War and Peace

[MN Dave]

Well, some of them did. All the original followers of Jesus were Jews, you know.

Of course. So was Big J. But the tone to Haffner's posts seemed to me as if he expected everyone to drop what they were doing and join a whole new religion and the reason they didn't was because they were scared of magical Jesus. And as we all know, the ones to be feared were some of his followers (eventually).

I have no problem with Jesus. I'm sure he was a swell guy.

[Cato]

Someone above claimed that the Jews were "horribly persecuted" by the Romans.

As an ancient historian, who can read Latin and Ancient Greek, allow me to inform you that the statement is not true.

The Roman Empire depended immensely on Religious Toleration for its peace and prosperity.  The Romans never hunted down Jews like Nazis or like Communists exterminating Kulaks.  Please note the Gospels and the attitude of Pilate toward what to do with Jesus: the Jewish leaders are dealing with Pilate not as a persecutor, but as what he was: a bureaucrat trying to keep the peace and trying to maintain a disinterested attitude in Jewish affairs.

However, because of Jewish nationalists (Zealots) refusing to accept the Roman imperial administration (i.e. pay your taxes and everything will be fine), Roman patience wore thin by the 60's A.D. and of course that led to the Jewish War and the Diaspora. 

If the latter is what was meant by "persecution" then that is a strange use of the word.

[Ephemerid]

If the latter is what was meant by "persecution" then that is a strange use of the word.

Monty Python time! 

All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

--sorry, couldn't resist! but there is some truth to that funny little scene...

[Haffner]

I'm saying it was nothing new.

Maybe it was the way he said it (you probably already thought of that).

[Haffner]

the tone to Haffner's posts seemed to me as if he expected everyone to drop what they were doing and join a whole new religion and the reason they didn't was because they were scared of magical Jesus. And as we all know, the ones to be feared were some of his followers (eventually).

I have no problem with Jesus. I'm sure he was a swell guy.

Maybe you were wont to see my posts as reading that way, or were overly influenced by my signature.

I see nothing in my posts that would lead a person to assume that I'm utilising a priori arguments.

Sorry. And again, absolutely no disrespect.

I guess I get a little sensitive when people are blatantly denying how speculative my posts always are. Please notice that I always use words like "maybe", "perhaps", and I still see absolutely no sign of my pushing any viewpoint whatsoever. Again, if someone can prove otherwise, feel free. Good luck.

[MN Dave]

Maybe you were wont to see my posts as reading that way, or were overly influenced by my signature.

I see nothing in my posts that would lead a person to assume that I'm utilising a priori arguments.

Sorry. And again, absolutely no disrespect.

I guess I get a little sensitive when people are blatantly denying how speculative my posts always are. Please notice that I always use words like "maybe", "perhaps", and I still see absolutely no sign of my pushing any viewpoint whatsoever. Again, if someone can prove otherwise, feel free. Good luck.

Understood.

[knight66]

I am with Cato here. The Romans were extremely pragmatic and allowed religious freedom and to an extent 'client' states to exist in a semi independent way; as long as they accorded with Roman wants and needs. Some states were used as buffer states, others were more directly ruled. Of course, Pax Romana did not suit everyone; some chaffed at the idea of being in any subservient relationship. Rome could be perfectly brutal in putting down insurrection; but this was a matter of imposing peace rather than an ideological pursuit for its own sake against ideologies. Peaceful co-existence was perfectly possible under the Imperial system; assuming Rome got what it wanted.

The Jews exhausted the patience of Rome and in addition, the Jews were not up for the idea of worshiping Roman emperors as gods or allowing their statues in inappropriate places. Perfectly understandable objections; but when open revolt resulted, naturally the Romans would not allow such behaviour to kindle forest fires elsewhere; so they used brute force, but were not interested in genocide.

Mike

[MN Dave]

I wish someone would speak to the reason Christianity was embraced for political reasons so I don't think I hallucinated reading about that somewhere. 

[karlhenning]

Oh, you can read just about anything, somewhere, Dave! 

[MN Dave]

Oh, you can read just about anything, somewhere, Dave! 

Oh, stop it. You probably already know what I'm trying to remember here.

Maybe this was it:

http://history-world.org/christianity%20conversion_of_constantine.htm

[knight66]

It became a Theocracy; how could it then avoid being political. Men do things with mixed motives.

Mike

[karlhenning]

Constantine's mother was devout; so it is quite possible that the emperor himself did not act from entirely cynical motives.

[Haffner]

It became a Theocracy; how could it then avoid being political. Men do things with mixed motives.

Mike

This is a great point!

[Haffner]

Oh, stop it. You probably already know what I'm trying to remember here.

Maybe this was it:

http://history-world.org/christianity%20conversion_of_constantine.htm

Cool article, thanks Dave!

[MN Dave]

This is a great point!

Indeed.

[Haffner]

Interestingly, Mohammed's wife was a devout Roman Catholic. Most certainly before....after...hmmmm?

[Bunny]

I am with Cato here. The Romans were extremely pragmatic and allowed religious freedom and to an extent 'client' states to exist in a semi independent way; as long as they accorded with Roman wants and needs. Some states were used as buffer states, others were more directly ruled. Of course, Pax Romana did not suit everyone; some chaffed at the idea of being in any subservient relationship. Rome could be perfectly brutal in putting down insurrection; but this was a matter of imposing peace rather than an ideological pursuit for its own sake against ideologies. Peaceful co-existence was perfectly possible under the Imperial system; assuming Rome got what it wanted.

The Jews exhausted the patience of Rome and in addition, the Jews were not up for the idea of worshiping Roman emperors as gods or allowing their statues in inappropriate places. Perfectly understandable objections; but when open revolt resulted, naturally the Romans would not allow such behaviour to kindle forest fires elsewhere; so they used brute force, but were not interested in genocide.

Mike

You have a strange idea of what it was like to be conquered by Rome in the ancient world!  Roman conquest was not the equivalent of liberation.  I think a lot of people nowadays wouldn't enjoy having foreign armies occupying their countries, watching their great works of art being pilfered, having to pay onerous tribute to a foreign country,  knowing that tax money was going to glorify a city a half a world away, being presented with a statue of the Roman Emperor as a god on equal footing with your god, being forced to adopt the language of the conquering force, etc.  Just consider the difficulty Rome had subduing Gaul and the Iberian peninsula -- how many decades of strife and occupation before those areas were "pacified"?  Where were the Romans welcomed as liberators?  Just about everywhere the Pax Romana was spread, the road was lubricated with blood.

Furthermore, the Roman idea of religious tolerance was not the same as our idea of religious tolerance.  Anyone could worship any deity they chose to worship as long as they also worshiped the deities of Rome, especially the Emperor as a God.  If anyone refused to worship the Roman Gods or denied their existence, they were stigmatized as atheists, and persecuted ruthlessly.  I'm sure that there are a number of people here who might object if someone moved the Crucifixes to the side chapels of the Vatican, and installed an image of their own particular God (a larger than life size copy of the Leader of the conquering nation) at the main altar.  I know that just about every Rabbi would be up in arms finding such a statue in their synagogues.  We have trouble with Islamic forced conversion, and Islam also recognizes the importance of Moses and Jesus, while relegating them to a lower position of importance; so let's not start thinking that Roman religious tolerance was more tolerant than that.

The first laws against Jews were passed by the ancient Romans, and after Christianity was adopted as the state religion, more anti-semitic laws were passed, and more antisemitic acts were tolerated and given state sanction.  There is just no way to argue that the ancient Romans were merely antisemitic because the Jews were so annoying as to exhaust the patience of the benign Roman state. 

Constantine's mother was devout; so it is quite possible that the emperor himself did not act from entirely cynical motives.

He moved the seat of power to a city he renamed after himself, he was fond of commissioning gigantic statues of himself, and didn't bother to convert until he was literally on his deathbed.  I'd say his main religion was about the consolidation of his own personal power.  If he didn't think of himself in terms of being a deity, then why the need for such monstrously gigantic statues?  No matter how devout his mother, he never lived as a Christian.  While it's reported that he died as one, he wasn't around afterwards to dispute that nor to explain his motives. 

[karlhenning]

Roman conquest was not the equivalent of liberation.

You have a strange idea of what Mike is saying here . . . .

[Haffner]

You have a strange idea of what Mike is saying here . . . .

Maybe if you let us know what you feel that Mike was saying, Karl. It would really be interesting!

[karlhenning]

He moved the seat of power to a city he renamed after himself, he was fond of commissioning gigantic statues of himself . . . .

The latter is certainly within the less morally objectionable sort of behavior one associates with Roman emperors.  No one here, so far as I can tell, is making improbable claims of Constantine seriously attempting to acquire the Christian virtue of humility.

. . . and didn't bother to convert until he was literally on his deathbed.  I'd say his main religion was about the consolidation of his own personal power.

As to the first:  any of us who have lived, say, two or three decades has had experience of doing something only at the propitious time, even when it is something which it had been to our own personal advantage to have done much, much earlier.

As to the second:  you muddy your assertion by the non sequitur on the pivot religion.  The fact that they were his preoccupations before his conversion, does that make those acts "his religion."

If he didn't think of himself in terms of being a deity, then why the need for such monstrously gigantic statues?

Explain to us why, exactly, having monstrously gigantic statues made of oneself implies thinking of oneself "in terms of being a deity."

No matter how devout his mother, he never lived as a Christian.

There is something to this, although you are luxuriating in some several presumptions.

No matter how he lived, his mother was his mother.

While it's reported that he died as one, he wasn't around afterwards to dispute that or to explain his motives.

Nor do you have any cause to dispute the report.  Someday, you will have the strength of character to admit that you do not know, what you do not know.

Perhaps you could answer:  If you don't think of yourself in terms of being a deity, then why the need to seem omniscient?