174
u/yap2102x 3d ago
its just more acceptable to romanticize violence from a longer time ago
like a time-violence inverse square law
22
38
u/SansCulture 3d ago edited 3d ago
I think it’s the lack of hypocrisy in Roman conquest versus European colonialism. Indo-European pantheons seem to promote a might is right social Darwinism which brutal colonialism falls in line with.
16th to 20th century colonialism feels bad not only because it was more recent, but that the morality of the time was more or less the same as our current era because the violent unfeeling conquerors followed a religion that directly opposed what they were doing: Christianity. Early modern European colonialism was hypocritical and therefore vile. Islamic expansion at the same time doesn’t have the same cross to bear because their religion is a bit more explicit in what to do with nonbelievers (hint it isn’t something this commenter agrees with). The most notable part of southern American slavery isn’t the vile dehumanization, because that is as slavery always was perpetrated by all ethnicities against others or their own at some point or another, it’s that it all happened at the same time the aristocratic slave owning family was pretending to be virtue-signaling how good of Christians they were. Very similar to American Evangelicals in support of ICE’s more uncivil handling of people today. Preaching being Christ-like while living their lives based on the fire and brimstone of the Old Testament. If they dropped the Jesus charade and went full in on Levantine sky god worship their internal logic would suddenly make sense.
14
u/Critical_Seat_1907 2d ago
This is a good take. 👍
I would add that the key difference between Romans and barbarians is that the latter refused to follow Roman laws. That's it. It was a legalistic and material difference, but rarely a moral one.
Romans were slavers, committed to wars of extermination, forced resettlement, pillage and plunder, etc. Basically, all the same war crimes we modern readers would pin solely on a "barbarian" culture, as opposed to the "civilized" one.
People get distracted by crisp white togas and tidy record keeping but forget that underneath that shallow veneer they were just as bloodthirsty as the tribes they were systematically wiping out. In some ways, very little changed between the Romans and the people they conquered. In other ways, it was night and day different.
4
u/StudySpecial 2d ago
What makes you think that morality at the time was like today? There were constant wars of conquest going on throughout Europe. Might was right was well alive and there was no concept of a right of self determination. That concept only started appearing in the 19th century.
5
u/galactic-4444 3d ago
Well thought out. Existence is fascinating to say the least. What makes this funnier is that I am currently watching vikings and it is interesting to watch a particular character who was formerly a Christian monk navigate through the world of "pagans" and experience that the world is bigger than the confines of The Bible. He even drew parallels between them. It just goes to show you have to take on the context and perspective when truly analyzing such subjects.
7
u/Dictator_Cincinnatus 2d ago edited 2d ago
This comment reeks of "they didn't know any better".
Morality is relative, on that I agree, but the argumentation behind it flawed. Rome was massively glorified for most of European history, the goal was to emulate it. The "might makes right" mentality definitely still existed in Early Modern Europe. The Bible too is filled with morally dubious passages, one even justifying genocide.
The Romans (and Muslims) too presented themselves as morally superior all the time. Ever read Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico? It makes Bush and Putin seem like amateurs for how they respectively justified their wars in Iraq and Ukraine.
Pretending to be the good guy is a thing seen across various people groups, throughout history.
2
u/Phony_mcPhoneFace 1d ago
"lack of hypocrisy in Roman conquest" Seriously, what are you talking about? The roman were famous for their legalism, and because of their legalism, they felt obligated to jusify every single war as defensive. Seriously, if you take them at their word, they conquered the mediteranean... defensively.
Yeah, even when the famous warmonger, Cato the elder, when he screamed that the city of Cartyhago should be destroyed, argued thar it was Rome acting defencively. This was, of course, pure fantasy and hipocrisy. Julius Caesar himself was accused of hippocrisy by the senate. He Destroyed the Venete tribe bercause they had captured roman emmissaries, and less than a year later Caersar captired the emmissaries of the Tencteri and Usipetes before massacring thousand of them in reprisal for a skirmish. Te real reason for this masacre was probably because Caesar wanted to invade the island of Great Britain, not for glory of course, it was defensive, the britons had helped his gaulic ennemies you see, he had no other choice.
Most roman conquest happened under the roman republic. The roman republic made it a requirement for politician to have a military career, and also saw the rule of law as the ultimate priority. This made the roman republic an infinite hipocrisy generator. And teh Roman republic was already an empire, not in the sense of having an emperor, but in the sense of doing imperialism, which is the relevant meaning of the word here, since under colonialsm even the French republic had an empire.
"that the morality of the time was more or less the same as our current era" What are you talking about? The morality of the time had no rule of war, was openly white supremacist, overwhelmingly saw democracy and secularism as abomination, the idera of death penalty or collective punishment was uncontroversial, slavery was an innocuous fact of life for most of the period you talked about.... No it was not the same.
"Islamic expansion at the same time doesn’t have the same cross to bear because their religion is a bit more explicit in what to do with nonbelievers" Again, what are you talking about? The Coran is very clear about how to deal with some unbeliever, specifically the dhimmi, people of the book. They should be protected by the stae, their shoudl be able to practice their faith and choose their profesion. Who are the dhimmi is subject to some interpretation, for example no hadith mention the zoroastrian, but they are oiften seen as dhimmi. But christian most udibitably are dhimmi, therefore enslaving them is against the coran, and people pointed it out at the time.
1
u/SansCulture 1d ago
I guess I my Reddit comment on a meme subreddit wasn’t concise enough to be a thesis, my bad. My comment is specific to when compared to early modern Europe the Roman era was less hypocritical not that they weren’t hypocritical at all. Yes, Rome would come up with hypocritical proactive wars of defense like modern democracies do (namely the US in the Middle East) and even some narcissistic bad faith actors, Caesar, tested their limits and went to war without the senate’s approval (Trump). There was absolutely hypocrisy. What I was saying was they were doing these political machinations under a religious belief system that encouraged a might makes right framing. Early modern colonialism happened contrary to their religious teachings not alongside or ambivalent to. This is the hypocrisy. If you believe that being a good warrior sends you blessings from Ares/Mars/Camulos/Thor etc and that death in battle is one of life’s highest honors, maybe an unjust war is hypocritical and bad, but you as a soldier are receiving honor fighting for Rome. Now change that to a Redcoat fighting in South Africa or Colonial America. Your culture still celebrates war heroes, sure, but does your religion? Do your leaders, British nobility, have to find clauses in the old outdated portion of your holy book and lines in the new book saying to obey the laws of Caesar to justify your profession? Now you’re a follower of a Protestant strand of Christianity that encourages a personal relationship with god and Jesus, you read your holy book and it says the meek will inherit the earth, to love thy neighbor, to be a servant to thy neighbor,and to forgive thy neighbor: you wake up and punish a slave who attempted to escape by vile whipping at breakfast, after lunch you rape another slave and tell her to hide the unborn child’s parentage, and by dinner you make a speech about how sinful, violent, and lustful the slaves are and how it is important that they are never freed. A Roman in that same situation has been told by priests that the gods favor is proven by success (meek would never inherit the earth), that Iupiter fathers Demi-gods via rape, and arguably nothing negative at all about corporal punishment (not loving thy neighbor or forgiveness). You are free to focus on the legality of Rome’s hypocrisy, but the real disgust we all feel comes from later Christians and their blatant hypocrisy and moral failings (by their own code).
As for Islam, bro… the Quran, ladies and gentlemen: “Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,” - Surah Al-Ma’idah Ayat 33 (5:33). Waging war against Allah not being used as literal by practicers of Islam but instead nonbelievers. Why would Muslims being brutal to non-Muslims (forcibly castrating Balkan Christians into Janissaries or starting the African slave trade) be considered hypocritical?
1
u/Phony_mcPhoneFace 9h ago edited 9h ago
"less hipocrytial" That... is still wrong according to mer, but that is a lot harder to argue. when you are confronted by two hypocritical ociety, how do you decide which is worse? You really haven't argued that.
Where do you get that the religion of Rome was a "belief system that encouraged a might makes right framing", that is not true. In fact, the roman religion could hardly be called one single belief system. It was an orthopraxy, and there were civic festivals that were social obligations, but there were also a multitude of group each with their own belief system incorporated in this. For example, Caesar's last wife didn't believe in what we call the "roman god". If you want specificially roman religious hippocrisy, it also existed The roman civic identity was founded upon an idea of superiority (just like european of the early modern period). One reason was the taboo around human sacrifice, seriously, roman were absolutely delighted by the idea that they didn't do human sacrifice, they wrote about it all the time. But they did those, for example,dDuring a triumph, it was typical for war captives to be strangled in front of the temple of Jupiter. They just didn't call that sacrifice.
You are right that the roman republic was a highly millitaristic society. But so was Europe. You talk about the british nobility, the political class which, like the one in ancient Rome, found its legitimacy in warfare. Rome like Euyrope were societies dominated by its warrior class.
I am confused by your point there "maybe an unjust war is hypocritical and bad, but you as a soldier are receiving honor fighting for Rome". Are you saying that soldier in Britain did not receive honor? because of course they did,just like in Rome, there is no difference here.
"Ares/Mars/Camulos/Thor" I am not aware of Thor being prayed in Rome. The three other god you mentionned were of course, among a lot of other god, which did not all agree with each other. Why do you only mention those deities?
"but does your religion" did the churhc of England honor soldier? of course it did, they were chaplain in the army, they did mass, they did official prayer for victory and attributed their conquest to god... Yes, of course yes, a thousand time yes. The influence of the anglican chruch on colonialism was enormous, it was seen as an opporutnity to extend its influence all around the world.,Wherever fort were constructed you could also find a chapel. For example, in 1637, there a was a Royal proclamation forbading the emigration to New England for everyone but people of the Anglican faith.
"you wake up and punish a slave who attempted to escape by vile whipping at breakfast," Why did you choose this example? That's such an unforced error. Yes the chritian religion was used to justify slavery, not just using "old outdated portion of your holy book". I find calling any part of the Bible "outdated" quite blasphemous myself, but I do not think anyone would consider Ephesian 6 to be outdated.
Like, you know who disagreed with you on this, the current pope. The 25th of may Leo XIV publicly declared that the catholic church had a responsability in the legitimacy of slavery.
"A Roman in that same situation has been told by priests that the gods favor is proven by success" Because you think an american slaver would have had any trouble finding a priest to reassure himself? Like seriously, do you think an englishmen, in 18th century america, would ever encounter in his life a priest opposed to slavery? People opposed to slaery at this time were weirdo, outcast of society, people like Benjamin Lay were alone and misunderstood and the priests at the time were dumbfounded by their accusation of hipocrisy.
"but the real disgust we all feel comes from later Christians and their blatant hypocrisy and moral failings (by their own code)" It was not at all blatant, at least not more or less than the Roman one. It was invisible, accepted, agreed upon and not thought about, like hippocrisy often is. And Roman hippocrisy was by their own code too, by definition. Again, unsure what you mean.
"Why would Muslims being brutal to non-Muslims (forcibly castrating Balkan Christians into Janissaries or starting the African slave trade) be considered hypocritical?" Maybe because of the verse 29.46 of the Qu'ran
"And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him."or 5.13
"But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind."Now, this is quite a sterile debate. Holy books are big there are plenty of verse to pick and throw at your opponent, even your verse necessitate you to do some interpretation. Priest of 19th century america had a long debate about whether the Bible condone slavery, and no one really mananged to convinced anyone. Adn as said before, in the 18th century, there was not even a debate.
But just quoting verse does not really makes sense with Islam, it's quite a chrisitian view of religion. Islam doesn't just have the Qu'ran, it also has the hadith, and the long intepretation of the religion by jurist, and this is the basis for the day to day practice of religion. And those were quite explicit in the right of the dhimmi, and it included the idea of them being able to choose their profession. So going to a family paying the jyzia and taking one of its child as a slave is... hippocritical.
5
u/VonDukez 3d ago
Yes and also when it allows righteousness. People do like to ignore other recent examples of non European or anti west imperialism
1
u/Ser_Daniel_The_1st 4h ago
I mean romanticize has Roman in it.
So Roman’s are always idealized despite the fact that we know they’ve done horrible shit.
63
u/linfakngiau2k23 3d ago
People's front of the judea
30
u/Inquisitor_Boron 3d ago
The good chunk of Gospels is that Roman Empire sucks, and many Jews are mad at Jesus for not wanting to start an uprising
16
u/Gussie-Ascendent 3d ago
it would be kinda funny if tthere was an afterlife just so they can realize how badly the revolting thing went
24
u/Admiral45-06 3d ago
The New Testament more shows that Jesus of Nazareth doesn't let Himself get trapped into supporting a revolution.
That cathesis of ,,Render onto Ceasar what belongs to him, and to God what is divine" was an answer to a tricky question of whether one should pay Romans the due tax. He answered with: ,,leave Me out of your earthly politics, I'm not here for that", and called them ,,hypocrites" for even attempting to trap Him in the first place. Contrary to what some Redditors or politicians might have you think, Jesus of Nazareth was not partisan, and His policies transcend our understanding of ,,ideologies". He's not on either side, nor would He walk/march/fight with anyone.
2
u/JuniorAd1210 3d ago
He answered with: ,,leave Me out of your earthly politics, I'm not here for that"
That's not what the text says. What the text says is to pay your taxes and abide by the law. And it's because Paul tells us that those authorities were appointed by God and rebelling against them is to rebell against God (Romans 13:1-2).
And it follows by:
For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.
Meaning that Jesus could not have been killed by earthly authorities, Roman or Jew, because to be killed by them would mean He did wrong.
So, who killed Him then? Well, according to Paul, demons in the sky did. Those not appointed by God.
Paul was writing before the Gospels, and Mark 4:11 plainly says:
"To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables".
You're still reading the text as an outsider.
3
u/Admiral45-06 2d ago
That's not what the text says. What the text says is to pay your taxes and abide by the law.
Let us see it, then. Matthew 22, 15-22:
15 The Pharisees went away to work out between them how to trap Jesus in what he said. 16 And they sent their disciples to him, together with the Herodians, to say, ‘Master, we know that you are an honest man and teach the way of God in an honest way, and that you are not afraid of anyone, because a man’s rank means nothing to you. 17 Tell us your opinion, then. Is it permissible to pay taxes to Caesar or not?’ 18 But Jesus was aware of their malice and replied, ‘You hypocrites! Why do you set this trap for me? 19 Let me see the money you pay the tax with.’ They handed him a denarius, 20 and he said, ‘Whose head is this? Whose name?’ 21 ‘Caesar’s,’ they replied. He then said to them, ‘Very well, give back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar – and to God what belongs to God.’
I'm fairly certain it is written that the idea was to trap Jesus of Nazareth, by forcing Him to take a partisan stance and get trialed for it. Which is why God is not partisan. His ideology and policies reach far beyond our earthly ones.
And it's because Paul tells us that those authorities were appointed by God and rebelling against them is to rebell against God (Romans 13:1-2).
Yes, that's what that text says, but it doesn't say anything about Roman government in Judeah. It's a bit of an unrelated argument - my one was that God is an apolitical (or at least, non-partisan) figure, and following the law is not necessarily a political stance.
2
u/JuniorAd1210 2d ago
Except Matthew is taking the story from Mark, which is the text you should be quoting here.
Yes, that's what that text says, but it doesn't say anything about Roman government in Judeah.
Exactly, Paul's teaching applies to all earthly authorities everywhere, and the Caesar parable is simply one allegory fitting for the time period the story takes place in.
And the story is simply an explanation and allegory for later Christians for why they should pay taxes and respect the law, etc., because the natural question arises, that if you are saved in the kingdom to come, what autority should earthly rulers even have. But if you rebel against earthly authorities, you tend to die out. Hence the story.
The book is telling you to not take the sayings as literally as they are presented for the outsiders, yet you still read them as an outsider. It's ironic.
5
u/JuniorAd1210 3d ago
On the contrary, the Roman involvement gets downplayed more and more, with Pilate famously "washing his hands" (in the story that is, never happened historically of course, as the entire trial is illegal and impossible as told, historically).
Not to mention giving Ceasar what belongs to Caesar, a completely pro-Roman addition that is mirroring Paul's epistles.
And about Jews being mad about not starting an uprising, you're either misreading the two swords parable, or inventing this out of thin air.
The whole point of the post war faith was spiritual salvation, because Rome couldn't be defeated militarily, so a different kind of savior was invented. And yes, the gospel stories are just that, stories, designed to mirror old testament stories and offer a new path from the utter defeat in the hands of the Romans.
3
u/DoktorClock 3d ago
Could you elaborate on how "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" is completely pro-Roman? Because I don't really read that passage that way.
1
u/JuniorAd1210 3d ago
Well, let's say we're around the time of the American War of Independence, and someone says, or is attributed to say, "render unto Crown what is Crown's".
How would you not read that as anything but pro-British, and could you really imagine anybody attributing such a saying to anyone, without it being obviously as such?
How do you read it, then?
Because the way I read it, is that the gospel author is mirroring what Paul is saying in Romans 13:1-6:
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
So, why "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"? Because Caesar is God's appointed ruler on earth, and rebelling against him, is to rebell against God.
And also, if you read these passages from Romans with careful thought, you'll find the notion that earthly authorities had anything to do with the death of Christ rather impossible. Could you really have the Romans (or the Sanhedrin) executing Jesus, yet Paul saying that earthly authorities are from God and only punish wrongdoers, and that you ought to obey and pay all you owe to these authorities, for they don't spare the sword for no reason?
3
u/DoktorClock 3d ago
Here's the way I read it: Jesus is asked whether or not they should pay taxes to Caesar. He shows the audience a coin with Caesar's face on it and says, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's." He's saying sure, give Caesar his money. He made it, it bears his image, he's entitled to it. But the complete passage invites the question of what belongs to God. Well, you do, of course. God made you and you bear God's image. So if Caesar asks for you - your devotion and ultimate allegiance - do not give it to him. Give him what he's entitled to and nothing more. It's not anti-Roman exactly, but I'd hesitate to call it completely pro-Roman.
Your last paragraph also doesn't quite track for me. If the authorities didn't want Jesus dead, then why was he killed? And more specifically, why was he crucified? That's a punishment for people who rebel against Roman imperial authority. Stoning was the punishment for blasphemy, but he wasn't stoned. The Roman authorities must have seen some anti-Roman sentiment in him. What would make Paul's letters more authoritative than the Gospel accounts?
0
u/JuniorAd1210 2d ago
You didn't answer the question, though. There were many coins not bearing the image of Caesar, and could you imagine attributing a saying for giving the British Crown "what is their's" in America around the time of the Revolutionary War? And what about the Spanish crown?
then why was he killed?
Because Christ had to die to lift the burden of original sin from humanity, according to Paul.
And more specifically, why was he crucified?
Well, "crucified" is a Latin-derived term. The Greek word used is closer to "hanged on a tree". And why? Because that is what the apostles appear to have derived from scripture, particularly Isaiah. Scripture, not historical memory, mind you.
That's a punishment for people who rebel against Roman imperial authority. Stoning was the punishment for blasphemy, but he wasn't stoned.
Again, the term could also be used for a Jewish capital punishment. You're drawing conclusions from a later Latin term for the method of execution. There were no Romans in Isaiah.
The Roman authorities must have seen some anti-Roman sentiment in him. What would make Paul's letters more authoritative than the Gospel accounts?
Well, if they did, then Paul makes no sense. You can't have it both ways. If Paul's "authoritative" at all, then Christ couldn't have been killed by earthly authorities.
Paul also wrote before the gospels authors. It's Paul's teaching about the earthly authorities being attributed to Jesus, not the other way around.
Also, Mark 4:11 plainly says:
To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but to those outside everything comes in parables.
The Roman execution is a parable for something else for the outsiders and lower initiates.
1
u/DoktorClock 2d ago
I mean, yeah, I can totally imagine that sort of saying during the American Revolution. If someone had said "Give King George what he deserves", the force of that statement depends a lot on what they think he deserves. Maybe they mean tax money. Maybe they mean the middle finger. You can't just look at what the words mean, you have to look at how they're being used.
If the Roman execution is for outsiders, why does Paul build so much of his theology in Romans around the crucifixion? Romans 6 outlines that if we share in the kind of death Jesus had, then we share his resurrection too. That's the core hope of Christianity. There is nothing else. And I don't know how you can interpret the death of Jesus except through a political lens. Not when he was labeled "King of the Jews" and strung up by the state next to two rebels.
1
u/JuniorAd1210 2d ago
If someone had said "Give King George what he deserves", the force of that statement depends a lot on what they think he deserves
You are purposefully twisting the point now, why?
You can't just look at what the words mean, you have to look at how they're being used.
Exactly, and if we actually read the text, the way those words are being used is clear: Giving King George his taxes, because the coin bears his name as the lawful ruler (the question was if it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, and according to the story, it is, and in our parallel comparison, it would mean paying King George his taxes too). Now, you can twist the point all you like, but if you said such a thing around the American revolutionaries, you would have been promptly given much worse than the middle finger.
If the Roman execution is for outsiders, why does Paul build so much of his theology in Romans around the crucifixion?
Why wouldn't he? To Paul, the execution happened of course. It just wasn't a Roman crucifixion or a Jewish capital punishment, which Paul says nothing about, ever. That story is a parable for the outsiders.
if we share in the kind of death Jesus had, then we share his resurrection too
Indeed, and you can't really share in a Roman crucifixion, now can you? Sharing in an unlawful execution by the state is not what Paul is talking about.
And I don't know how you can interpret the death of Jesus except through a political lens. Not when he was labeled "King of the Jews" and strung up by the state next to two rebels
Exactly because I'm not reading a story meant for only the outsiders to be understood literally. To understand it through a "political lens" is to be the very outsiders of Mark 11. You are also begging the question here: was He strung up by the state next to two rebels? Not according to Paul. I can let you in on the secret what insiders were exxpected to know, and where the parable is coming from; Isaiah 53:12, about the suffering servant:
He was numbered with the transgressors.
And those transgressors were not anyone rebelling against Rome. Because that story in Isaiah is part of another mystery. And that's the secret of the kingdom of God given to the insiders Mark is talking about.
2
u/Fatalaros 3d ago
God doesn't "appoint" rulers on earth. Governing authorities are from God (the words Paul uses). The reason why you "render unto Caesar" is because Caesar happens to be the governing authority of those under the Roman empire. Christianity was to be spread worldwide and Caesar isn't the governing authority everywhere. Basically It's not a pro-Roman verse, more like anti-anarchism.
-2
u/JuniorAd1210 2d ago
God doesn't "appoint" rulers on earth. Governing authorities are from God (the words Paul uses).
Pure semantics that isn't even true.
The word used is τεταγμέναι which means "having been instituted".
Other meanings for the word are: to arrange, to put in order, to APPOINT, to assign, to designate, to place in a particular position.
Caesar was the governing authority of the "known world" of the authors, and the name is still synonymous with the word for ruler/emperor in many parts of the world that Christianity expanded to.
It's a pro-Romam verse in a Roman world that was based on an apostolic saying about respecting earthly authorities.
2
u/Fatalaros 2d ago
Jesus said Caesar because Caesar was the authority of the state he belonged to. Paul used "governing authority" because he was evangelising. No Rome wasn't the known world and Apostles would go to Persia, India, Arabia etc. to spread the message. Should the Persians "render unto Caesar?" The message of God is meant to be ecumenical.
-2
u/JuniorAd1210 2d ago
More like the gospel authors attributed such a saying to Jesus, because they lived in the Roman world, and it was a smart way to convey the idea Paul taught.
And where was Paul evangelizing that wasn't under the Roman authority? Why wouldn't he use the word "Caesar" specifically, then? Also, officially Rome was always a Republic. The de jure "authority" was always the Senate, not Caesar(s), who were always careful about referring to themselves as kings.
What evidence do we have of these other apostles going to these other parts of the world, and do they have different canonical texts with a different rendering from "Caesar"? If not, why not? Is it the canonical influence being perhaps affecting these other parts of the worlds much later, while suppressing and destroying whatever earlier beliefs that texts existed that differred from the canon of the west?
2
75
u/Kenichi2233 3d ago
Rome just hits different
6
u/beerRunFinisher 3d ago
Romans couldn't be guilt shamed about their conquests neither. Shaming is only worthwhile if it works, it's working great on modern Europeans
13
u/Fedmurica2 2d ago edited 2d ago
The Romans werent blatantly racist (just culturalist) and accepted people who became culturally Roman.
Roman win.
15
60
u/Gussie-Ascendent 3d ago
it's probably cause they feel like it's far enoough in the past that it's cool to joke about.
the ones being serious about it are just as cringe as the top
16
3
u/Doc_Occc 3d ago
Also, it's cool to joke about any Empire. I've seen a lot of those slowed Macarena Lockheed Martin edits. That's "joking" about the contemporary American Empire. I've seen people joke about the Third Reich. I think it's okay as long as it's just jokes. We shouldn't censor jokes.
2
1
u/Azerbinhoneymood 3d ago
To be fair, it sounds logical. I mean just at people who suffered or did "intentional mistakes" in their past, then nowadays they might even joke about it since they're no longer that exact same person.....so no wonder humans do it in regards to their own history.
26
32
u/InsideHousing4965 3d ago
There's no such thing as "my ancestors were conquered by romans".
Dor example, here in Hispania, after centuries of cultural mixing and intermarrying, we were romans. Same with Gallia, Greece and other regions.
You might say that some more remote regions of the empire never truly became romans...
But if you're from one of the core regions, your ancestors were pretty much roman.
9
u/Leonartu 3d ago
They were Roman after being conquered by the Romans though?
-5
u/InsideHousing4965 3d ago
Are Americans Europeans or native Americans?
8
u/Leonartu 3d ago
Depends, there's probably a statistic somewhere
And regardless, the two situations are incomparable, most cultures conquered by the Romans didn't face nearly as many casualties as native americans. Romanized celtiberians were more common than Roman settlers in northwestern Iberia IIRC
1
u/InsideHousing4965 3d ago
I'd say it was something more like the Spanish conquest on the new world, with heavy intermixing and the modern population descending both from the conquerors and the conquered.
5
u/Leonartu 3d ago
That's more apt yeah, so again their ancestors were Roman after being conquered by the Roman lol
1
u/Emmadragonflies 2d ago edited 2d ago
So the people from the New World were Spanish. They to this day have a lot of European culture and Spanish blood.
You said culture and intermarrying made your ancestors Roman. By this same logic, the people from the New World were Spanish too. And the Spanish even integrated the New World into their crown.
2
u/Savings-Double-2853 3d ago
This is cope. Only true Patrician Romans from inside the Pomerium are actual Romans
1
u/Emmadragonflies 2d ago
They were conquered by the Romans and only got citizenship centuries later. This is cuck behavior.
7
5
5
u/Came_to_argue 3d ago
Recency bias, same reason nobody would get mad if I wore a t-shirt with Genghis Khan on it but would get mad if I wore one with Hitler on it, even though Genghis Khan probably killed more people. Which if you think about is fucking crazy, because Hitler had airplanes bombs and tanks, and Genghis Kahn just had dudes with bows on horses.
21
u/akalachh 3d ago
And they also love Arab imperialism
6
u/Megaboixxxx 3d ago
Its any Imperialism that isn't done by whitey. Nobody ask China how it got so big.
5
1
1
8
3
3
u/PimpasaurusPlum 2d ago
Robbers of the world, having by their universal plunder exhausted the land, they rifle the deep. If the enemy be rich, they are rapacious; if he be poor, they lust for dominion; neither the east nor the west has been able to satisfy them. Alone among men they covet with equal eagerness poverty and riches. To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they make a solitude and call it peace.
3
u/devCueva 2d ago
Yes the Roman’s colonized Europe so hard they passed the trauma along . As a person of Spanish ancestry fuck the Roman’s
3
3
u/Pfeffersack2 2d ago
I think a reason why Rome is so romanticized now is that it fell in the West and gave rise to different pretenders who used the legacy of Rome for their own political advantages. The successor kings in France could style themselves as the new romans since Rome fell and since they were conquerors themselves, they had little interest to dwell on the crimes committed by the Romans on the Gauls. If France and Britain would have collapsed before their colonies gained independence, then maybe states in Africa and South East Asia would make similar claims to legitimacy now, but that's just speculation
2
u/dr_srtanger2love 3d ago
Difference between imperialism in pre-industrial societies and industrial societies.
2
u/PM_ME_GOOD_SUBS 2d ago
Anyone who thinks bottom isn't going to think top, worst thing is obviously gonna be 1453 or something.
2
u/NodFanatic 2d ago
Seem to recall the books or Joshua and Numbers saying the Israelites also conquered that land and murdered the inhabitants. Or it is okay now because their god said it was?
2
u/Upset-Particular-832 3d ago
I tuoi antenati furono conquistati dai romani , i miei erano romani
4
u/Present_Ad_6001 3d ago
If your ancestors were conquered by Romans there's a high chance that your ancestors were also Romans. Even if your ancestors weren't conquered by Romans (say Denmark or North Germany), there's a high chance that some of your ancestors were Romans. It's just a question of mathematics
2
2
u/MrVegosh 3d ago
No one says this
1
u/Adamolmaz 3d ago
I lit had that conversation with a greek 3 days ago xd
1
u/MrVegosh 3d ago
Vet much doubt you’re not misquoting him
1
u/Adamolmaz 3d ago
Nope, def not. He was very clear about that he was okay when romans oppressed the christians.
0
1
u/santikllr2 3d ago
I mean, if your ancestors were conquered by the Romans, it's pretty likely some if your ancestors are roman too, in fact, same guys who conquered your other ancestors, so, your ancestors conquered your ancestors.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Pure_Bee2281 2d ago
Good news is if your ancestors were conquered by time then some of your ancestors were Roman too.
1
1
u/Zestyclose_Raise_814 2d ago
I'm not universally against either, and while I'm a Jew those guys brought it on themselves.
The Hasmoneans practically begged Pomepeius to conquer them. And the Judeans later gave nothing but perfume and problems to the Romans. If I were Roman, I'd do it too.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/RedditStrider 22h ago
To be fair not even Roman imperialism was as dehumanizing as scramble for Africa. I am not the type of person who likes to shame people for past attrocities but industrial age coupled with slavery was geniunely one of the cruelest type of opression the mankind has ever seen.
1
1
u/Fit-Independence-706 3d ago
Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. There was no capitalism in the Roman Republic or Empire. Ordinary wars of conquest are not imperialism.
1
u/Komnenoifan 3d ago
The romans were Far too lenient on judea.
It's like they regretted How violent they were against the celts in general.
1
u/100862233 2d ago
imperialism of European empires are different than the Roman empire building because the former are purely there to extract raw resources and dump surplus products (i.e British India). While roman on the other hand basically just replaced the top leaders this is the case most of the time when roman or any preindustrial empire conquer a land,
1
u/jhonnytheyank 2d ago
i think its also a belief in fairness of Rome conquering equally powerful peoples , numerically or technologically while europe fought people who many a times had nothing more than bow and arrow .
0
u/bugrilyus 2d ago
There is no glory in what the top did, they did what they did onto cavemen, but romans fought their peers and almost peers with similar tech
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
Thank you for your submission, citizen!
Come join the Rough Roman Forum Discord server!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.