Paul: Rome's version of the Trojan Horse

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Care to site some sources on your theory there? Or is this just your opinion?

Just read some recent commentaries on Revelation, that is how I know about it.
Like I said in my earlier post, two hundred years ago they dated the writing of Revelation into the 90's to coincide with the supposed persecution of Diocletian.
Now they are revising it to a lot earlier, using citations from Revelation in other writings, discounting completely the persecution earlier scholars thought were happening in the first century.
I realize a lot of people do not want to give Revelation an early date because they are Futurists, like Dispensationalists, who do not want John prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, but rather that John wrote after that, blew it off as insignificant, and wrote about something thousands of years in the future.

a reply to: jmdewey60

You are not providing sources, you are asking me to read some commentaries of someone's opinion.

It's not very fair if you give yourself an unfair advantage, in this case I require sources but you don't really have to provide them, but some commentaries are good enough apparently.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You are not providing sources, you are asking me to read some commentaries of someone's opinion.

I was making a suggestion.
You don't have to if you don't want to.
"Someone's opinion" is what we all go on, whatever you might think.
You could try taking your own advice and read the article on Nero.
en.wikipedia.org...
Then you should notice that it does not contradict what I already posted.

a reply to: jmdewey60

Yes it does. You claim Christians were never persecuted yet the article you linked says he did. You're changing your argument.

Paul says the authorities and rulers do not bear their swords against those who do right and calls them agents of god for the people's good. Nero was an authority and according to real history, he killed and bore his sword against Christians.

So going by what Paul said, those Christians were doing something wrong because " rulers do not bear their swords against those who do right". So, in your opinion, what were those Christians doing wrong other than supposedly spreading the same gospel Paul was preaching and writing about?

Why would god inspire someone to write that the authorities were agents of good when that clearly wasn't the case? Even before Paul wrote his letters the authorities in Rome were fighting in all kinds of wars and killing innocent people then stealing their land.

They took slaves they captured on their conquests and threw them in the coloseum to be eaten alive by lions and tigers, they burnt people on pyres and beheaded them, all because they refused to bow to them.

Tell me, how were the Roman authorities ever "agents of god for your good" while they were doing all these horrible things to innocent people?

You're so invested in Paul that you refuse to see his shortcomings and that he is wrong. Authorities have never NOT bore their swords against those who do good, and if they have then it is few and far between.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Yes it does. You claim Christians were never persecuted yet the article you linked says he did. You're changing your argument.

In what way did I "change my argument"?
The article says that there is a Christian tradition that says that Nero persecuted Christians.
It doesn't say that he did.
It says that Tertullian wrote that he did, but he was probably just using the Roman historians as his source.
He says in the line cited in Wikipedia, "Look at your own records", which would be the secular Roman historians.
He would have been writing this 150 years after the fact.
Eusebius then quotes Tertullian as his source, another 150 years later.
The Wikipedia article then goes on to say that they got it wrong because Suetonius, who would have written the primary document, was really talking about Jewish Zealots who were in rebellion against Rome.
So it comes down to basically an urban legend, where one person misinterpreted the original writer, then he was quoted, and so on.

Nero was an authority and according to real history, he killed and bore his sword against Christians.

Some people thought so, much later, and so it eventually became a tradition, that people bad mouthed Nero, when in fact he probably was a sort of hero to the Christians for getting rid of the Jews from Rome who actually were persecuting Christians.

They took slaves they captured on their conquests and threw them in the coloseum to be eaten alive by lions and tigers, they burnt people on pyres and beheaded them, all because they refused to bow to them.

And your point is . . ?
Now we know that those were not Christians, at least not those who followed Paul's advice.

a reply to: jmdewey60

So your argument is basically to ignore any history that disagrees with your theory? History says that Romans persecuted Christians, tell any actual historian that they didn't and they'd probably laugh at you because it is a well known historical fact that they did.

You're so blinded by Paul that you refuse to accept it. Paul called corrupt tyrants agents of god for the good of the people all while they were slaughtering the people. Paul doesn't limit his statement to just Christians, he says it within the context of all people by saying "those who do good" or "those who do wrong", very broad statements.

If Romans 13 no longer applies today, what makes you so sir the rest of his epistles do? Why would Paul say that knowing damn well that hardly any authority figure was good to the people? Unless killing innocent people and torturing g them was for the people's good, Paul is 1,000% wrong whether you want to accept it or not.

We're done because all you're doing is sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to actual documented history.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So your argument is basically to ignore any history that disagrees with your theory?

I told you, quote your source.
All you do is criticize me, without putting your own historical account up for scrutiny.
Where is this "history", as you call it?

. . . it is a well known historical fact that they did.

That, is what is laughable, since that is just a delusion of non-historians, that there are all these indisputable "facts" from thousands of years ago, a place utterly destroyed by invasions and a complete collapse of civilization, where almost all records were lost, except for a small amount of scattered fragments.

You're so blinded by Paul that you refuse to accept it. Paul called corrupt tyrants agents of god for the good of the people all while they were slaughtering the people.

Maybe you were traumatized as a child hearing stories of "pagans" murdering the Christian martyrs.
It does sound like the sort of thing to be sensationalized, as I have seen it done right here on this forum, and I think that you have probably seen too.

If Romans 13 no longer applies today . . .

All he was saying is to not give the authorities good reason to do things to you.

We're done because all you're doing is sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to actual documented history.

You have not shown what documents you are talking about.
The fact is that a lot of people died, about a million, as a result of wars by the Jews against Rome, following leaders who the Romans called "Christs".
If you want to believe that these were all Christians, then have a good time in your little delusional world but don't expect anyone else wanting to join you.
You make no case to support your theory except for a 400 year old story that people came up with, quoting earlier mistaken identifications or flat-out myth making.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
And another reference to Greek mythology:

Acts 28
11 After three months we put out to sea in a ship that had wintered in the island. It was an Alexandrian ship with the figurehead of the twin gods Castor and Pollux.

Why was it necessary to tell us what kind of ship it was and what the figurehead was? Maybe he was trying to tell us something?

He may have simply been making note of the irony. On several levels.

a reply to: jmdewey60

You ask for sources with me yet you refuse to provide any of your own and direct me to an opinionated commentary on Revelation. A good place to start would be Google if you want sources and information on Roman persecution of Christianity.

You've obviously set up an unfair argument in your own favor, demanding sources but not feeling the need to give any in return.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

A good place to start would be Google if you want sources and information on Roman persecution of Christianity.

Since you are the one using this to make a point about how "wrong" Paul was, maybe you should Google some persecution to cite here on the forum.

If you want me to "prove" a negative, then you have to accept "opinion" since that is the kind of thing that you are stuck with, for something that logic says you can't do.

If you are asserting the positive, then by logic, there should be "facts" to back it up.

So, like you said, it is not "even", but it is realistic, because we are dealing with two very different things:
1) proving a positive,
2) forming an opinion based on logic that with the absence of positive proof, then it may be safe to assume that the thing in question does not exist, and if people persist in believing it anyway, then they are following mythology by personal choice.

a reply to: jmdewey60

So you trying to prove Rome "didn't" persecute Christians despite the evidence is not proving a negative how?

Like I said, you're creating double standards.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So you trying to prove Rome "didn't" persecute Christians despite the evidence is not proving a negative how?

I have asked you several times already to present your evidence and you refuse, so there is nothing, so far, that I am ignoring.
You did mention the Wikipedia article that I linked to and I gave instructions on how to interpret it, and that is based on serious scholarship that would not show up in prestigious publications (Bible commentaries) if it was pure bunk.

a reply to: jmdewey60

But the scholarship and history behind Christian persecutions IS bunk? Even though it is an event(s) universally accepted by historians as actually taking place?

Double standards my friend. Bible commentaries are not history, they are opinions. Tacitus, Tertullian, Suetonius, and many other real historians all say that Rome and its rulers persecuted Christians, meaning they recorded actual history, not opinions like with a modern bible commentary.

Your argument doesn't hold any water while mine has actual history and scholarship behind it.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Your argument doesn't hold any water while mine has actual history and scholarship behind it.

It's pretty meaningless to just sit there repeating that.

The scholarship you are talking about is all in the multiples of hundreds of years old and have no relevancy in today's world.
If you think otherwise, please produce some modern scholarship from the last 25 years that supports your claim.

a reply to: jmdewey60

You're a trip! How does a bible commentary from a few years ago trump actual history? Again, your argument holds no water, yet you actually think you have me backed into some kind of corner. LOL! That's funny.

You say Christian persecution never happened based on some bible commentaries (which you have yet to source) while history and actual scholarship say otherwise. If you choose to throw out any actual history that you don't want to believe, then you're lost my friend. Live in denial if you want but others will continue forward toward truth.

This is my last reply to you, you obviously don't have any intention of conducting a fair debate. You refuse to accept actual recorded history that is universally accepted by actual scholars as true. Why? Because you worship Paul.

Matthew 16
11"How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 12Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

You obviously haven't heeded his warning because Paul was a Pharisee before his "conversion".

Philippians 3
4 though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.

And looky there, he even admits to persecuting the church. He was a Jewish authority before his "conversion" and he admits to persecuting the church. Why then does he say the authorities don't harm those who do good?

Your argument is baseless, you just refuse to see and/or admit it.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You obviously haven't heeded his warning because Paul was a Pharisee before his "conversion".

That just means basically that he was a Jew.
I think we knew that, already.
It is kind of like today distinguishing between Orthodox or conservative Jews, where it has more to do with whatever circumstances you found yourself in, rather than running for office to get a political position.
The point that Paul was making was that he was associated with the Jews who were especially concerned with holiness, the idea being that he was actually giving up a significant achievement in order to pursue something else, which is real righteousness, that he found out about when meeting Jesus.

. . . he admits to persecuting the church.

Which was just engaging in arguments with people who were promoting Christianity.

I dont know if you are right or wrong but Ive heard this general theory before but I have never seen the details fleshed out like this before and I have enjoyed reading it and entertaining your points of view. Take care.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1 Do you think I'm on to something here? Or am I seeing connections that aren't really there? Feel free to criticize me all you like, I welcome it.

Yes you are hacking and yes the connections are not really there.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

there is no historical proof that Peter founded the church in Rome.

a reply to: guitarplayer

There are plenty of things in the bible that have no historicsl proof to back them up. Church tradition and belief differ from reality in many areas, but church tradition states that Peter founded the church so that's what I'm working off of in this thread.

Ask any Christian who founded the church and 9 out of 10 will tell you Peter did.