|
|
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
I wanted to make a thread where anyone could discuss books of all kinds...and in particular a place for me to recommend my favorite pieces of historical writing.  I'll start with Adrian Goldsworthy's "Caesar: Life of a Colossus" is everything you wanted to know about the great man, and places all the other famous Romans(and Gauls and Egyptians) of the times in proper context. One of the most readable books I've ever read. 600+ pages that will flash by, and at the price listed a great value. -- My Polly Walker fan-site
|
Posts:
221
Registered:
6/11/06
|
|
(102 of 117)
Feb 12, 2009 4:38 PM
|
>Wouldn't this be a nice posting in a board about Poland? What is its relevance in the discussion about Christian attitudes towards Rome?
I was only answering 4bee's post and her reference to Soviets and persecutions for religious beliefs. She is Latvian and apparently suffered a lot during communism and made a comparison between it and Romans attitude toward Christians. That's all.
Carry on.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,555
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(101 of 117)
Feb 12, 2009 3:09 PM
|
> Are you the relevance police? Wasn't the discussion
> regarding Christian attitudes towards Rome a little
> off the beaten path of the thread's original intent
> to review recent History books read?
Not only I but Beagle on occassion have called in for relevance in postings. I agree that Rome and Christianity branched off the discussion of the book "The Climax of Rome". I would be more than agreeable to get the discussion within the bounds of the thread.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,304
Registered:
3/8/07
|
|
(100 of 117)
Feb 12, 2009 2:17 PM
Rate this post:
|
> > 4bee I'm a Pole. I was born during the time of
> > martial law. I didnt have a "nice and peaceful
> home".
> > Militia banging on the door and dragging my
> father
> > out is not something I have to "imagine".
> > I only say that religious beliefs were one of
> many
> > many many MANY things one could have been
> persecuted
> > for back then.
>
> Wouldn't this be a nice posting in a board about
> Poland? What is its relevance in the discussion
> about Christian attitudes towards Rome?
Are you the relevance police? Wasn't the discussion regarding Christian attitudes towards Rome a little off the beaten path of the thread's original intent to review recent History books read?
--
www.pollywalkeronline.com
Now you are yourself, but not yourself; an ideal state for a meeting between lovers.
-Vargtimmen
|
|
|
Posts:
1,555
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(99 of 117)
Feb 12, 2009 1:56 PM
|
> 4bee I'm a Pole. I was born during the time of
> martial law. I didnt have a "nice and peaceful home".
> Militia banging on the door and dragging my father
> out is not something I have to "imagine".
> I only say that religious beliefs were one of many
> many many MANY things one could have been persecuted
> for back then.
Wouldn't this be a nice posting in a board about Poland? What is its relevance in the discussion about Christian attitudes towards Rome?
|
|
|
Posts:
221
Registered:
6/11/06
|
|
(98 of 117)
Feb 12, 2009 12:57 PM
|
>I know that- I was there.
>How would you feel if after midnight some 5-10 >policmen were banging on your door, tearing apart >your house looking for the Bibles or any other >religious literature.
>Just imagine that, being in your nice and peaceful >house, how would it feel?
4bee I'm a Pole. I was born during the time of martial law. I didnt have a "nice and peaceful home". Militia banging on the door and dragging my father out is not something I have to "imagine".
I only say that religious beliefs were one of many many many MANY things one could have been persecuted for back then.
--
Edited by Arya at 02/12/2009 10:02 AM PST
--
Edited by Arya at 02/12/2009 10:02 AM PST
--
Edited by Arya at 02/12/2009 10:03 AM PST
--
Edited by Arya at 02/12/2009 10:04 AM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
1,555
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(97 of 117)
Feb 11, 2009 12:42 PM
Rate this post:
|
> dear Aretzios - you must be out of your mind!!! i
> cannot believe what you've writtten here:
> ''offering sacrifice to "saints"
>
> who was ''sacrifising'' anything to the saints? ever?
Where do you think burning incense came from? Incense was burned as sacrifice to the gods and other divinities. Let me say that in the ancient world there was a very clear divisions between "god" (deus) and "divine" (divus). The Roman emperors were divi, not dei. In essence, Christianity has kept this division with the "Deus" and the "Sanctus". It is really a very tiny difference between the two approaches.
So, let's not accept Christian propaganda at face value. Christians were not asked to give offerings to Gods (Dei), they were only asked to throw in a couple of cubes of incense (or provide some money to the temples) of divine (divi) beings.
And you are wrong regarding offerings to saints. Not only incense was burned by many offerings were given (from jewelry, to gold and silver, to even food). Christians prostrated themselves in front of icons of saints. All this came to an end in the early 8th century AD with Emperor Leo III and some of his successors known as the Iconoclast Emperors, who not only smashed the icons and statues and forbade such practices, but removed frescoes and other iconography from the churches. Empress Theodora restored icon worship, but the excesses have had ebbed. Even so, icons of saints were and are still receiving offerings.
> the same thing? are you crazy?
> offering meats or fruit? to the saints?
> Burning a candle in the way of invoking connection
> n to the Saint for interceding- in a prayer , in
> your mind being a sacrifise?
You just do not have adequate information. The same thing was going on in the temples of gods. What do you think? They were sacrificing bulls to the Gods on a daily basis? No. Incense was burned and a best, the occasional bird was killed to read the omens in the entrails. In fact, sacrifices of birds were daily occurrence in the Temple in Jerusalem until its destruction by Titus. What do you think the money lenders were doing there? They were facilitating money exchange so that the faithful can buy a bird for sacrifice to God.
> I don't even know if you are being serious, surely it
> is so strange as if you've never been in contact with
> any Catholics or Greek Orthodox, which I doubt, so
> how could you say something so dumb?
I have a much stronger connection with the Church than you think.
> You are just trying to sneak out of the the horrible
> e things you've said, making yourself to look like a
> rigid fool, most of all:
> with the ''protecting divinities of Rome''
> is just laughable , and you know it well, as far as I
> was able to read in many texts of yours.
I do not know who looks like a fool. Let the others judge this. But you misunderstand Rome. By the time Christianity is becoming established, Rome is essentially monotheistic. The main divinity worshiped by most emperors is "Sol Invictus" (the Victorious Sun) and the main emblem of this religion is the cross!! Divine members of this religion appear with halos in the iconography and the main celebration was on December 25!!! Does all this ring a bell?? There was worship (or at least deep respect) for the "Genius" of Rome and its Fortune (Roma Eterna Invicta and Fortuna). There were such votive temples around the Empire.
There is little doubt that the early Christian communities in the Eastern provinces were hostile to the Empire. Actually, most of these communities converted to Islam very readily. If you want to debate the anti-imperial feelings of the Christian communities and how it evolved from the 4th to the 6th century (despite of the Empire being Christian) I would love to discuss this with you.
|
|
|
Posts:
741
Registered:
11/21/05
|
|
(96 of 117)
Feb 11, 2009 6:44 AM
|
> Isn't is a little sactimonious 4bee? Christians do
> not have problems offering sacrifice to "saints"
> (burning incense), but they did have such a problem
> offering the same thing to the "genius" of the
> emperor?
dear Aretzios - you must be out of your mind!!! i cannot believe what you've writtten here:
''offering sacrifice to "saints"
who was ''sacrifising'' anything to the saints? ever?
the same thing? are you crazy?
offering meats or fruit? to the saints?
Burning a candle in the way of invoking connection to the Saint for interceding- in a prayer , in your mind being a sacrifise?
I don't even know if you are being serious, surely it is so strange as if you've never been in contact with any Catholics or Greek Orthodox, which I doubt, so how could you say something so dumb?
In antiquity, certain human
> characteristics, if they went beyond the typical
> human scale (beauty, power, success in war, etc) were
> considered as touching upon the divine. If one did
> not agree that the emperor's own power was so beyond
> the norm that connected him to the divine and to the
>antiquity, this was treason.
nonsense - in antiquity - that wasn't such a great period of time of the emperor's- rather small- for al the time of antiquity .
You are just trying to sneak out of the the horrible things you've said, making yourself to look like a rigid fool, most of all:
with the ''protecting divinities of Rome''
is just laughable , and you know it well, as far as I was able to read in many texts of yours.
> Essentially, this was an oath of loyalty and it was
> s understood as such. If the emperor was not beyond
> typical measure, then his authority was in question.
> Thus, the essence of the treason by the Christians.
same, all the same attempt of sneaking out with emperial empty retoric , just a shame
> . In addition, secretive meetings and mystery rites
> added to the conspiracy fears.
right- secretive meetings of Agape- what a shhhh
> The Empire's social structure was primitive with all
> the social injustice that this implied. However, the
> institutions of the Empire were the "thin red line"
> between civilization and the absence of it. There is
> almost no doubt in my mind that the christian
> communities were quite hostile to the existence of
> the empire itself and thus, the Roman emperors were
> correct in suppressing it.
ok, so they did.
so they were correct, and all is well.
--
4bee
|
|
|
Posts:
741
Registered:
11/21/05
|
|
(95 of 117)
Feb 11, 2009 4:57 AM
|
>
> Judaism was an old and long established religion,
> Romans grew accustomed to it and tolerated it and its
> rules which forbid the worship of anyone or anything
> besides JHWH. But christianity was a new thing and
> as such was a potential danger to the status quo and
> a possible source of chaos. Aside of that I believe
> it was perceived as one of the mysterious cults, like
> the cults of Bakchus and Cybele were perceived before
> its birth. Followers of those cults had been
> persecuted long before Christians were. It was
> mysterious, it was alien, it was unknown, it was hard
> to understand, it involved secretive meetings and
> "weird" celebrations and rites - so it was
> dangererous.
> Just my humble opinion.
Arya- true, about Judaism being an old and established religion, thus being tolerated,
but that perhaps wasn't my point- I was answering to Aretzios cruel statement that Christians~ by being different from the religious practices of Rome would've been clearly seen as a religion of potential revolt,
no- even not that- he stated- it was a revolt, and the persecutions being proper and right.
Besides, at first the Christianity was much like Judaism, since the first converts to Christianity were the Jews, and for a long while the Sabbath and many other restrictions of Judaism were observed.
That's why later the great disharmony came about between St. Paul and St. Peter about the foods and other restrictions, which were of no concern to the pagans.
No, I don't think they were preceived as a followers of Bakchus and Cybele.
> Because Soviets needed a reason to persecute someone?
> No really. They didnt. Just thinking differently was
> enough, the subject didnt matter.
No, Arya, it's not true- one could think whatever they wanted to think, but since the radio, TV, papers and all the rest was owned by the government. they just couldn't say what they think, and what you say, that is what matters, not what you were thinking whilst resting your head on the pillow by nighttime.
The subject mattered very much for you to be persecuted- depending on the latest directives differing in severity of punishment - (which was exactly like in Roman times) for soviets- loosing your life or going to labour camps- for you would attend church- it would change dramatically everything at times -
or only -you could loose your job, with all the consequences of such and the rest of it.
The churches were blown up, made out to be storages or warehouses for tractors or whatever mashines, or a cattle.
In every district in a city, village, town there would be a partcom, with the special department installed just for persecution of the religion.
And surely, I must say- not only Christianity.
Even still in late 80th- there were still underground Catholic seminaries, with professors working as a day laborers, many young priests consecrated and installed in parishes in a double way- so that if one was arrested, the other one would take his place, but they would not know each other, because if they were tortured being under arrest, not to jeopardize the safety of the other.
There were Holy Communions an a Mass being held at homes of the parish members, because the churches were under observation of the spies, only diacon would preach and do whatever he could, but to be safe- not to reveal who the priest was, so the priest could serve the people underground, not in the open- baptisms, marriages, confessions etc. The garments, Chalice and the Holy Hostia to be hidden away each night in a different house, so that it could never be found by the spies.
I know that- I was there.
How would you feel if after midnight some 5-10 policmen were banging on your door, tearing apart your house looking for the Bibles or any other religious literature.
Just imagine that, being in your nice and peaceful house, how would it feel?
And to read it now, that it was so right and proper, that presecution was a way to go- no,
but, surelyl, I understand Aretzios in a way- he is a socialist -
he cannot think any other way- persecution of the Christians is a rightful thing in his opinion -
Christians- revolt and a threat to the Empire.
Perhaps he is right.
I hated that evil empire, still do.
--
4bee
--
Edited by 4bee at 02/11/2009 2:01 AM PST
--
Edited by 4bee at 02/11/2009 3:48 AM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
1,555
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(94 of 117)
Feb 1, 2009 12:32 AM
|
> >No, the Empire did not really care about religion
> but >cared deeply about civic norms of behavior.
> Refusal >to obey the civic norms such as sacrificing
> to >the "genius" of the emperor was an act of revolt
> >(and it was indeed an act of revolt).
> Right, just like setting up special sacrificial
> duties to the ??genius?? of the Emperor, demanding a
> certificate for the performed duty- indeed when
> someone was looking into the Christian communities
> s for some to be punished for that kind of
> ??revolt??.
Isn't is a little sactimonious 4bee? Christians do not have problems offering sacrifice to "saints" (burning incense), but they did have such a problem offering the same thing to the "genius" of the emperor? In antiquity, certain human characteristics, if they went beyond the typical human scale (beauty, power, success in war, etc) were considered as touching upon the divine. If one did not agree that the emperor's own power was so beyond the norm that connected him to the divine and to the protecting divinities of Rome, this was treason. Essentially, this was an oath of loyalty and it was understood as such. If the emperor was not beyond typical measure, then his authority was in question. Thus, the essence of the treason by the Christians. In addition, secretive meetings and mystery rites added to the conspiracy fears.
> But of course, you would support that. The Empire is
> always right.
> Not to mention, what use of the Christian fools there
> ever was?
The Empire's social structure was primitive with all the social injustice that this implied. However, the institutions of the Empire were the "thin red line" between civilization and the absence of it. There is almost no doubt in my mind that the christian communities were quite hostile to the existence of the empire itself and thus, the Roman emperors were correct in suppressing it.
Constantine managed, of course, to make Christianity irrelevant. It grafted on it a priesthood as oppressive and as imperial as all the previous institutions and convince this church that the empire was the "New Jerusalem" and the emperor was "God's representative on Earth", a tenet that Eusebius was quite influential in establishing.
Now, you have to tell me how the Christians had problems with offering incense to the genius of the Emperor but would fall right in line with the Emperor being the "God's representative on Earth"?
|
|
|
Posts:
221
Registered:
6/11/06
|
|
(93 of 117)
Jan 31, 2009 3:42 PM
|
>Right, just like setting up special sacrificial duties to the ??genius?? of the Emperor, demanding a certificate for the performed duty- indeed when someone was looking into the Christian communities for some to be punished for that kind of ??revolt??.
>Even Herod the Great and Herod Antipas knew better, at least for the most of the time~ as not to harass the Jews with the demands of making sacrifices to the ??genius??. Why was that tolerated by the Emperors?
Judaism was an old and long established religion, Romans grew accustomed to it and tolerated it and its rules which forbid the worship of anyone or anything besides JHWH. But christianity was a new thing and as such was a potential danger to the status quo and a possible source of chaos. Aside of that I believe it was perceived as one of the mysterious cults, like the cults of Bakchus and Cybele were perceived before its birth. Followers of those cults had been persecuted long before Christians were. It was mysterious, it was alien, it was unknown, it was hard to understand, it involved secretive meetings and "weird" celebrations and rites - so it was dangererous.
Just my humble opinion.
>But surely, it?s nothing new and that has lasted for centuries- even in 1980th, under the rule of one of the last Emperors of Russia- Leonid Brezhnev- he was prosecuting the Greek Orthodox Catholics in the West Ukraine, as well as the Pentecostal Christians in Ukraine, Moldavia, Siberia and elsewhere, for avoiding making sacrifices to the Great Leader and to the symbols of the Socialistic Paradise. Some were sent to prisons, some to psychiatric clinics (for being insane due to beliefs of worshiping God, instead of the Emperor- the Great Leader.
Because Soviets needed a reason to persecute someone? No really. They didnt. Just thinking differently was enough, the subject didnt matter.
--
Edited by Arya at 01/31/2009 12:45 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
741
Registered:
11/21/05
|
|
(92 of 117)
Jan 31, 2009 12:56 AM
|
>No, the Empire did not really care about religion but >cared deeply about civic norms of behavior. Refusal >to obey the civic norms such as sacrificing to >the "genius" of the emperor was an act of revolt >(and it was indeed an act of revolt).
Right, just like setting up special sacrificial duties to the ??genius?? of the Emperor, demanding a certificate for the performed duty- indeed when someone was looking into the Christian communities for some to be punished for that kind of ??revolt??.
Even Herod the Great and Herod Antipas knew better, at least for the most of the time~ as not to harass the Jews with the demands of making sacrifices to the ??genius??. Why was that tolerated by the Emperors?
And they knew quite well, when the real threat of the revolt was to about to arise, and how the real revolt really looked like.
But surely, it?s nothing new and that has lasted for centuries- even in 1980th, under the rule of one of the last Emperors of Russia- Leonid Brezhnev- he was prosecuting the Greek Orthodox Catholics in the West Ukraine, as well as the Pentecostal Christians in Ukraine, Moldavia, Siberia and elsewhere, for avoiding making sacrifices to the Great Leader and to the symbols of the Socialistic Paradise. Some were sent to prisons, some to psychiatric clinics (for being insane due to beliefs of worshiping God, instead of the Emperor- the Great Leader.
But of course, you would support that. The Empire is always right.
Not to mention, what use of the Christian fools there ever was?
>The most serious persecution of Christians were >under Diocletian. All previous "persecutions" were >relatively short lasting affairs.
Aretzios- they were persecutions- not ?? persecutions ?? ,
and it has been well known fact about Diocletian by everyone, who considers oneself a Christian.
Please, should you offend me in such a miserable manner?
>It is nothing but a disturbed dream. However, it is >clear that the author regarded the Empire as the >prime enemy and since the book became popular, >his views were shared by many, I suppose.
No, that book wasn?t well known at that time, and it wasn?t ??popular?? among large audiences.
And, if that text was just a nightmare and a disturbed dream, after eating too much stewed cabbage, why worry, and why pay any attention to it at all?
>The Gospel of St. John and Revelations by John of >Patmos were written by different authors.
>No, I used the same language intentionally to >illustrate the facts. At one moment the Empire is >the "Mother of Harlots" and at the next, it is >the "New Jerusalem".
Of course, it's written by different authors, that's why I mentioned the writings of Pope Benedictus XVI
You are so full of yourself, aren't you?
Was the term ''New Jerusalem'' used for the description of the Empire?
See, that?s your problem, reading it in the way it fits your theory, or just like that simple dismissal of the ??disturbing dream.
> There definitely were many who objected to the >binding of the Church to the state and many who >became Christians just to get the benefits of imperial >patronage.
There have always been people looking for a bargain and a good deal: anytime, anywhere and forever.
Why, all of a sudden~ objecting ''the binding the Church to the State'' was such a heroism, a good positive thinking, by those who did the duty to the state before , to the ''genius''- wasn't that bound to the State duty?
but reluctance to sacrifice to the ??genius?? appeared to be a ??revolt???
Well, what a nicely ??measured?? logic, my friend! 
> It all came down to Eusebius of Caesarea, who >reformulated the "New Christianity", a mixture of the >early Christianity, the worship of Sol Invictus and >Mithra, some neoplatonism thrown in for good >measure and some Stoicism that had crept in earlier >on.
Eusebius worked on the doctrines, cleaning out the ??house??, giving clarity to belief system, what?s wrong with that?
Every little country club would have a code and a creed, why was it so bad for the Church of having one?
He was a scholar.
Even today if you meet a little old lady in the country with her Bible and her rosary at hand, she would answer differently to your questions, as would the clever scholar in the holy Rome. Would you hold it against them?
Everybody and everything comes from somewhere and something.
Even the gold ore has many other minerals around, it comes from earth, there always is a need for cleaning .
> I may shock you (or may not), but the cross was >developed as an emblem of Mithras (representing >his sword). Thus, the penetration of cross as an >emblem for Christianity was also a borrowed item.
Aretzios, I do consider myself much less qualified in many matters of history, if compared to some posters on these boards, but I never said~ I was ignorant.
Unless, of course, it doesn?t matter what I?ve said. You would make your own conclusions.
I suppose the Mithras and Holy Cross logic comes from the same territory as the book of ??nightmares?? and the binding the Church to the State?
Christians had the belief (still do) the crucifixion being a historical event, with Jesus Christ dying on the Cross.
That?s the whole world difference with the - ??emblem of Mithras (representing his sword.??
--
4bee
--
Edited by 4bee at 01/30/2009 10:06 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
1,555
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(91 of 117)
Jan 30, 2009 12:31 PM
|
> Thank you, dear Aretzios.
> I am afraid, that Markus Aurelius wasn't really
> y holding anything against the Christians as if they
> were dissidents, or opponents to the Imperial rule
> and order.
> They were more law obeying citizens than any of the
> barbarians lurking around. Perhaps there were more
> quite simple cases of xenophobia and a search for the
> scapegoats.
No, the Empire did not really care about religion but cared deeply about civic norms of behavior. Refusal to obey the civic norms such as sacrificing to the "genius" of the emperor was an act of revolt (and it was indeed an act of revolt).
> And Commodus, what did he really gain by most
> sadistic torture of the Christians, what good did
> that do for his Empire?
The most serious persecution of Christians were under Diocletian. All previous "persecutions" were relatively short lasting affairs.
> The Revelations- it is a Spiritual writing, and must
> be read as such.
It is nothing but a disturbed dream. However, it is clear that the author regarded the Empire as the prime enemy and since the book became popular, his views were shared by many, I suppose.
> There are most beautiful pages written by Pope
> Benedict XVI on Revelations and on the Gospel of
> John, from a historical point of view as well~ in his
> book~ Jesus of Nazareth.
The Gospel of St. John and Revelations by John of Patmos were written by different authors.
> About Constantine- as you have been accusing him of
> making harlots of Christianity, you are not being far
> from the thoughts of the one who wrote the
> Revelations- who called the Empire a harlot. Same
> thought, same language, how are you being any
> different, lol ? It is a pure Revelation, isn't it,
> lol!
No, I used the same language intentionally to illustrate the facts. At one moment the Empire is the "Mother of Harlots" and at the next, it is the "New Jerusalem". There definitely were many who objected to the binding of the Church to the state and many who became Christians just to get the benefits of imperial patronage. It all came down to Eusebius of Caesarea, who reformulated the "New Christianity", a mixture of the early Christianity, the worship of Sol Invictus and Mithra, some neoplatonism thrown in for good measure and some Stoicism that had crept in earlier on. I may shock you (or may not), but the cross was developed as an emblem of Mithras (representing his sword). Thus, the penetration of cross as an emblem for Christianity was also a borrowed item.
> Anyway- Constantine is one tough question to ponder
> about, I have thought about it a great torturous
> deal.
> Yes, I understand he was a Sun worshiper as well, I
> do.
Since death and resurrection were part of both religions, Constantine did not have to make much of a leap from one religion to the other. The context may have been different but the underlying tenets were very similar (and not much different than the resurrection cults developed millennia before).
|
|
|
Posts:
741
Registered:
11/21/05
|
|
(90 of 117)
Jan 29, 2009 7:07 PM
|
Thank you, dear Aretzios.
I am afraid, that Markus Aurelius wasn't really holding anything against the Christians as if they were dissidents, or opponents to the Imperial rule and order.
They were more law obeying citizens than any of the barbarians lurking around. Perhaps there were more quite simple cases of xenophobia and a search for the scapegoats.
Just like the time for the Jews came in Europe for being the bad guy.
During his rule, amount of calamities and natural disasters to be worried about were plenty, and who would not look for somebody to take the blame? As if Markus didn't know, that these guys presented no danger, they were more to be laughed at, as to be punished,( if one knows Markus Aurelius mind by his writing).
And Commodus, what did he really gain by most sadistic torture of the Christians, what good did that do for his Empire?
The Revelations- it is a Spiritual writing, and must be read as such.
There are most beautiful pages written by Pope Benedict XVI on Revelations and on the Gospel of John, from a historical point of view as well~ in his book~ Jesus of Nazareth.
About Constantine- as you have been accusing him of making harlots of Christianity, you are not being far from the thoughts of the one who wrote the Revelations- who called the Empire a harlot. Same thought, same language, how are you being any different, lol ? It is a pure Revelation, isn't it, lol!
Anyway- Constantine is one tough question to ponder about, I have thought about it a great torturous deal.
Yes, I understand he was a Sun worshiper as well, I do.
Well, there is so much in your post, no way of touching all of what you've written.
But it's all good, to think about, I mean~ the good or the bad. 
--
4bee
--
Edited by 4bee at 01/29/2009 4:09 PM PST
--
Edited by 4bee at 01/29/2009 4:41 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
1,555
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(89 of 117)
Jan 29, 2009 6:03 PM
|
> Aretzios, thank you very much, most certainly I will
> be following your suggestions on the Decadent
> Emperors.
> I am for ever grateful to Michael Grant, because to
> my level of understanding of history, which is it's
> quite miserable if compared to any of you here, he-
> Michael Grant has done me great favors.
> In the Climax of Rome, the Triumph of Christianity
> chapters, he lead me to Polycarp, Irenaeus, -
> Tertullian and Origen etc. And of course- Plotinus,
> without whom I would not be able to understand the
> writings and the Covenant theology of my beloved
> pope Bendictus XVI, It's all so much connected.
> The Christianity in North Africa, the monastic life
> there, all of the 1-4 centuries of the beginnings of
> the Church- most fascinating to me. Not to mention my
> dear Markus Aurelius- the persecutor of the
> Christians and that evil SOB Commodus.
> I love Michael Grant- he has a good sense of humor in
> his judgment.
> Great, I am glad you approve of him. !
Well, I found the "Climax of Rome" a bit tedious and not very informative. Michael Grant has also made a number of mistakes in that text. So, be careful. For example, he continuous the Gibbonian fallacy that the Antonines had the custom of adopting a worthwhile individual to promote but this is quite wrong. He states somewhere that this was helped by the fact that they did not have any progeny but he fails to note that all the Antonines were related to each other. In fact, they all belonged to an extended Hispano-Roman family. If you read some more detailed books, you will find this out. The reason that Hadrian, despite a not-particularly-distinquished public career, succeeded Trajan was because he was one of his closer relatives. Period.
In any case, had I been Marcus Aurelius, I would also have persecuted Christians. Really, the Roman Emperors had no other recourse. Either one had a population that was loyal to the Empire or one did not. It is quite obvious that early Christians were very negative towards the Empire. The "Revelations" is quite clear on this, as the Empire appears there as the "Great Whore" (and other, less flattering, names,). Considering that this book was written during the apex of the Empire, it makes you wonder how deeply anti-imperial the Christians were.
The great punishment for Christianity was, of course, Constantine the Great. He transformed this religion into the lackey of the Empire and thus the Christians became the harlots of the Mother of Harlots. Fitting punishment, I would say. You should also not forget that during the 3rd century AD, sometime after Marcus Aurelius, there was another Monotheistic religion, that of Sol Invictus (and Mitrhaism) with the Emperors (especially Diocletian and Maximinus) closely associating with it. Christianity did adopt many of the elements of Sol worship (the halos in iconography, the triumphant Christ, the day for Xmas, etc,etc).
|
|
|
Posts:
741
Registered:
11/21/05
|
|
(88 of 117)
Jan 29, 2009 3:31 PM
|
Aretzios, thank you very much, most certainly I will be following your suggestions on the Decadent Emperors.
I am for ever grateful to Michael Grant, because to my level of understanding of history, which is it's quite miserable if compared to any of you here, he- Michael Grant has done me great favors.
In the Climax of Rome, the Triumph of Christianity chapters, he lead me to Polycarp, Irenaeus, - Tertullian and Origen etc. And of course- Plotinus, without whom I would not be able to understand the writings and the Covenant theology of my beloved pope Bendictus XVI, It's all so much connected.
The Christianity in North Africa, the monastic life there, all of the 1-4 centuries of the beginnings of the Church- most fascinating to me. Not to mention my dear Markus Aurelius- the persecutor of the Christians and that evil SOB Commodus.
I love Michael Grant- he has a good sense of humor in his judgment.
Great, I am glad you approve of him. !
--
4bee
|
|
|
|
|
