Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

youngblood wrote:I doubt they'd include any texts like Gospel of Judas since they said that they were basing their translation of KJV. The authorship issue shouldn't seem that amusing. There are paper trails for certain authors and none for others. Some stories corroborate and others don't. Canonization is something of a mess for me though.

Yeah, I think the actual canon of books is subjected to far more scrutiny than anything not included. The good bibles discuss that, and in fact show how a passage in one gospel might be translated by showing similarities to another gospel.

generalgrog wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:
I've got the soft tipped darts...no marks. His show is so much fail even my cop buddies don't take him seriously.

Enlighten us as to why it's "so much fail". Is he not helping to rid us of the pestilence of online preds?

GG

The show is so centered around entrapment it is not even funny. Using an "adult" posing as a child to lure in some "would be" predator is entrapment. The decoys even go so far as to instigate the conversation to begin with at times. I've seen reports where several adult males will tell the "would be child" to leave the room and that "child" will start a conversation of an adult nature and then falsify and lie to get some adult to agree to do something, that while is sick and wrong, might have just been a fantasy and might never have gone that far.

I'm willing to bet 95% of the supposed molesters were never prosecuted. 'Tis why in Mn speed traps cannot be set that aren't visible to the public. A cop hides behind a billboard or building to catch a would be speeder is going to automatically lose the case when it's discovered he "hid" to avoid being detected until it was too late for the offender to correct his speeding.

Anyway, this is off topic so I won't go anymore into it. I don't condone molesters but his show is considered by many to be a misuse of police authority and entrapment and is just aired to get NBC ratings.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_109261.html

Yeah, the man was arrested even though he did not arrive at the house where authorities were trying to "lure" him. Just the fact the decoy, an adult male posing as a 13yo boy, was trying to "lure" him is entrapment. No judge is going to even accept a case based on entrapment.

As the judge himself said, the show went too far in trying to enforce their witch hunt.

generalgrog wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:
And Warpcrafter, welcome to GG's ignore list : ) I've kept our spot here warm and Godless for you (the way we like it!)

Your not on the list yet frigs, because you at least attempt to add to the dialogue. No matter how off base you may be.

frgsinwntr wrote:
... In fact... some of the older ones missing the story of Jesus feeding the crowd with 2 fish and a loaf of bread... Turns out 600 years ago it was added to make him more appealing to the starving masses of European poor... :(

How about a source for that tidbit?

GG

Dr. Bart D. Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus

I've been reading pieces of it and have to say, there is a surprising bit added.... lots of versus


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:some of the older ones missing the story of Jesus feeding the crowd with 2 fish and a loaf of bread... Turns out 600 years ago it was added to make him more appealing to the starving masses of European poor... :(

Yay for unresearched and unsubstantiated claims! Lets just toss out the Latin Vulgate and Greek Septuagint which have been around since the early Church. Or we could just look at the logic surrounding this statement...or the lack thereof. Since at this time the people of Europe weren't allowed to read the Bible, that was reserved only for the clergy, and let us not forget that for this to be true it would have to be true in both of the major Christian factions at the time. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church have had the same Bible, just in different languages for centuries. I call this history fail...

frgsinwntr wrote:Much the same reason the immaculate conception is so close to Xmas... they moved the date to make the religion more appealing to the pagans with their Yul logs (spelling?)...

While your claim to the timing of the Immaculate Conception is right, I wonder if you understand what you are referring to. The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a Holy Day of Obligation only within the Roman Catholic Church as it is one of the Marian Doctrines and has nothing to do with Jesus Christ specifically. Furthermore, this is largely restricted to only the Roman Catholic Church. It is undoubtedly true though that the birth of Christ is celebrated on December 25 in order to coincide with a pagan religious day, but since it is actually pretty close to when he was most likely born, I don't really have a problem with it.

dogma wrote:

Falconlance wrote:
I abhor religion as much as the next outcast atheist,

You know that its possible to be a religious atheist, yeah? And without even being a Buddhist or something along those lines. Richard Dawkins is a great example of a religious atheist. I'll leave you to figure out why.

Oh, you and that Dawkins! You have got to have some sort of man crush on the guy

I provided one of my sources for the first comment you made, and will avoid your flamebait attempt.

as for the conception story. If they can change the holiday for ONE, whats to say they haven't changed everything else? if you get my drift. Yes I understand this is a slippery slope argument.

Your 3rd point is flame baiting Dogma

frgsinwntr wrote:
Your 3rd point is flame baiting Dogma

No, not really. I mean, I understand that those of religious persuasions tend to be offended when they are confronted with contradictions inherent in their position, but that isn't flame bait so much as a statement of fact.

lol ok

Fateweaver wrote:The show is so centered around entrapment it is not even funny. Using an "adult" posing as a child to lure in some "would be" predator is entrapment. The decoys even go so far as to instigate the conversation to begin with at times. I've seen reports where several adult males will tell the "would be child" to leave the room and that "child" will start a conversation of an adult nature and then falsify and lie to get some adult to agree to do something, that while is sick and wrong, might have just been a fantasy and might never have gone that far.

I was under the impression that entrapment was legitimate in the US. The George Michael/toilet/cop thing was entrapment IIRC. Could someone please clarify.

It seems that it's Entrapment if the criminal in question was not already "predisposed" to commit the crime before the police became involved.

It's usually based a lot on precedence. It might depend on the state to an extent too, I don't know.

It's hard to prove entrapment but normally just means if someone is coerced into doing something by an officer of the law or someone acting on behalf of an officer of the law, they were entrapped.

It's hard to prove as it is the cops word against the perps and without video or audio evidence the law is going to favor one of its own.

Problem I have with "to catch a predator" is that it doesn't need to run for as long as it did. 1 or 2 episodes to show that online predators are real is more than enough, the fact NBC is paying PJ money to help them oust criminals speaks of it now being just a ratings game, and Perverted Justice makes it known to the public the addresses, names (first and last) of the "pedos" relatives, immediate family and friends.

This is grossly OT so if anyone wants to continue this discussion we should probably start a new thread, otherwise we'll just bury this and go on with the topic at hand.

No flamebaiting was intended, but I was being critical of the reasoning and support behind what was stated. Dr. Ehrman's work is somewhat strange in that he claims texts like that to be added in, but the Latin Vulgate had been around since the days of St. Jerome in the early 3rd century. I don't see how he can reconcile the two....

And the joke was only a lighthearted jab at Dogma's main man Dawkins. Which it seems he caught...

Polonius wrote:

Teh_K42 wrote:
On the topic of biblical politics: If Jesus and the early Christians were so opposed to the Roman Empire (give to ceasar what is ceasar's, a man cannot serve two masters, the the beast/antichrist in revelations representing Rome/ Nero Ceasar etc.) then why would he not oppose The U.S.A. or other modern governments? Serious question, not trying to troll.

The early Christians weren't really opposed to the Roman Empire. Israel, and the large Jewish diaspora through out the Roman Empire, had hopes that the Messiah would free them from Rome, so they could once again be sovereign. That's where a lot of the Roman hate comes from... they were being occupied.

There are groups that oppose the US and other governments. Pretty much all of your backwoods "militias" have a pretty strong christian bent. The real reason christians don't oppose the US is that historically the US has allowed religious freedom.

Keep in mind that there really is not Biblical support for a christian theocracy. The epistles sketch out the first inklings of one, but unlike the Torah or the Koran, the New Testament doesn't really have much to say on organizing a nation state around it's religion.

Before I reply I should make it clear that these are not necessarily my beliefs, but I am investigating them, for lack of a better word.

I agree completely with you that there there was a lot of hate for Rome from the Israelis and that they desired a triumphant militant saviour. But from what I can understand you are talking about Israel and the Jews and not the Christians.
The early Christians were not opposed to the Roman Empire in the sense that they were trying to destroy it, but they were in the sense that they pledged no loyalty to it and did not conform to it's expectations. The titles Son of God, Gospels and Saviour were reserved for Ceasar. John (author of revelations) wrote of the beast, not as a monster at the end of time but as Ceasar Nero.

Perhaps Christians who read the commands of "Do not resist an evildoer" and "Love your enemies and bless those who persecute you" could not reconcile those words with a nation whose former president said "have no mercy on the evildoers"?

There are no plans for a theocratic state in the New Testament, but it does say a lot about the Kingdom of God. Could it be possible that the gospels imply anarchism?

They seem to imply absolute authority as being the domain of God, with earthly governments as being an imperfect function of the world.

Not opposing them so much as dealing with them only as much as necessary.

The gospels don't imply any sort of politics, but they're certainly not anarchist. The parables often rely on structured communities, Jesus preached to the poor but had no message for them regarding their political situation. What Jesus did make clear was that God was in charge, and Jesus was the doorman. That's not really anarchist. Jesus also implies in the famous line "The poor you will always have, you will not always have me" that he was not concerned with worldly affairs.

The critical thing to remember about the early church is that it wasn't built to last. The early converts expected Jesus to return in their life times. "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Because of this, Revelation was written not just as eternal symbolism, but also as symbols of the powerful empires of John's time. If I wrote a symbolic work on the end of the world, I'd include Russia and China and Iran and the US and the UK and the EU. It doesn't mean I have a beef with those nations, just that they're the big guys at the moment.

Anyway, Nero also persecuted Christian, including by tradition a few of the apostles. If you kill a groups leaders, you're going to end up on their enemies list, turn the other cheek or no.

Polonius wrote:
The critical thing to remember about the early church is that it wasn't built to last.

Then why did they continue to call apostles after the death of christ and send out epistles to correct false doctrines and traditions cropping up in the church?

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

Polonius wrote:
The critical thing to remember about the early church is that it wasn't built to last.

Then why did they continue to call apostles after the death of christ and send out epistles to correct false doctrines and traditions cropping up in the church?

What?

I don't know what you're asking, so I'll simply clarify my point. The early church expected the second coming to arrive within a generation. There wasn't a lot of concern about long term planning. If you read the epistles, what's interesting is the urgency in many of them. They weren't blueprints for the new church, they were almost emergency instructions.

There is a theory that the lack of a second coming caused a lot of turmoil in the early churches, which makes sense. It was only after that initial generation died that they began planning and building for a future on this earth.

It's probably also a factor in why Christianity rubbed the romans the wrong way: they weren't just focused on the next life, they expected it any minute!

Polonius wrote:The gospels don't imply any sort of politics, but they're certainly not anarchist The parables often rely on structured communities, Jesus preached to the poor but had no message for them regarding their political situation. What Jesus did make clear was that God was in charge, and Jesus was the doorman. That's not really anarchist. Jesus also implies in the famous line "The poor you will always have, you will not always have me" that he was not concerned with worldly affairs..

I Disagree. As far as I can see, Jesus was absolutely political. Look at how a Roman emperor was coronated. Jesus' crucifixion was a mockery of it. When the Emperor went to his coronation he went on a mighty warhorse. He proceeded through the streets in glory, followed by a sacrificial bull and a slave with an axe to kill the bull. They walked to the highest hill in Rome, Capitolene (head hill) The candidate was then offered wine, which he rejected, after which the bull was killed. When Jesus entered Jerusalem he went on a donkey (a borrowed donkey at that) with the people waving palm branches (which were symbols of resistance to the Empire). When Jesus went to be crucified he marched through the streets suffering, Simon carried the cross and Jesus was the sacrifice. he was taken to Golgotha (skull hill, or if you want to split hairs, head hill) and was offered wine which he refused. Then he was crucified, praying for and blessing his enemies. What is that anti-triumphant procession if not a denunciation of Rome and a declaration of God's Kingdom?

All the language associated with Jesus like Christ, gospels, Son of God, Parousia (or second coming or return), faith and Lord were all words exclusive to the worship of Rome and the Emporer. These words were deliberately chosen because of their political connotations.

Polonius wrote:

The critical thing to remember about the early church is that it wasn't built to last. The early converts expected Jesus to return in their life times. "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Because of this, Revelation was written not just as eternal symbolism, but also as symbols of the powerful empires of John's time. If I wrote a symbolic work on the end of the world, I'd include Russia and China and Iran and the US and the UK and the EU. It doesn't mean I have a beef with those nations, just that they're the big guys at the moment.

Anyway, Nero also persecuted Christian, including by tradition a few of the apostles. If you kill a groups leaders, you're going to end up on their enemies list, turn the other cheek or no.

Yes, but he also said not to receive the mark of of the beast on the wrist or forehead. To enter the agora, the roman equivalent of a supermarket, one had to drop incense in front of an image of Ceasar. you then received a stamp on the wrist or forehead allowing you enter the market and trade. It instructed folks not to be involved in the worship or economy of Rome. Furthermore when John wrote of the great whore of Babylon, "For all the nations have drunk the maddening wine of her adulteries" and for whom the merchants wept, he called for us to "come out" of her, as in to interrupt sex before climax, to shun the things of the world. It wasn't proclaiming the end of the world as such, it was proclaiming the end of worldly nations and economies and proclaiming the Kingdom of God on Earth. (in my humble understanding)

Incidentally I'm getting most of this from Jesus for President by Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw if anyone would like to read it.

Teh_K42 wrote:I Disagree. As far as I can see, Jesus was absolutely political.

Sure, but it was the politics of the Jews under Roman occupation. It doesn't translate at all to modern politics.

Would you care to explain? I don't quite understand what you mean.

Teh_K42 wrote:Would you care to explain? I don't quite understand what you mean.

That it doesn't translate to modern political philosphies such as anarchism, socialism, capitalism, liberalism, conservatism, anarcho-syndicalism...

sebster wrote:

Teh_K42 wrote:Would you care to explain? I don't quite understand what you mean.

That it doesn't translate to modern political philosphies such as anarchism, socialism, capitalism, liberalism, conservatism, anarcho-syndicalism...

That doesn't mean that Jesus was apolitical. Jesus may not have embraced a particular political system, but he certainly understood how Roman government worked with/against Jewish reign. For example, when Jesus traveled to cities, he didn't just do it at random. He knew the "friendliness" of each city towards him (both the general public and the rulers) and initially he begins at towns that would be very neutral towards him and it culminates with his trip to Jerusalem and the ultimate provocation of the jews.

Teh_K42 wrote:I Disagree. As far as I can see, Jesus was absolutely political. Look at how a Roman emperor was coronated. Jesus' crucifixion was a mockery of it. When the Emperor went to his coronation he went on a mighty warhorse. He proceeded through the streets in glory, followed by a sacrificial bull and a slave with an axe to kill the bull. They walked to the highest hill in Rome, Capitolene (head hill) The candidate was then offered wine, which he rejected, after which the bull was killed. When Jesus entered Jerusalem he went on a donkey (a borrowed donkey at that) with the people waving palm branches (which were symbols of resistance to the Empire). When Jesus went to be crucified he marched through the streets suffering, Simon carried the cross and Jesus was the sacrifice. he was taken to Golgotha (skull hill, or if you want to split hairs, head hill) and was offered wine which he refused. Then he was crucified, praying for and blessing his enemies. What is that anti-triumphant procession if not a denunciation of Rome and a declaration of God's Kingdom?

All the language associated with Jesus like Christ, gospels, Son of God, Parousia (or second coming or return), faith and Lord were all words exclusive to the worship of Rome and the Emporer. These words were deliberately chosen because of their political connotations.

Now this thread has gotten REALLY interesting. I wasn't expecting it turn this way.

Zecharia 9:9(KJV) Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Jesus was fulfilling this prophesy, and had nothing to do with politics. Although the Jewish zealots may have thought this way, and thats why they raised palm leaves and placed them at his feet. This was done to proclaim Jesus as messiah or King. (Certainly Rome, would have interpreted this as a resistive act) However most people didn't get that what was going on was spiritual, not secular, in nature.

The fact is Jesus knew that He was headed for His death. He knew that He was headed to the cross. The crucifixtion wasn't some surpise to Jesus, this was his whole purpose for taking on human form so that he would be the ultimate sacrifice, not take on some secular mantle of kingship. He was the passover lamb that john the Baptist described.

The wine Jesus refused to drink was a wine and gall mixture after tasting it. (Quite difefrent than the wine your ceaser refused). It is debated as to why Jesus refused the wine/gall mixture before crucifixtion, but accepted the vinegar on a sponge later. It has been theorized that the "gall" could have been poison, or a drug. The poison to help him die faster, or the drug to alleviate the pain. No one really knows the answer, but it's a bit of a stretch to claim that this was as part of a political statement.


GG

As far Jesus' last hours (leading to crucifixion), I don't think that it was him making a political statement as much as the Jews/Romans mocking his heralded Kinghood. It was all a mockery of what he was supposed to be to the Jews. Hence the whole "king of the Jews" sign above his cross.

frgsinwntr wrote:
Dr. Bart D. Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus

I've been reading pieces of it and have to say, there is a surprising bit added.... lots of versus

Thanks, I'll have to pick that up, along with "Misquoting Truth" by Timothy Paul Jones. (A rebuttal to the Ehrman book)

Sounds like some interesting reads.

GG

Teh_K42 wrote:
I Disagree. As far as I can see, Jesus was absolutely political. Look at how a Roman emperor was coronated. Jesus' crucifixion was a mockery of it. When the Emperor went to his coronation he went on a mighty warhorse. He proceeded through the streets in glory, followed by a sacrificial bull and a slave with an axe to kill the bull. They walked to the highest hill in Rome, Capitolene (head hill) The candidate was then offered wine, which he rejected, after which the bull was killed. When Jesus entered Jerusalem he went on a donkey (a borrowed donkey at that) with the people waving palm branches (which were symbols of resistance to the Empire). When Jesus went to be crucified he marched through the streets suffering, Simon carried the cross and Jesus was the sacrifice. he was taken to Golgotha (skull hill, or if you want to split hairs, head hill) and was offered wine which he refused. Then he was crucified, praying for and blessing his enemies. What is that anti-triumphant procession if not a denunciation of Rome and a declaration of God's Kingdom?

All the language associated with Jesus like Christ, gospels, Son of God, Parousia (or second coming or return), faith and Lord were all words exclusive to the worship of Rome and the Emporer. These words were deliberately chosen because of their political connotations.

I don't know anything about that, but that wasn't my point. My point was that Jesus didn't come to earth to preach any specific type of government, or economy, or political system. Everything you described supports that, as it's Jesus devaluing the politics of Rome, and showing that God is the true emperor.

Yes, but he also said not to receive the mark of of the beast on the wrist or forehead. To enter the agora, the roman equivalent of a supermarket, one had to drop incense in front of an image of Ceasar. you then received a stamp on the wrist or forehead allowing you enter the market and trade. It instructed folks not to be involved in the worship or economy of Rome. Furthermore when John wrote of the great whore of Babylon, "For all the nations have drunk the maddening wine of her adulteries" and for whom the merchants wept, he called for us to "come out" of her, as in to interrupt sex before climax, to shun the things of the world. It wasn't proclaiming the end of the world as such, it was proclaiming the end of worldly nations and economies and proclaiming the Kingdom of God on Earth. (in my humble understanding)

Incidentally I'm getting most of this from Jesus for President by Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw if anyone would like to read it.

And again, all of that makes sense in a community that thinks it has a few years before the Second Coming. Revelations is a fun book, but it's not the book I'd want to rely on in for making a solid point about Christianity. There are a lot of ways to interpret that book, and some thinkers like Martin Luther didn't even try.

I guess it's not technically the end of the world, but the coming of the Kingdom of God is basically the same thing in this case.

Teh_K42 wrote:I Disagree. As far as I can see, Jesus was absolutely political. Look at how a Roman emperor was coronated. Jesus' crucifixion was a mockery of it. When the Emperor went to his coronation he went on a mighty warhorse. He proceeded through the streets in glory, followed by a sacrificial bull and a slave with an axe to kill the bull. They walked to the highest hill in Rome, Capitolene (head hill) The candidate was then offered wine, which he rejected, after which the bull was killed. When Jesus entered Jerusalem he went on a donkey (a borrowed donkey at that) with the people waving palm branches (which were symbols of resistance to the Empire). When Jesus went to be crucified he marched through the streets suffering, Simon carried the cross and Jesus was the sacrifice. he was taken to Golgotha (skull hill, or if you want to split hairs, head hill) and was offered wine which he refused. Then he was crucified, praying for and blessing his enemies. What is that anti-triumphant procession if not a denunciation of Rome and a declaration of God's Kingdom?

All the language associated with Jesus like Christ, gospels, Son of God, Parousia (or second coming or return), faith and Lord were all words exclusive to the worship of Rome and the Emperor. These words were deliberately chosen because of their political connotations.

While I certainly find this theory interesting, I do not think that I can find any reason to support it. In history we find that the idea of the Emperor of Rome had not yet fully developed and was still in its early phases. Through most of Christ's life Tiberius was "emperor" and there had certainly been no lavish ceremony to make him as such. Instead it was a simple meeting of the Senate to extend the powers and office of Princeps, along with its titles, to Tiberius from Augustus. There was no recorded lavish ceremony, either from Tacitus or Suetonius, so I don't see how your theory will fit. As I said before it is at the least an entertaining thought, but I can't see it as being backed up by any reasonable history.

Teh_K42 wrote:Yes, but he also said not to receive the mark of of the beast on the wrist or forehead. To enter the agora, the roman equivalent of a supermarket, one had to drop incense in front of an image of Caesar. you then received a stamp on the wrist or forehead allowing you enter the market and trade. It instructed folks not to be involved in the worship or economy of Rome. Furthermore when John wrote of the great whore of Babylon, "For all the nations have drunk the maddening wine of her adulteries" and for whom the merchants wept, he called for us to "come out" of her, as in to interrupt sex before climax, to shun the things of the world. It wasn't proclaiming the end of the world as such, it was proclaiming the end of worldly nations and economies and proclaiming the Kingdom of God on Earth. (in my humble understanding)

Incidentally I'm getting most of this from Jesus for President by Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw if anyone would like to read it.

Just a few quick corrections, as tedious as they might be, I value accuracy above all. The Romans did not have an agora, that was a purely Greek idea, they had the Roman Forum, at least during Christ's lifetime. I have never found any primary source claiming that a mark was needed to trade, although I may have missed that. Can you tell us where Mr. Claiborne and Mr. Haw get this idea from? As far as the point about Revelation, I find that the ability to interpret it is lost on any of us. The book is very clearly prophecy, and I do not have that gift, nor have I met anyone with that gift. True, there are probably some things directed as criticism to Rome, but I am hesitant to label it so quickly. I basically take the idea that whatever it predicts will happen, and since I don't know when or how, and especially since I can't stop it, I really don't worry about it. I try and focus on the here and now, leaving the speculation around prophecy to remain just that.

Why does Jesus For President make me think of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, the book that inspired the Davinci Code?

Ahtman wrote:Why does Jesus For President make me think of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, the book that inspired the Davinci Code?

Jesus for president is actually quite a good book. Challenges many dogmatic aspects of christianity in relation to social justice type things.

Jesus for president makes me think of Family Guy. However, I would rather vote for Stewey.

warpcrafter wrote:Jesus for president makes me think of Family Guy. However, I would rather vote for Stewey.

I see your train of thought and I like it. All aboard!

JEB_Stuart wrote:While I certainly find this theory interesting, I do not think that I can find any reason to support it. In history we find that the idea of the Emperor of Rome had not yet fully developed and was still in its early phases. Through most of Christ's life Tiberius was "emperor" and there had certainly been no lavish ceremony to make him as such. Instead it was a simple meeting of the Senate to extend the powers and office of Princeps, along with its titles, to Tiberius from Augustus. There was no recorded lavish ceremony, either from Tacitus or Suetonius, so I don't see how your theory will fit. As I said before it is at the least an entertaining thought, but I can't see it as being backed up by any reasonable history.

Teh_K42 wrote:
Incidentally I'm getting most of this from Jesus for President by Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw if anyone would like to read it.

Just a few quick corrections, as tedious as they might be, I value accuracy above all. The Romans did not have an agora, that was a purely Greek idea, they had the Roman Forum, at least during Christ's lifetime. I have never found any primary source claiming that a mark was needed to trade, although I may have missed that. Can you tell us where Mr. Claiborne and Mr. Haw get this idea from? As far as the point about Revelation, I find that the ability to interpret it is lost on any of us. The book is very clearly prophecy, and I do not have that gift, nor have I met anyone with that gift. True, there are probably some things directed as criticism to Rome, but I am hesitant to label it so quickly. I basically take the idea that whatever it predicts will happen, and since I don't know when or how, and especially since I can't stop it, I really don't worry about it. I try and focus on the here and now, leaving the speculation around prophecy to remain just that.

Accuracy is good, thanks for your corrections.
However you say the ability to interpret Revelations is lost is lost to any of us, but you have interpreted it as a prophesy? Perhaps John, being in jail at the time of writing, couldn't have simply written 'Rome is corrupting influence' or 'we must reject ceasar' without execution or harsh punishment so he wrote it cryptically?

Also, those authors cite the following when they interpret revelations:
-Wes Howard-Brook and Anthony Gwyther, Unveiling Empire: Reading Revelation Then and Now (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis 1999)
-Adolf Deismann, Light from the Ancient East (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910)
-G.B. Caird On Deciphering the Book of Revelation; Heaven and Earth , Expository times, 74: 13-15 (1962)

Polonius wrote:

I don't know anything about that, but that wasn't my point. My point was that Jesus didn't come to earth to preach any specific type of government, or economy, or political system. Everything you described supports that, as it's Jesus devaluing the politics of Rome, and showing that God is the true emperor.

Emphasis mine. I wasn't trying to argue that Jesus preached specific politics or economics but simply that he, as well as the early questions, pledged no loyalty to Rome (I started with the word opposed, but that is too strong)

Polonius wrote:
The early Christians weren't really opposed to the Roman Empire.

Okay, so they might not be opposed as such, but devalued the politics of Rome as you say.

polonius wrote:

Teh_K42 wrote: Yes, but he also said not to receive the mark of of the beast on the wrist or forehead. To enter the agora, the roman equivalent of a supermarket, one had to drop incense in front of an image of Ceasar. you then received a stamp on the wrist or forehead allowing you enter the market and trade. It instructed folks not to be involved in the worship or economy of Rome. Furthermore when John wrote of the great whore of Babylon, "For all the nations have drunk the maddening wine of her adulteries" and for whom the merchants wept, he called for us to "come out" of her, as in to interrupt sex before climax, to shun the things of the world. It wasn't proclaiming the end of the world as such, it was proclaiming the end of worldly nations and economies and proclaiming the Kingdom of God on Earth. (in my humble understanding)

Incidentally I'm getting most of this from Jesus for President by Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw if anyone would like to read it.

And again, all of that makes sense in a community that thinks it has a few years before the Second Coming. Revelations is a fun book, but it's not the book I'd want to rely on in for making a solid point about Christianity. There are a lot of ways to interpret that book, and some thinkers like Martin Luther didn't even try.

I guess it's not technically the end of the world, but the coming of the Kingdom of God is basically the same thing in this case.

I hadn't thought about that aspect of a sense of immediacy, thanks for raising it. But didn't Jesus say that we should always live with that immediacy since no-one knows when he will return? I know that people have been declaring the end of the world is imminent since it began (and we only have until 2012 apparently )but why should these people behave differently if they think they have 10 years until Jesus returns or 10,000? Why couldn't they simply have been trying to live Christ's word with everything they had regardless of timing?

I am enjoying this thread immensely, I don't often get a chance to discuss this stuff.

Well, there was the passages where Jesus says that he'll return within a single generation, and even then it will be a surprise. There were given two explicit instructions: spread the word, and get ready for me to come back. So, like all grass roots movements they took it viral. Sending small teams to cities to recruit, establishing locals all around the empire.

As for why they would act differently, it's pretty obvious: they didn't know that they would have at least 2000 years. They were told soon, and it had still been a short while, so they went nuts. I'm guessing there was a match up between when jesus failed to materialize and when the biggest communities started to mature and needed more structure.

As for why we don't' live that way now? You just can't. You can't keep that pace up, you need to grow crops and run the secular side too. In some ways it's like a new romantic relationship: why don't couples that have been together for a few years no longer have tons of crazy sex all the time? Because they've got other stuff to do!