Did he destroy Rome?
>>1240396
No, he redeemed it.
>>1240396
Yes, shortly after he was resurrected he went to Rome and destroyed it by causing lightning to strike all the buildings. This is where the myths of Thor and Perkunas come from. Constantine tried to damage control by moving the capital to Greece and editing this story out of the bible, but true Christians know what really happened.
Nope, the Roman Empire continued for about 1400 more years.
>be a Jewish insurgent, call yourself king of the jews
>preach against the roman empire, get yourself crucified
>400 years later they're worshiping you as their state religion
>>1240421
But he killed what was good about the Roman Empire
Secular writing and philosphy being the greatest loss in the fall of the true Rome
Any barbarian can go around killing in the name of God
Turned people way more religious than they used to be. I'd say yes.
>>1240440
>preach against the roman empire
u wot m8
>Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is God's.
>>1240396
Thats not Paul
>>1240396
A hundred percent definitive absolute yes. People who say otherwise are brainwashed christcucks.
>>1240749
Good answer
>>1240512
Epic
>>1240772
;3
Christian Rome survived longer than Pagan Rome did
>>1240783
Christian Rome still survives.
He could have stopped this
>>1240783
U wot? Christian Rome survived less than a hundred years
>>1240790
Yeah no that fucker in a white robe and his mini-state are not Rome.
>>1240480
Christians thought everything was God's.
>>1240512
I don't get this.
>>1240440
He didn't really preach against Rome directly so much as the Sadducee puppet/collaborationist government.
>>1240850
I think it's high level bait
>>1240440
>preach against the roman empire, get yourself crucified
Jesus didn't give a shit about the Romans, he only opposed the priesthood and Pharisees and not even out of political (they were after all allies of the Romans) but purely religious motivation
>>1240861
When you look at the date of each Gospel you notice that the older a Gospel gets the more anti-Roman Jesus is. In the Oldest Gospels Pilate himself considers him a criminal but as the Gosppels get that Rome used to be at fault for now shift to the Jews. By the time you get to John, the newest Gospel Pilate is completly innocent. So there is obvious attempt to change history.
You can also look at very early Christians in the historical context and see many of them caused riots, destroyed pagan temples, and generally did everything they could to fuck with Rome.
>>1240930
>you notice that the older a Gospel gets the more anti-Roman Jesus is
Jesus =/= writers of the Gospels
>>1240396
No Rome destroyed him. Christianity saved Rome and civilized Western and Norther Europe. Rome survived through the papacy.
Christians did burn the library in Alexandria, but remember this is Christian Zealots made up of Egyptians and Arabs we're dealing with. They like they sort of monkey business. The Christians there used the magic tricks of the Egyptian temple, they were masters of the art of illusion. This is where Judaism got some of its temple spells.
The roman empire itself was shitty-fication of the republic. Christianity got in way too late to ruin rome.
source: I prefer the republic.
>>1240841
It's literally Rome.
>>1240834
>Byzantine Empire survived for less than a hundred years
>>1240512
>Jesus preached white ethno-nationalism
This is what /pol/tards actually believe
>>1240749
Paul didn't do it either.
>>1240480
You realise that means don't seek to break the law, as he was a pacifist so sought to avoid violence. Do you even Theology bro.
Christianity didn't destroy Rome, politics and a horde of angry barbarians did. And it only got "destroyed" if you forget about the Byzantine Empire and the Catholic Church.
>>1240396
He was a symptom of Rome's decline, not its cause.
