Understanding the Bible 101: Old Testament (OT) law and New Testament (NT) "law"

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

What Bucc said. In Scripture, Jesus seems to assert his divinity in more than a few places. Gnosticism didn't really go anywhere and Arianism arose in the late 3rd Century.

I would also indicate that even using "cultural specific rhetoric", you still have a God who was killed by his enemies and when he came back, he didn't take vengeance, but just taught love even for one's enemies and humility. These views were utterly alien in the Roman world and would have been seen as weakness (and in the Jewish world, the fact Jesus was killed would have been seen as proof that he wasn't the Messiah, a la Judas Maccabeus). That would not have been anywhere near an easy sell.

It is no longer Roman times but I am still amazed and astounded by the message of Jesus. I don't believe in his divinity but still think him utterly worth our thought and attention two thousand years later. In other words I think the power of his message is enough to explain the spread of his religion, it is no proof of his miracles. In fact I wish people would stop worrying about whether his story is true and just pay attention to whether his message was right. I think it is a shame people spend so much time arguing about salvation while ignoring how he said we should live.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Autumn

It is no longer Roman times but I am still amazed and astounded by the message of Jesus. I don't believe in his divinity but still think him utterly worth our thought and attention two thousand years later. In other words I think the power of his message is enough to explain the spread of his religion, it is no proof of his miracles. In fact I wish people would stop worrying about whether his story is true and just pay attention to whether his message was right. I think it is a shame people spend so much time arguing about salvation while ignoring how he said we should live.

This is what I always think about it. Even if its wrong in the end if people believed it our world would be a heck of a lot better place. If nothing else, it's something to keep us all in line.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

What are you kidding me? Roman culture in particular frowned upon any form of weakness or forgiveness. Might made right and the pursuit of glory was the ultimate goal. It was the complete antithesis of Roman worldview. IIRC, Jesus was the first person who taught that humility towards equals (or lessers) was a virtue (at the very least in the West).

You are painting Romans as 2D caricatures of their warrior caste. The vast majority of "Romans" (in actuality, if not name) were peasants. No matter what I think of the spiritual truth behind Christianity, there is no question as to the impact its message had on the lower classes.

IMO it was the perfect religion for the Romans because it suited the peasants - no matter what your lot in life, and generally it was not good, you will be rewarded in the next life if you are a good Christian. Don't punish others, do onto them as they would onto you, etc. For these exact same reasons, it suited the rulers as well.

Although I don't believe the Romans sat there with a graph and mapped out pros and cons before deciding which religion best served their purposes. There were a lot of reasons why the Roman elite adopted Christianity and I'm sure in no small part it was due to its popularity amongst the lower classes.

With the scarcity of historical sources re: early Christianity immediately after Jesus, the effects it can have on a downtrodden peasant class in later times is easy enough to see; Japan in the 16th century. Once Europeans reached Japan for the first time (excluding a possible shipwreck a century before) their monks and holy men weren't far behind. Christianity exploded in Japan, who at this time was in the middle of a 100+ year civil war. If not for a brutal crackdown in the early 17th Century, it's may well have become the major religion of Japan.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Eastern Empire circa 300-400 AD wasn't in much of a position to conquer anyone. Stability was far more a pressing concern.

This is true, but essentially you were still looking at an Empire of conquered (or, at least, brought into the fold) peoples all under the Eagle. Stability was the #1 reason for the switch to Christianity IMO.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I would also indicate that even using "cultural specific rhetoric", you still have a God who was killed by his enemies and when he came back, he didn't take vengeance, but just taught love even for one's enemies and humility. These views were utterly alien in the Roman world and would have been seen as weakness (and in the Jewish world, the fact Jesus was killed would have been seen as proof that he wasn't the Messiah, a la Judas Maccabeus). That would not have been anywhere near an easy sell.

Cart before the horse there. The Greek Celsus argued in 177 that because Christ allowed himself to be killed by his enemies he was unworthy of being called divine. Resurrection thing did not matter.

Other thoughts/slams from Celsus in 177 ce:
1. Jesus was born of a roman solider and went to Egypt to lean some magic spells
2. Book of Matthew is vile. It is filled with inconstancy and absurdities.
3. Celsus asks, why should the OT prophesies refer to Jesus only, when it could be applied to a thousand others?
4. Celsus calls the Gospels: missionary literature- propaganda and proclamation.
5. Celsus says, "the (Gospel) writings only contain facts about Jesus that a puts flattering face on the events of his life."
6. He goes on to say, "I heard that some of your interpreters alter the original text three, four and several more times to be able to deny the inconsistencies." (177ce remember)
7. On the resurrection he says Christians themselves seem unaware "that multitudes have invented similar tales to lead simpleminded hearers astray...Zamolxis, Pythagoras, Herakles."
8. He claimed Jesus was a Dodger fan

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

Groundhog making the strong play for 6th man of the year. Clutch performances down the stretch.

I have to say though, I enjoy having civil discussions on religion with Christians a lot more than I like reading the drek you see from the Dawkins/Hitchens school of Atheists all over the internet trolling Christians. It makes me just shake my head... Atheism has become a like a big circle-jerking bully club.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

You are painting Romans as 2D caricatures of their warrior caste. The vast majority of "Romans" (in actuality, if not name) were peasants. No matter what I think of the spiritual truth behind Christianity, there is no question as to the impact its message had on the lower classes.

IMO it was the perfect religion for the Romans because it suited the peasants - no matter what your lot in life, and generally it was not good, you will be rewarded in the next life if you are a good Christian. Don't punish others, do onto them as they would onto you, etc. For these exact same reasons, it suited the rulers as well.

Although I don't believe the Romans sat there with a graph and mapped out pros and cons before deciding which religion best served their purposes. There were a lot of reasons why the Roman elite adopted Christianity and I'm sure in no small part it was due to its popularity amongst the lower classes.

Considering Jesus's message was anti-Roman/empire, I'm not sure the Roman elite would adopt it simply because some peasants did. The parable of turning the other cheek and carry the pack an extra mile are anti-empire parables (see Walter Wink's "The Powers That Be" - turning the other cheek meant the other person had to slap you with the front of his hand marking you as their equal & Roman soldiers could only compel a person to carry a pack 1 mile, so if you carry it an extra mile, you could make the soldier freak out). Also the claims that Jesus is Lord means that Caesar is not (done deliberately).

I'm sure the Roman elite wouldn't like their peasants engaging in subversive religions. That is also why Christians started getting thrown to the lions (not like the peasants rooted for the Christians in the arena).

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

This is true, but essentially you were still looking at an Empire of conquered (or, at least, brought into the fold) peoples all under the Eagle. Stability was the #1 reason for the switch to Christianity IMO.

Stability also was why Christians were almost wiped out under Diocletian (hence why the Edict of Milan was so important).

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Considering Jesus's message was anti-Roman/empire, I'm not sure the Roman elite would adopt it simply because some peasants did.

In theory, yes. His message was also extremely anti-Catholic. Praying in your closet is about the furthest thing from the pomp and ritual of a Catholic ceremony, and the Pope, for all intents and purposes, is worshiped as the embodiment of God by Catholics.

Also the claims that Jesus is Lord means that Caesar is not (done deliberately).

Again, yes, In theory this is true. But what did Constantine do as soon he converted? Showered the clergy with gifts and favours, erected churches/monuments. etc. The clergy were the mouthpiece of Christianity and had the sole power to sway the peasants one way or the other.

It was only the clergy who had access to the Christian texts, and they were one of the few able to read them anyway. If the clergy were onboard, so were their parish, and that was what made his conversion a stroke of genius. For his reign, at least...

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

In theory, yes. His message was also extremely anti-Catholic. Praying in your closet is about the furthest thing from the pomp and ritual of a Catholic ceremony, and the Pope, for all intents and purposes, is worshiped as the embodiment of God by Catholics.

That's not exactly what that statement means. After all, Jesus prayed publicly at synagogue. Praying in your closet rather than on the street corner means don't pray so others can see how amazingly you are praying. Its about not play acting (which is what hypocrite meant in Greek).

Again, yes, In theory this is true. But what did Constantine do as soon he converted? Showered the clergy with gifts and favours, erected churches/monuments. etc. The clergy were the mouthpiece of Christianity and had the sole power to sway the peasants one way or the other.

It was only the clergy who had access to the Christian texts, and they were one of the few able to read them anyway. If the clergy were onboard, so were their parish, and that was what made his conversion a stroke of genius. For his reign, at least...

You have a strange view on the Roman peasants at the time. It wasn't like all the peasants were Christian while the elites were pagan - after all, as stated the crowds at the Colosseum cheered for Christians to die and they weren't made up entirely by the elite of Rom. Constantine's reign was completely safe. He didn't need to make a deathbed confession (recall he didn't actually become Christian until he was about to die). Also when Constantine issued the edict of toleration, Christianity was in trouble. Diocletian had engaged on a program of killing Christians for a decade. And most persecution of Christians in the Roman era was due to the peasants being wary of the new religion and charges of incest and atheism (didn't believe in the state religion). There was plenty of mob violence.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

In theory, yes. His message was also extremely anti-Catholic. Praying in your closet is about the furthest thing from the pomp and ritual of a Catholic ceremony, and the Pope, for all intents and purposes, is worshiped as the embodiment of God by Catholics.

The Pope is not worshipped by Catholics, no more than President Obama is worshipped by Americans. Also, as a Catholic, I would say our masses do not have all that much pomp to them. They are pretty boring. If you want pomp, Benedictions and High Masses are where it is at.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Considering Jesus's message was anti-Roman/empire, I'm not sure the Roman elite would adopt it simply because some peasants did.

Again, the Empire during Jesus's life was VASTLY different than the Empire when it begun converting to Christianity. 1st Century AD, Rome was at its height. It had the economic and social power to stomp on threats against it, and Christianity was small potatoes.

Fast forward 300 years, the Empire was fractured, perpetually broke, barbarians were on the move, and Christianity had spread to the lower classes. Placating the mob with religion tas a stabilizing / political action makes perfect sense.

[MacroGuru]

Free the Fox from the Box!

[KWhit]

Yeah, what the hell was he boxed for anyway?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Again, the Empire during Jesus's life was VASTLY different than the Empire when it begun converting to Christianity. 1st Century AD, Rome was at its height. It had the economic and social power to stomp on threats against it, and Christianity was small potatoes.

Fast forward 300 years, the Empire was fractured, perpetually broke, barbarians were on the move, and Christianity had spread to the lower classes. Placating the mob with religion tas a stabilizing / political action makes perfect sense.

This completely, once again, ignores that Christianity was viciously persecuted. Diocletian went to town on it. Christians were getting killed by gladiators and by the lions (and who do you think the gladiator fights were for? Not the rich and privileged). How does that even gel with the adopting it as a stabilizing action? And, of course, Christianity was considered an illegal religion until Constantine allowed for its worship.

In addition, the rulers were likely listening to popular approval when they engaged in persecution of Christians:

Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, a knowledge of a Roman elite’s duties in government point to interests he might have had in cooperating with popular agitation for the persecution of Christians. When a governor was sent to a province, he was charged with the task of keeping it pacata atque quieta—settled and orderly.[14] His primary interest would be to keep the populace happy; thus when unrest against the Christians arose in his jurisdiction, he would be inclined to placate it with appeasement lest the populace “vent itself in riots and lynching.”[15]

Without agitation from the public, the Roman government would have had little motivation to persecute local Christians.

Why would you want to change the state to a religion which popular animus was against?