It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jukyu
Ok lets break this down and compare the two.
[...]
Third, Jesus was strictly stated to be of the bloodline of David and a Jew where as Ceasar was a Latin.
Fourth, Ceasar was assasinated by the Senate, literally stabbed in the back. Jesus was crucified. An important distinction here is that when Roman soldiers or other citizens of the Roman Empire were executed, it was normally done by beheading with a sword. This was seen as honorable and was quick and I guess fairly painless in comparison to other methods. It was only non-Roman criminals and slaves that were crucified. For example, during the slave revolt led by Spartacus in 73 BCE 6000 of his followers were crucified lining the main roads of Rome as a warning and deterrent to others.
Hope this helps.
[153] The wax-figure of Augustus at his funeral was clad in the triumphal garb—as later that of Pertinax was as well (cf. Dio Cass. HR 56.34.1; 74.4.3). Conversely Traianus was represented at his posthumous Parthian triumph in 117 AD by his imago (cf. SHA Hadr. 6.3; J.-C. Richard, REL 44, 1966, p. 358).
When Piso brought Caesar’s body into the Forum
But he overlooks that the effigy of wax had to be hanging on the tropaeum, because according to Suetonius (Jul. 84, first paragraph: Funere indicto rogus instructus est in martio campo iuxta Iuliae tumulum et pro rostris aurata aedes ad simulacrum templi Veneris Genetricis collocata; intraque lectus eburneus auro ac purpura stratus et ad caput tropaeum cum ueste, in qua fuerat occisus.) the toga was hanging there right from the beginning. It must have covered the effigy, as is evident from Appianus (BC 2.146: to swma tou KaisaroV egumnou kai thn esqhta epi kontou feromenhn aneseie, lelakismenhn upo twn plhgwn kai pefurmenhn aimati autokratoroV.): When Antonius removes the toga, the effigy is exposed. Also the fact that Antonius uses a spear to remove the toga (l. c.), speaks for it unambiguously. With to swma tou KaisaroV—‘the body of Caesar’—Appianus could only mean here the andreikelon autou KaisaroV ek khrou pepoihmenon—‘the effigy (literally: the mannequin) of Caesar himself formed from wax’ (BC
Enjoyable read, thank you. It parallels the theme making waves lately that the story of Jesus was from an older story of a saviour which was recirculated. Food for thought since I have never been able to understand why the apostles after Jesus' death held Rome to be so important, and why Rome from the first century established itself as the head of same.
Originally posted by AndrewIII
Greetings all,
guess who Jesus really was, you certainly have heard of him!
According to the Italian scholar Francesco Carotta the historical Jesus was Caesar!
Originally posted by AndrewIII
Greetings all,
guess who Jesus really was, you certainly have heard of him!
Any comments?
Andrew
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
I have never been able to understand why the apostles after Jesus' death held Rome to be so important, and why Rome from the first century established itself as the head of same.
Kindly elaborate on what those traditional explanations are, to what specifically they refer, and why anyone should consider them whatever they are, sufficient or not.
Originally posted by NygdanWhy are the traditional explanations insufficient?
Let us look at the development of the sentence that tells us Jesus was crucified:
Mark: ‘And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them,…[...]
the origin of the verb is stauros, which means stake, post, slat, and especially in the plural: palisade[...] the Greek word for lot—klêros—originally means all that is received as an allotment, especially an inheritance, an heirloom[...]If now the words of the first verse are read from the same viewpoint as in the second, it is conspicuous that MURA—myra—is nearly identical in lettering to PURA—pyra—meaning ‘pyre’, and that MUR—myr—can be confused with PUR—pyr—[...]
[and now the restored reading:]
‘…and while the pyre caught fire, they quickly assembled stakes, posts, slats and palisades, placed them around it, tore up their garments and threw valuable pieces on it…’
can be applied to an unspecified people and time. Therefore this
Originally posted by Nygdan
On why rome is important to the early christians,
Does not relate to my statement, especially since yours excludes the apostles who were Jews. Hence this
its because the early christians were romans,
Is your definition of a wayward interpretation of my statement and if it is traditional in definition, it is your traditional definition by virtue of terms such as; "should be" and not one I have seen in any Roman or Christian literature.
so the capital of the world, the eternal city, should be an important place for the new religion, for any new religion.
So what? He was also a Greek citizen first and forefmost. The first 12 were Jews, residing in that area we now call Israel, how does this become a traditional definiton or explain why Rome? Engage in some mental exercise for a minute and ask yourself why Rome when Rome itself was supposedly persecuting and killing Jews and Christians in Paul's and Peter's time, evidenced by their supposed place of martyrdom.
Paul is also traditionally in Rome because he's a citizen, and as such has a right to appeal to the emperor in trial.
First of all you are hypothesizing here. We are told that both Peter and Paul evangelized in Syria and Corinth well before Rome, in fact we know of no certainty that Peter did so in Rome, we know only that it is claimed he was there. We are not told how they got to Rome or how they managed to be preaching there when we know that Peter escaped Herod's hold, where Herod was a Roman appointee, and Paul was en route as a prisoner to Rome while under Roman guard, escaped and somehow managed to evangelize freely without the authorities knowing. So saying that to do so in Nero's hostile capital is sensible is again your own traditional point of view.
Peter is there evangelizing, Rome is a sensible target for evangelization.
It may very well have been an important city, but once more that does not address my sentiment as reiterated above.
Because two apostles evangelized and are martyred there, it becomes an important city, even outside of the secular importance, in the christian church. Becuase of peter, its considered his see, and because of that, the metropolitan bishop of Rome becomes an authority over the other metropolitan bishops of the 'orthodoxic' church, and thus becomes the seat of the head of the Roman Catholic church.
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
My statement was: I have never been able to understand why the apostles after Jesus' death held Rome to be so important
, and why Rome from the first century established itself as the head of same.
So what?
why Rome when Rome itself was supposedly persecuting and killing Jews and Christians
First of all you are hypothesizing here
we know only that it is claimed he was there.
We are not told how they got to Rome
but once more that does not address my sentiment as reiterated above.
I don’t want your personal explanations, they are still but statements of personal and opinion lacking a supportive argument to me. I want you to show me the “traditional definitions” as per your claim.
Originally posted by NygdanIt was important for the apostles because it was the capital of the empire that ruled over them. And you also have to keep in mind that the apostles had converts to christianity who were roman citizens.
Now you see this is what annoys me with those who debate what they do not know. They make statements such as quoted and it is left to me to educate them on the error, not once but countless times. Reread what I previously posted, and engage yourself in research, you will find within the writings of Clement, Iraneaus, and Ignaeteus to name a few, plus several synods later show Rome to be the head of the church from the days of Peter and Paul. Is that too much to ask?
Rome in the 1st century specifically wasn't the head of the church. Rome became more important with the deaths of peter and paul there
For you perhaps, but not for me. I am not content with just accepting that which is force-fed to me especially when it is full of holes.
So that explains why paul was in Rome.
What silliness is this? How does this explain why Rome became important before the persecutions, are you delivering an edict or some such thing from someone I place my trust in? Explain your claim and explain it with fact or do not waste my time.
Rome became important before the persecutions. Why should it change merely because the emperor is in the city and is coordinating the later persecutions?
Sneakily selective aren’t you? Here was my statement relative to that: We are not told how they got to Rome or how they managed to be preaching there when we know that Peter escaped Herod's hold,…
What does the mode of transportation matter?
Once more, there is nothing “traditional” about this view it is yours. The fact that Rome was large and the global power, does not make it the prime and opportune place for the seat of church power given its obvious conflicts with Jews and Christians. That is akin to Rome setting up theirs in Mecca.
The very fact that it was the largest city in existence, the capital of the global order, and the seat of power dictates that at least one of the apostles evangelizes there as they did in other large cities. That is sufficient. What do you suggest is the reason?
Originally posted by AndrewIII
Here's a nice little test, see if you can pass it!
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
That is akin to Rome setting up theirs in Mecca.
You have offered nothing in support of your original statement
For the last time, kindly support your position just once with something of substance as to the “traditional explanations” on which you based your claim.
Of course it is equivalent. We are to believe Jesus travelled throughout Israel yet his disciples set up shop in Rome. It is equivalent because it is as absurd as your premise.
Originally posted by NygdanIt is not equivalent since mecca was nothing at the time.
Good, we agree on the first part on the second I will say that one of us is wrong and it is not me, on the third, refer, above.
I see absolutely no reason to continue the conversation. You have presented nothing to support your own statements, other than to say that peter and paul would be too fearful of anti-christian sentiment in rome to go there. I see no reason to expect that or to even think that such fear would be justified in the first place.