelation. How did you fuck this up? It's even right there in your image.
>>1228440
Sometimes pedantic is necessary to curb runaway bullshit.
Even I know this statement isn't true, "They were not as fractured as you want to imply.". Before the end of the first century there were churches with very different ideas, different perspective of Jesus' divinity, different groups making pulp fiction, non-inspired canon and I'm not even talking about whether to include Maccabees or Judith but way out stuff like gospel of mary and gospel of judas. Some people say Paul was fragmentary to Christianity, there were gentiles being converted in the mid first century by and by authority of Paul, and where the heck did you get the idea a person needed to be converted to Jew to be converted to Christian? That's a wild one.
Not the first guy, btw.
>>1228465
We are talking about mostly the fourth century
So kinda moot. What you say is correct though.
Well not the 'inspired' stuff
