Christians and the Coliseum. I’m told that there’s a first century church just up the road from the Coliseum, but can’t confirm that.
[quote=“Dragonbones”][quote=“bismarck”]God the Father = The Soul
God the Holy Spirit = The Spirit
God the Son = Jesus Christ
Three in one. Just like you, created in that image.[/quote]
Never heard that analogy, and I find it confusing, since soul and spirit are usually synonyms. [/quote]
I don’t find it confusing because I don’t think a soul and a spirit are synonyms.
I find that confusing. Different yet inseparable makes no sense to me.
Let’s call all of religion either an assumption or an opinion based belief or faith, seeing as the science based amongst us will argue there is no factual evidence to any of it. I don’t base any of my assumptions/opinion based faith on any church doctrine or creed etc… I base it on faith and the Bible. Anything that a “Pope” or so-called “voice of god on earth” says doesn’t fall into my spectrum of faith. In fact, anything originating from any form of organised religion I find highly suspicious.
That said, I should probably avoid this thread like the plague. 
In my experience, people will believe what they will, no amount of “evidence,” smart reasoning, lights from heaven or the appearance of angels on earth will change that. If Christ were here today he wouldn’t even have the opportunity to be crucified. They’d lock Him in a looney bin along with some other Arab bloke insisting he’s the last prophet of Allah never to be seen again.
At the end of the day, Faith and what you make of it is just that. Faith.
I gave up trying to convince anyone of anything long ago.
Good god, you’re sourcing Wiki like it has any credibility at all. Remind me to slap you next time I see you.
[quote=“SuchAFob”]Good god, you’re sourcing Wiki like it has any credibility at all. Remind me to slap you next time I see you.[/quote]I’ve gotta poor memory for insults; let me take care of that for you right now.
[color=black]WHACK[/color]
Damn, that was a good one.
Wiki’s convenient. There are other sources with the same info.
Here:
[quote=“The Catholic Encyclopedia”]Pope St. Pius (1566-72) is said to have recommended persons desirous of obtaining relics to procure some sand from the arena of the Coliseum, which, the pope declared, was impregnated with the blood of martyrs. The opinion of the saintly pontiff, however, does not seem to have been shared by his contemporaries. The practical Sixtus V (1585-90) was only prevented by death from converting the Coliseum into a manufactory of woollen goods. In 1671 Cardinal Altieri regarded so little the Coliseum as a place consecrated by the blood of Christian martyrs that he authorized its use for bullfights.
[…]
The intervention of Eugenius IV was based altogether on patriotism; as an Italian the pope could not look on passively while a great memorial of Rome’s past was being destroyed. “Nam demoliri urbis monumenta nihil aliud est quam ipsius urbis et totius orbis excellentiam diminuere.”
Thus in the Middle Ages no tradition existed in Rome which associated the martyrs in any way with the Coliseum; it was only in the seventeenth century and in the manner indicated, that it came to he regarded with veneration as a scene of early Christian heroism. [/quote]
Can I slap you next time around?
How about a spanking?
Hmmm. If both our SOs say it is okay, then fine 
And I find a religious encyclopedia to have about as much, if not less, credibility as Wiki. Since the inaccuracy of historical reporting on this subject was mainly due to the religion of the historians.
Woo-hoo. I can swing that.
:yay:
Don’t entry requirements depend on which church you are sat in?
Methodists have to accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their savviour and ask him into their lives. That’s all there is too it.
They tell you that one day you will see him. Jesus will come to you.
Evangelists are pretty similar to Methodists in that you just have to ask Jesus into your heart. Evangelicals have a ‘grace’ period after that, where the devil wrestles with your soul and you do bad things as a consequence…
But that is it in a nutshell. Accept the truth of who Jesus is, and ask him to be a part of your life forever.
Hey, I ain’t preaching here.
Hey. Are atheists allowed a grace period? I want an excuse to do bad things.
[quote=“TomHill”]Methodists have to accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their savviour and ask him into their lives. That’s all there is too it.
They tell you that one day you will see him. Jesus will come to you.
Evangelists are pretty similar to Methodists in that you just have to ask Jesus into your heart. [/quote]Not entirely. Some regard faith as a gift that comes on God’s time, not yours, nor through your efforts.
My uncle once told me the story of when he saw jesus. Not surprisingly it started with “one night after I had been out drinking…”
[quote=“Jaboney”][quote=“TomHill”]Methodists have to accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their savviour and ask him into their lives. That’s all there is too it.
They tell you that one day you will see him. Jesus will come to you.
Evangelists are pretty similar to Methodists in that you just have to ask Jesus into your heart. [/quote]Not entirely. Some regard faith as a gift that comes on God’s time, not yours, nor through your efforts.[/quote]
You have to ask him to come in though…
I think the answer we are pretty much getting here is that due to the broadness of the term “Christian” over the broad variety of “Christian” religions, that there is a broad spectrum of ways in which someone can become a “Christian”. Baptists must be baptized. Catholics must be christened. Ect.
If you say that, your grace period has already ended.
Have you read St. Augustine’s Confessions?
“Please God, make me chaste… but not tonight! Come on… have you seen her? Of course, you have, you see everything, so you know what I’m talking about.” 
I’d call that an only slightly yellow-tinged green light.
If you say that, your grace period has already ended.[/quote]
Actually I think I started living better once I realized there wasn’t anyone around to forgive me for being a smeghead.
You’re wrong.
[quote]Christians were persecuted for their belief in a single God. Among the more popular methods of execution was the feeding of Christians to lions at the circus, or groups being massacred by gladiators for sport. Crucifixion was another popular method, as was immolation.
It doesn’t seem to be a particularly reliable source, nor are their any further references, however it does represent the same view I have:
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=500350&lastnode_id=0
Do you have any reliable sources that contradict this?[/quote]
Common sense for one thing. Jews only worship one god, even more clearly than the Christians with their Trinity. And yet the Jews were not persecuted. But a quick search online reveals:
bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/ro … e_03.shtml
[quote]The early part of his talk about Druids specifically discussed human sacrifice among the Celts. Two things were emphasized:
-
Human sacrifice was most probably not a frequent occurrence among the Celts.
-
The Romans forbade it by the Druids mainly because they wanted to have the say in all matters of life and death within their domains. This was given as a likely reason why the Romans persecuted the Druids under the emperors Tiberius and Claudius.[/quote]
summerlands.com/crossroads/l … druids.htm
The last bit is a summary of a lecture by Dr. Philip Freeman, who is an expert on the Roman occupation of Briton and the persecution of the Druids. He is a lecturer at the University of Liverpool. You can read more about him here.
liv.ac.uk/sace/organisation/ … reeman.htm
There were lots of other cults the Roman’s persecuted all over the Empire. If a cult was determined to be responsible for resistance against occupation (like the Druids), or blasphemous towards Roman beliefs, or were converting too many Roman subjects, then it usually came to the Senate’s attention and they decided whether or not to suppress it. It’s true that the Romans incorporated lots of other beliefs into their own (like the Persian worship of Mithras), but there were always on the lookout for the rise of dangerous faiths. When the Senate did move forward with a suppression, the result was imprisonment and/or execution of the faithful, the destruction or conversion of their temples, and a reinvigoration of Roman rites and rituals. Wealthy Roman citizens used the opportunity to show off their largesse by paying for the construction of new Roman temples, funding the education of priests and priestesses, etc.
I think the Christians would have been suppressed even if they had not been (falsely) accused of burning Rome. They categorically dismissed the Roman beliefs, held regular gatherings, and preached the faith to anyone who would listen.
The Jews WERE TOO persecuted by the romans. They had many wars.
The Jews WERE TOO persecuted by the romans. They had many wars.[/quote]
As a people, yes. But Judaism was never suppressed by the Senate as far as I know, even when the Temple was destroyed.
Err…I don’t mean to minimize the plight of the Jews. My point was that the Christians were not persecuted solely because they were monotheistic. There were other factors involved.
One of those other factors might have been having the Romans come down on them like Jupiter and scattering them to the winds. That kind of victory encourages people to think they can rest easy afterwards.
And Christians could be a secretive bunch at the time, which would have heightened the perception of danger.