When did the Romans change from killing Jesus of Judea to the most devout Catholics?

When *DATE!!!* did that dramatic change occur?

--- from crucifixion to vatican ---

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Romans didnt crucify Jesus collectively, that decision was made very grudgingly by ONE roman official - Pilate, at the behest of the Jewish establishment in Jerusalem.

And he was executing a Jew in his eyes, not a Christian...it was Paul who created a new religion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Incorrect. The "decision" to kill his son to forgive mankind for their sins could only have come from god. Pilate was only doing what god had already decided he would do, (and would have no option but to do), because of a decision god had made on how to forgive mankind for them acting according to the nature he had given them.

You simply cannot blame any human for the decision to kill jesus, only god can be blamed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is an idea that comes from Paul, not Jesus.

Where in the teachings of Jesus does he say that God will execute him as a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of mankind???

 

Well, you would first have to show that Pauls ideas are wrong, but failing that we could look towards biblical text to give an indication.

One can state that the killing of jesus was wanted by god. In his early days when Herod wanted to kill him god spoke to his parents and said to move him for his safety. He then godmailed them again when Herod had died and jesus was safe. Clearly he did not want jesus to die - and by being god has the power to ensure it doesn't happen as witnessed above.

From there we can move to the following:

"21From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life."

Do note the word "must" (a couple of times). It shows that jesus had to go and be killed, (which argues against it being a human affair as opposed to a god determined one). If there was no ultimate goal in getting whacked, there would be no reason for him to have to do it.

At the final moments jesus cries to god "why have you forsaken me?" The only plausible answer is because god wanted him to die unlike the time when god actually saved his life.

Of course given the biblical claims that jesus isn't actually dead, this is all moot.

 

Chapter?
Verse?

 

Matthew 16:21

Luke 9:22

Luke 24:7

 

I suppose Jesus was expecting to be saved from death at the last moment, meaning he did NOT want death.

But even if God wanted him dead this does not prove that his death was to be a sacrifice of tonement for the sins of mankind.

That is entirely Pauls idea, a man who never even met Jesus.

 

Where in this chapter does Jesus say that his death will be a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of mankind?

 

Aye, the point: god planned otherwise.

What it does do is show specific calculated reason for that death. If it was just death he would have left him dead, but he raised him from the dead to make a point, (the specifics of which we can debate). Unless of course god was on vacation at the time and didn't realise his kiddie was about to get whacked. Upon returning from the outer cosmos he realises his child's been killed, does a poorly acted Darth Vader "nooooooooooooooooo" and brings him back to life. He then goes about getting revenge by annihilating a few more humans.

So we can tear out, scrap and burn any portions of the bible with relevance to Paul? Glad we got that settled.

 

There was actually a contingent of Jewish Christians in the early days who didnt accept Paul's teachings...the way he filled in the blanks with his own ideas, and rejected the Jewish traditions that Jesus himself upheld.

But they were scatterred to the four winds when Rome grew tired of its rebellious puppet state and destroyed it completely in 70AD.

 

The date was somewhat before Emporor Constantine's edict regarding Rome's official religion. The reason for this change had alot to do with the martyrs. The Romans admired the character of all those Christians getting tortured and killed in horrible ways in the stadiums. They started to sympathize with people that would rather die than say their religion was wrong. In this way, the killing of Christians had the opposite of the intended effect. Instead of killing out the religion, it became more popular than ever. Constantine's decision only sealed the deal.

 

I am truly pleased for them but I am actually asking you. Can we discard anything connected with Paul?

 

1. The Romans didn'tcare about the Jews, one way or the other. To them, Judaea was just one more province, though an important one, as it connected the breadbasket of the Nile and the Near East with Rome. The Judaeans, of course, didn't appreciate the occupation, and rebelled against the pagan Romans. The Romans, in typical Roman fashion, crushed the rebels.

2. After Christianity spread all over the place that Rome began to target it. In fact, Christianity wasn't the first popular messianic religion to show up in Rome from the East. There were other cults that worshipped sun gods who died for your sins. Many Romans wanted a religion that promised them something more than an eternity in Hades, just as many Jews must have wanted something more than an eternity beneath the earth, in Sheol. Life under the Empire wasn't always so great for the common man.

3. The earliest recorded use of Christian, outside of the Bible, was when Tacitus recorded Nero blaming them for the Great Fire of Rome. Nero then persecuted them like whoa, and bought up much burned out city to construct an enormous palace. Nero was a crazy son of a bitch, his persecution of Christians likely stemmed from his psychosis as much as anything else.

4. In 313, Constantine made Christianity legal, and is known for being the first Christian Roman Emperor. After the leaders became Christian, they began to persecute non-Christians.

 

I thought Snakelord knew all that, but then again, I also thought he knew what the thread is about.

 

It depends on who 'we' are.
For myself I'm speaking from a point of view outside of Christianity, in the same way a historian would approach it.

 

Yeh, all those other writings from that time are much more reliable, right? (Ahahaha.)

 

I dont discount the historical authenicity of the new testament entirely, but generally, secular writings from the period are regarded as more reliable.

 

Oh really.

 

exactly snakelord, this proves that even a Christian can admet hoever grudgingly that sin\satan and humanenature are the same thing and there for means we are our own gods.