*Warning: May contain nuts, Christians and/or both

[skepticalbip]

What if you're a really nice masochist who makes it into Heaven and you keep jumping off the ledge into Hell so that you can get tortured? Do demons have to go and drag him back up to the Pearly Gates and tell St Peter to keep his shit in his own yard or something?

Surely a 'just god' would house the nice masochist in heaven as a roommate with a nice sadist (a sadist that only tortured those who wanted to be tortured).

 

[Keith&Co.]

What if you're a really nice masochist who makes it into Heaven and you keep jumping off the ledge into Hell so that you can get tortured? Do demons have to go and drag him back up to the Pearly Gates and tell St Peter to keep his shit in his own yard or something?

Surely a 'just god' would house the nice masochist in heaven as a roommate with a nice sadist (a sadist that only tortured those who wanted to be tortured).

But would that work?

The masochist shouts, 'Beat me!'
The sadist smiles and says, '...No.....'

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

Its really the case : You either believe or you don't. Dying for ones faith doesn't make a believer stop backsliding, but what it will probably do, is the opposite - change peoples minds not to take up the faith... having second thoughts, especially when they're not really sure.

No, preventing backsliding was precisely the point of the martyr stories: "look at this guy, he suffered torture and a horrible death rather than give up his faith; are you going to give it up just because of a little light persecution?".

The Romans wrote about their soldiers refusing to fight once they became Christians, even to suffer severly. Its not enough in writing to say all Christians do that, one would say, but that just it. Who is going to write about Christian being martyrs especially when their belief is a comfliction?

No, the Romans didn't write about soldiers "refusing to fight once they became Christians". There were xians in the Roman legions all through the early centuries, right up to the time of Constantine. In fact, it's one of the reasons Constantine supported xianity, because there were so many xians in his army. "In this sign, conquer" wasn't aimed at the pagans.

There are the examples of military churches in Meggido and Doura Europos from the 3rd century, and the "legio fulminata" story from the 2nd century. There's also the fact that the first widespread - but brief - persecutions didn't happen until the mid-3rd century under Decius and Valerian, with the main persecution being that of Diocletian in the late 3rd century, where he wanted to purge his army of xians because he doubted their loyalty. In order to purge the army of xians, there had to be xians in the army, no?

The main sources for the supposed xian pacifism in the legions are Origen and Tertullian. Both were considered heretics by the orthodox church of their day, and neither, to put it mildly, is a reliable source for anything much.

 

[Learner]

No, preventing backsliding was precisely the point of the martyr stories: "look at this guy, he suffered torture and a horrible death rather than give up his faith; are you going to give it up just because of a little light persecution?".

Not if you're a true believer. You're basically showing the same thing as I mentioned earlier.

No, the Romans didn't write about soldiers "refusing to fight once they became Christians". There were xians in the Roman legions all through the early centuries, right up to the time of Constantine. In fact, it's one of the reasons Constantine supported xianity, because there were so many xians in his army. "In this sign, conquer" wasn't aimed at the pagans.

There are the examples of military churches in Meggido and Doura Europos from the 3rd century, and the "legio fulminata" story from the 2nd century. There's also the fact that the first widespread - but brief - persecutions didn't happen until the mid-3rd century under Decius and Valerian, with the main persecution being that of Diocletian in the late 3rd century, where he wanted to purge his army of xians because he doubted their loyalty. In order to purge the army of xians, there had to be xians in the army, no?

The main sources for the supposed xian pacifism in the legions are Origen and Tertullian. Both were considered heretics by the orthodox church of their day, and neither, to put it mildly, is a reliable source for anything much.

I see what you mean now. Indeed... besides the two (writings/records) you mentioned above, we have more "hereticals" below:



TYPASIUS (305 A.D.) : "Typasius, who (earlier) had served honorably as a soldier in Mauretania and had been discharged because he desired to devote himself wholly to religion, refused to re-enter the service when recalled to the ranks and suffered martyrdom



MAXIMILLIANUS, : Maximillianus was a young Numidian Christian, just over 21, was brought before Dion the proconsul of Aficia at Teveste (Numidia) as fir for military service. This was in 295 A.D......,

....Maximillianus was beheaded. Maximillianus has been honored as one of the canonized saints of the church, though he died as a conscientious objector




MARCELLUS : Marcellus had been a centurion in the Roman army, but "in 298 A.D. took the initiative and insisted on resigning from his office. On the occasion of the Emperor’s birthday, he cast off his military belt before the standards, and called out: ‘I serve Jesus Christ, the eternal king.’ Then he threw down his vine staff and arms, and added: ‘I cease from this military service of our Emperors, and I scorn to adore your gods of stone and wood, which are deaf and dumb idols.......

...."When he (Marcellus) was sentenced to death, CASSIANUS, the clerk of the court, loudly protested, and flung his writing materials on the ground, declaring that the sentence was unjust: he suffered death a few days AFTER Marcellus




TARAKHOS (304 A.D.) : "Tarakhos of Cilicia, on trial because he had left the army, told the governor he had been a soldier, ‘but because I was a Christian, I have now chosen to be a civilian.’" He was martyred in 304 A.D.59



CADOUX writes: "The early Christians took Jesus at his word, and understood his inculcations of gentleness and non-resistance in their literal sense. They strongly identified their religion with peace; they strongly condemned war for the bloodshed which it involved; they appropriated to themselves of Old Testament prophecy which foretold the transformation of the weapons of war into the implements of agriculture; they declared that it was their policy to return good for evil and to conquer evil with good.





(Credit and exerpts used, courtesy of the researchers of the original site : The Early Christian View of War and Military Service (no longer exists)..- great work chaps - cheers for those years !)

 

[Worldtraveller]

As Jesus supposedly said, the gate to heaven is narrow and the gate to hell wide.

I think that's probably why Mark Twain said, "hell for the company, heaven for the climate". I really don't think that believers in an afterlife give a lot of thought as to how boring it would be. The following words from the hymn "Amazing Grace" pretty much sum it up for me.

"When we've been there 10,000 years
Bright shining as the sun
We've no less day to sing god's praise
Then when we first begun"

Not just for the bad grammar, but the thought of how awful a god would be that rewards people by sending them somewhere to praise him for all eternity. Talk about hell........

With the Twain mention, how could you leave out a recommendation for "Letters from the Earth"? That is probably my favorite Twain book, and it's a fantastic read.

Oh look, I found an online free version! I didn't check to see if it's unedited/complete yet.

https://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/ltrs-from-earth.pdf

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

No, preventing backsliding was precisely the point of the martyr stories: "look at this guy, he suffered torture and a horrible death rather than give up his faith; are you going to give it up just because of a little light persecution?".

Not if you're a true believer. You're basically showing the same thing as I mentioned earlier.

No, the Romans didn't write about soldiers "refusing to fight once they became Christians". There were xians in the Roman legions all through the early centuries, right up to the time of Constantine. In fact, it's one of the reasons Constantine supported xianity, because there were so many xians in his army. "In this sign, conquer" wasn't aimed at the pagans.

There are the examples of military churches in Meggido and Doura Europos from the 3rd century, and the "legio fulminata" story from the 2nd century. There's also the fact that the first widespread - but brief - persecutions didn't happen until the mid-3rd century under Decius and Valerian, with the main persecution being that of Diocletian in the late 3rd century, where he wanted to purge his army of xians because he doubted their loyalty. In order to purge the army of xians, there had to be xians in the army, no?

The main sources for the supposed xian pacifism in the legions are Origen and Tertullian. Both were considered heretics by the orthodox church of their day, and neither, to put it mildly, is a reliable source for anything much.

I see what you mean now. Indeed... besides the two (writings/records) you mentioned above, we have more "hereticals" below:



TYPASIUS (305 A.D.) : "Typasius, who (earlier) had served honorably as a soldier in Mauretania and had been discharged because he desired to devote himself wholly to religion, refused to re-enter the service when recalled to the ranks and suffered martyrdom



MAXIMILLIANUS, : Maximillianus was a young Numidian Christian, just over 21, was brought before Dion the proconsul of Aficia at Teveste (Numidia) as fir for military service. This was in 295 A.D......,

....Maximillianus was beheaded. Maximillianus has been honored as one of the canonized saints of the church, though he died as a conscientious objector




MARCELLUS : Marcellus had been a centurion in the Roman army, but "in 298 A.D. took the initiative and insisted on resigning from his office. On the occasion of the Emperor’s birthday, he cast off his military belt before the standards, and called out: ‘I serve Jesus Christ, the eternal king.’ Then he threw down his vine staff and arms, and added: ‘I cease from this military service of our Emperors, and I scorn to adore your gods of stone and wood, which are deaf and dumb idols.......

...."When he (Marcellus) was sentenced to death, CASSIANUS, the clerk of the court, loudly protested, and flung his writing materials on the ground, declaring that the sentence was unjust: he suffered death a few days AFTER Marcellus




TARAKHOS (304 A.D.) : "Tarakhos of Cilicia, on trial because he had left the army, told the governor he had been a soldier, ‘but because I was a Christian, I have now chosen to be a civilian.’" He was martyred in 304 A.D.59



CADOUX writes: "The early Christians took Jesus at his word, and understood his inculcations of gentleness and non-resistance in their literal sense. They strongly identified their religion with peace; they strongly condemned war for the bloodshed which it involved; they appropriated to themselves of Old Testament prophecy which foretold the transformation of the weapons of war into the implements of agriculture; they declared that it was their policy to return good for evil and to conquer evil with good.





(Credit and exerpts used, courtesy of the researchers of the original site : The Early Christian View of War and Military Service (no longer exists)..- great work chaps - cheers for those years !)

All your examples are between 295 and 305 C.E. Which happen to be the years of Diocletian's imperium, which was, as I said, the main persecution in the 300 or so years between the birth of xianity and Constantine. It's no big surprise that xians were unwilling to serve, for whatever reason, in that decade. As I said, Diocletian wanted to purge them anyway.

By the way, I didn't call Origen and Tertullian hereticals, their contemporary co-xians did. It's no skin off my nose what nonsense they believed, or whether it was compatible with the church of their time.

 

[steve_bank]

The Roman empire was distributed. With the communications of the day local military and civilian officials had wide latitude over justice.

I expect if you refused service or once in the military objected to say killing on religious OR philosophical grounds one faced severe penalties.

The fact that some Christians were executed for issues does not say anything at all. As I understand it Rome in general was tolerant as long as you acknowledged the supremacy of the state and paid at least lip service to state rituals including religion.

Rome had simple rules.

1. Anything that promoted wealth and stability was supported.
2. Anything interfering with rule 1 was severely punished.

To Christians a martyr, to Romans a pain in the ass.

 

[Learner]

We can at least all agree, the notion of "Romans never / rarely did these things" is not correct. (we don't have to agree on every aspect of course)

 

[steve_bank]

My point is from the strt Christians see themselves as victims persecuted by the 'pthjers'.

reality check. Rome was harsh for those deemed resisting. Th e early Christians would have a small minority compared to others.

The Romans once lined the main road into Rome with crucifixions to bring home the point to those entering, toe the line or else.

The alleged torture and crucifixion of Jesus would not have been out of the ordinary.

And let us not forget. Once Christians began to gain power they were brutal in their own right with different groups.

 

[1ICrying]

Nope. Wrong.

Matthew 24
³⁰ And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Mark 14
⁶¹ But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

⁶² And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Matthew 26

⁶³ But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

⁶⁴ Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

All of this was to happen in the lifetime of the high priest at Jerusalem.

Plus other corroborating verses


^{Matthew 16
28} Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.




Stop trying to bullshit us. This is the Jesus that told his followers to abandon homes and families, to sit around waiting for the end, which was soon, soon, soon. Take no thought for the morrow. See Matthew 6. We have all heard these rationalizations ad nauseum, some of us for decades. There is no truth in any of them.

No, you cannot clear them up because you don't know anything about this except lame apologists' nonsense. the end of the world as we know it was to come about some 1900 years ago, and did not as prophesied.

Hey Gang - sorry for the prolonged absence. Just getting back to Cheerful Charlie here, on this issue of Matthew 16, verse 28.

Now, I'm not going to re-invent the wheel, so please forgive me, but I did find this explanation on the old net, that I think may answer your questions. It is a good question, and one which this author says has been the source of much debate.

_______________________________________________
This is from https://www.ligonier.org/blog/some-standing-here-will-not-taste-death-unfolding-biblical-eschatology/

From the point of Peter’s confession onward, Jesus begins to teach his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem, suffer, be killed, and on the third day, be raised (16:21). Peter rebukes Jesus for saying this, but Jesus shows him that this is the only way (vv. 22–23). Jesus tells his disciples that they must take up their cross and follow him because it is foolish to gain the world and lose one’s soul (vv. 24–26). Then Jesus says, “For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” (vv. 27–28).

Like Matthew 10:23, this text has also been the source of much debate. Davies and Allison survey some eight different interpretations that have been proposed.i Among the more prominent interpretations is the idea that “coming of the Son of Man” in view here is the transfiguration, which is narrated in the following chapter.ii Some suggest that Jesus is referring to his resurrection or to Pentecost. Others suggest that Jesus is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.iii Then there are those who believe Jesus is speaking here of his Second Coming and of the end of history. Among those holding this view, there are those who believe Jesus was mistaken because he believed this would occur within the lifetime of his hearers, and there are those who believe that Jesus was correct because the “some standing here” refers to a later generation.iv

In order to come to an understanding of this saying, we must again be reminded that when Jesus speaks of the “coming of the Son of Man,” he is purposefully alluding to Daniel 7:13–14. And again we must recall that the coming of the Son of Man in Daniel 7 is set within a judgment scene before the throne of God (cf. Dan. 7:9–10). Unlike the saying in Matthew 10:23, the saying in 16:28 is found in the immediate context of words regarding judgment (v. 27). The point that Jesus is making when he says that there are some standing here who will not die before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom is that there are some to whom he is speaking who will not die before the prophecy of Daniel 7 is fulfilled, in other words, before Jesus receives the kingdom from his Father.

A comparison of Matthew 16:28 with its parallels in Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27 lends support to this interpretation. All three sayings are set within the same context immediately before the Transfiguration, yet whereas Matthew speaks of some living long enough to see the coming of the Son of Man, Mark and Luke speak of some living long enough to see the coming of the kingdom of God. The “coming of the Son of Man” then is simply another way of saying “the coming of the kingdom of God.” It is the assumption that the words “coming of the Son of Man” must mean “Second Coming” that has caused much of the confusion. Once we realize that Jesus is simply using a phrase from Daniel 7 to allude to the whole prophecy, texts such as Matthew 16:28 are much more readily understood. Jesus was not predicting that his Second Coming would occur within the lifetime of some of his hearers. He wasn’t speaking of the Second Coming at all.v He was referring to the fulfillment of Daniel 7, his reception of the kingdom from the Father, and this was fulfilled within the lifetime of some of his hearers (cf. Matt. 28:18).vi


________________________________________________-

Cheerful Charlie. I hope that satisfies the question at least somewhat.


Gracias,

1I

 

[1ICrying]

Here is another reason that I believe in the Bible. Take this prophecy, written about 1000 years before the crucifixion.

Psalms:


16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.

18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.


Why were these verses included in the Old Testament?

Did anyone really know what they meant before the prophecy was fulfilled? No. It would have seemed like gobbledy gook. But still, for some reason, they held these verses as sacred and included them in their old testamant. And then, 1000 years later, the prophecy was fulfilled and it was revealed to us what it meant.

Now the Jewish community, and the atheists of course, do not believe that Jesus was the messiah. But given that he fulfilled this as well as about 300 other old testament prophecies, leads us Christians to believe he is. The Jews may still be waiting, but as I said before, I think the days of crucifixions and riding donkeys into Jerusalem are past.

For those of you who think that prophecies like this are no proof, and easy to fake, I disagree. Sure, I can say that I will go to the store tomorrow and then go to the store tomorrow. But how does one play out that type of hoax over a 1000 year time period.

Are you going to tell me that Jesus and his no good lying gang just went through the Bible and played out all the prophecies. Kind of hard to plan for what will happen after a crucifixion, and to even know enough of the old testament to set up a situation where the guards are going to go through the motions just to fulfill this prophecy.

_________________________from http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1744

Observe carefully that these four unnamed Roman military men, who just happened to be assigned crucifixion duty that day, and just happened to have charge of the condemned Jesus of Nazareth were operating solely out of their own impulses. They were not Jews. They undoubtedly had no familiarity whatsoever with Jewish Scripture. They were not controlled by any external source. No unseen or mysterious force took charge of their minds, no disciple whispered in their ears to cause them to robotically or artificially fulfill a prophecy. Yet, with uncanny precision, words written by King David a millennium earlier came to stunning fruition—words that on the surface might seem to contradict each other: the clothes were to be divided into separate parts, yet lots would be cast over the clothes. Roman soldiers unwittingly fulfilled the predictions of ancient Scripture in what to them were no more than mere casual, insignificant actions associated with the execution of their military duty, in tandem with their covetous desire to profit from their victim by acquiring His material goods.


So if Jesus was not the Messiah, but just a deceitful liar, why would he go about casting out demons and preaching about peace and love. It doesn't add up. Did he just crucify himself to fool us.

The answer is - he was and is the Messiah. The entire Bible, with the 300ish prophecies from the Old testament, realized by Jesus in the New Testament, is the proof.

1I

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

We can at least all agree, the notion of "Romans never / rarely did these things" is not correct. (we don't have to agree on every aspect of course)

I can agree that "the Romans never did x" is usually the wrong thing to say. "Rarely" is another story altogether, and would depend on the topic under discussion. In this particular topic, though, I find that xians often take the position that "the xians always did that (i.e. died as martyrs rather than renouncing their faith)", which is blatantly false.

I think you're missing the point of the martyr stories, though, when you say

Not if you're a true believer.

which is a very "No True Scotsman" thing to say, implying as it does that if anybody needed these stories to prevent them backsliding, they couldn't have been a "true believer" in the first place. It's like you think there are only two states of belief, like an on/off switch, when in fact there are probably as many different degrees of belief as there are believers.

 

[Atheos]

1ICrying, the passage from Psalm 22 was attributed to King David and is a Psalm of despair. What you refer to as 'gobbledygook' is another's poetic genius. Might as well ask why did Led Zeppelin advise "If there's a bustle in your hedgerow don't be alarmed now."

The writers of the gospels would have access to Psalm 22. Clearly if they wanted to use it as fodder for their story all they had to do was include a detail or two that's similar in their story, then quote it. There is absolutely nothing impressive about that here.

But if you're going to appeal to Psalm 22 as proof of prophetic power because it referred to the crucifixion of Jesus 1000 years later you need to address why there were no bulls surrounding Jesus in the crucifixion story (v 12). Why did nobody "gape upon him as a ravening and roaring lion?" Where were the dogs who compassed him? Who is the "darling" Jesus wanted delivered from the power of the dog? Where were the unicorns menacing Jesus? Could it be that this is just poetry? Might it be that the protagonist was someone else?

I'll tell you. Just this morning there was a bustle in my hedgerow. I was alarmed. Turned out that the guy we pay to mow our lawn (who happens to be gay) was out there cleaning some debris that had gotten blown into the shrubbery during a recent storm. Our lawn guy's name is Jeff May. Indeed, it was "Just a spring clean for the May queen."

And that's why I believe in Robert Plant. That dude abides.

 

[Learner]

My point is from the strt Christians see themselves as victims persecuted by the 'pthjers'.

reality check. Rome was harsh for those deemed resisting. Th e early Christians would have a small minority compared to others.

The Romans once lined the main road into Rome with crucifixions to bring home the point to those entering, toe the line or else.

The alleged torture and crucifixion of Jesus would not have been out of the ordinary.

And let us not forget. Once Christians began to gain power they were brutal in their own right with different groups.

In short, If all Romans refused to fight then there'd be no empire! To take control of the Christians - you take over the church, IOW's. No wonder there's confusion among Christians and false preaching - evident by their Fruits and what they've acomplished. I agree with you here, brutality under the Christian guise. Where once they were conscientious-objectors, the Christians in history and today (not all) go along and support wars etc..etc..! No swords into plough shares- no love your enemies so to speak.

EDIT: I don't at all claim to be righteous or similar BTW, its only what I understand and believe Jesus teaches. Those particular Christians who follow as according to Jesus should defer back to the earlier name and be called Saints. (If only I was one lol)

 

[bilby]

Here's why I believe in Harry Potter - stuff in the early books is eerily prophetic of stuff that happens much later in the series.

Obviously the only possible explanation for this is that the entire set of books describes real events and real people.

 

[steve_bank]

My point is from the strt Christians see themselves as victims persecuted by the 'pthjers'.

reality check. Rome was harsh for those deemed resisting. Th e early Christians would have a small minority compared to others.

The Romans once lined the main road into Rome with crucifixions to bring home the point to those entering, toe the line or else.

The alleged torture and crucifixion of Jesus would not have been out of the ordinary.

And let us not forget. Once Christians began to gain power they were brutal in their own right with different groups.

In short, If all Romans refused to fight then there'd be no empire! To take control of the Christians - you take over the church, IOW's. No wonder there's confusion among Christians and false preaching - evident by their Fruits and what they've acomplished. I agree with you here, brutality under the Christian guise. Where once they were conscientious-objectors, the Christians in history and today (not all) go along and support wars etc..etc..! No swords into plough shares- no love your enemies so to speak.

EDIT: I don't at all claim to be righteous or similar BTW, its only what I understand and believe Jesus teaches. Those particular Christians who follow as according to Jesus should defer back to the earlier name and be called Saints. (If only I was one lol)

My point again, at the time Christians were small. Your mantra is the Romans were out to get us, well they were out to get many groups.

It was not unlit Constantine and Council Of Nicaea that there was a unified Christianity. The Nicaean Creed was essentially a loyalty oath to the new synthesis. It became the Roman Catholic Church. It was Roman in the sense the power structure was modeled after Rome. An empower in the form of the pope. A select group of clerics at the top forming a sort of constitutional limited monarchy. Power at the top was absolute.

I believe Christian on Christian conflict began in the 1st century. Peter and Paul were not bosom buddies.

The power struggles for dominance began immediately. Much later the European sectarian conflicts.

The idea of Christians being innocent victims does not hold water historically. They were and are to an extent oppressive. With the rise of modem democracy in North America and Europe Christianity lost its political power to force compliance and punish opposition. Especially true with rise of the Italian state in the 19th century. The Vatican became a walled city and its once powerful military was reduced to a ceremonial Swiss Guard.

 

[steve_bank]

A side note. From a high school Latin class in the day the Roman military was not a bad deal. If you joined up young and survived the early years you went up a bit away from the worst danger. If you lasted 20 years you got land in the Empire and a mustering out lump sum to get started.

There was brutality in the military, but that was everywhere.

We had to read Caesar's Gallic Wars in the class.

 

[Learner]

To your side note:

Well sure but if you became a believer of Jesus, it doesn't seem to feel that important a career anymore.

 

[Learner]

My point again, at the time Christians were small. Your mantra is the Romans were out to get us, well they were out to get many groups.

It was not unlit Constantine and Council Of Nicaea that there was a unified Christianity. The Nicaean Creed was essentially a loyalty oath to the new synthesis. It became the Roman Catholic Church. It was Roman in the sense the power structure was modeled after Rome. An empower in the form of the pope. A select group of clerics at the top forming a sort of constitutional limited monarchy. Power at the top was absolute.

I believe Christian on Christian conflict began in the 1st century. Peter and Paul were not bosom buddies.

The top line, I don't get why you place this point here. The group started small and it spread out i.e. Practically, the whole Roman empire got coverted, it couldn't be stopped! Jesus has had enemies from day one, and is still most hated today. Jews back then had various relationships with Romans (e.g. Pontius Pilaite) under their rule, which also works all the better to get that unity, when Christianity is spreading across the shores - under one church - under one of few go-between(s), elected within in the church mediator, who talks directly to God , so to speak.

The power struggles for dominance began immediately. Much later the European sectarian conflicts.

The idea of Christians being innocent victims does not hold water historically. They were and are to an extent oppressive. With the rise of modem democracy in North America and Europe Christianity lost its political power to force compliance and punish opposition. Especially true with rise of the Italian state in the 19th century. The Vatican became a walled city and its once powerful military was reduced to a ceremonial Swiss Guard.

Indeed ...as my point before was : the difference between Christian Saints (as according to Jesus) and Christians as according to the go-between "prophets",or Kings and Queens.

(Having said that merely to explain the above .. all Christians are Saints by the original name as believers of Jesus. Not the war mongering kind of course, as I understand it.)

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

The group started small and it spread out i.e. Practically, the whole Roman empire got coverted, it couldn't be stopped!

The way you phrase that, it reads as if xianity exploded almost overnight. In fact, it started small, and stayed small for the first 300 years. By the time Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313, proclaiming toleration of xianity, they made up about 10% of the population of the empire. The real growth only started after he started favouring xianity in legal, financial and administrative matters, and by 350, it's estimated that 50% of the empire was xian. Once Theodosius made xianity the state religion - and criminalised polytheism - in the 380s, "it couldn't be stopped". But it took the endorsement and support of Constantine to get it there; without the surge in conversions during his reign, it might never have achieved the success it did.