The root of Christianity

[Hermit]

Isn't Jesus reported to have said that he did not come to abolish the law, but to uphold it? Did they miss that bit, or just rationalized it away?

And what is Torah, to you? Just an English translation of an ancient book of laws? Is that what you think Jesus came to uphold? Why would God visit us in person just to tell us to do what we were already doing, worshipping books and hurting each other? I don't think it was crazy or mistaken to search for a deeper meaning within those words as the Gnostics did and do.

The law needed upholding for the same reason Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of Wittenberg's All Saints' Church in 1517: The religion was in need of being reformed to its original, wholesome self. Jesus was aware of the aberrant uses and abuses religious practice had evolved to. His cleansing of the temple is evidence of it (John 2:13–16, Luke 19:45–48, Matthew 21:12–17, Mark 11:15–19), as is his condemnation of the Pharisees (Matthew 23). He has indeed come to uphold the law because nobody else did.

Disclaimer: I regard religions as bullshit.

What you have as Christianity is better called Paulism.

Jesus was a Jew preaching to Jews f his time involing Jewsh prophes amd scripture.

If you want 'real Christianity ' then I'd say become Jewish. I have known some who have.

Paul took the Jewishness out of Jesus and opened it up to non Jews. As Paul said, it is not circumcision that makes you Jewish, it is what is in your heart. He got rid of the dietary rules.

Would Jesus as a Jew caLling Jews back to traditional morality ad quoting Jewish scripture, would he not have kept kosher when eating?

All well and good, but my post was aimed at Politesse's comment regarding Matthew 5:17-19*, in which he deprecates the literal meaning and hints at a deeper one. It's the sort of thing one must do to resolve contradictions or defend a particular point of view. In this case the refusal to accept the literal meaning of Matthew 5:17-19 is meant to validate Jeremiah's prophesy of a new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34** and claim it was about to come to pass with Jesus as indicated in Luke 22:20***.


* 17 Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

** 31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

*** 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

 

[steve_bank]

A nd I was responder to your 'getting back to the Jesus goodness'.

Non Jewish Christians began disputing each other from the start. They were violent at times with each oter.

 

[Politesse]

All well and good, but my post was aimed at Politesse's comment regarding Matthew 5:17-19*, in which he deprecates the literal meaning and hints at a deeper one.

The "literal meaning" depends a lot on your point of view. If you're speculating that Jesus was referring to the King James Bible when he said that the Law could not pass away, that is indeed a literal reading but not the only possible literal reading. If when he said "the Law" he meant the fundamental principle that governs the world, then his statement that it "cannot be abolished" is likewise simply literally true, as opposed to being the basis of some legal or moral system. Given that Jesus clearly defines "the Law" in his teachings as being an abstract concept rather than a literal collection of words, I personally find it more logical that he intended to refer to the Jewish Torah that he and everyone around him recognized, rather the not-as-yet-invented Christian conception of the Law.

Personally, I think referring to someone's interpretation of an English passage translated out of Hebrew as being "literal" is at all times streatching the concept of literality to its breaking point. Languages do not represent the world in exactly in the same way. "Torah" here is a Hebrew word transliterated (probably) into Aramaic, then (definitely) into Greek, then translated into English first by a royal court commission that explicitly hated the ever-living fuck out of the Jewish people. You really think there's a strictly literal meaning preserved well after four stages of translation each with their avalanche of political baggage, and that literal meaning is whatever occurs to you rather and above what scholars have concluded?

I reject the notion that the only reason you would interpret the Bible "non-literally" is to avoid some sort of rhetorical game an atheist is playing. If that were true, I would always interpret things more or less literally until a conflict or logical error was pointed out, at which point I would "switch" to speaking symbolically or allegorically about that particular passage alone. Whereas I think textual literalism is a stupid way to read any book, let alone a sacred text. It'dbe a stupid way to read a damn phone book, let alone the Bhagavad Gita.

 

[Hermit]

If when he said "the Law" he meant the fundamental principle that governs the world, then his statement that it "cannot be abolished" is likewise simply literally true, as opposed to being the basis of some legal or moral system.

Um, verse 19 makes it obvious that Jesus is talking about the legal/moral system: "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

 

[Politesse]

If when he said "the Law" he meant the fundamental principle that governs the world, then his statement that it "cannot be abolished" is likewise simply literally true, as opposed to being the basis of some legal or moral system.

Um, verse 19 makes it obvious that Jesus is talking about the legal/moral system: "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

That, again, depends on what you think he was referring to in the first place.

 

[steve_bank]

What woud a Jewish preacher/rabbi be talking a about ohter than Jewish law?

 

[Hermit]

If when he said "the Law" he meant the fundamental principle that governs the world, then his statement that it "cannot be abolished" is likewise simply literally true, as opposed to being the basis of some legal or moral system.

Um, verse 19 makes it obvious that Jesus is talking about the legal/moral system: "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

That, again, depends on what you think he was referring to in the first place.

So, explain to me how it is likewise simply literally true that the laws Jesus has come to fulfill rather than to destroy is just as likely the fundamental principle that governs the world as the legal or moral system. You'll need to show how that gels with verse 19.

 

[DBT]

It seems to me that saying - 'think not that I have come to abolish the law of the prophets' - is making a literal statement.

 

[steve_bank]

We should all get together, have a conversion, start a TV church, and get rich. We have got the theology debate down.

Pick a version. A demonstraion of how interprtaion occurs during traslation.

Matthew 5:17 - The Fulfillment of the Law

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.

biblehub.com

New International Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

New Living Translation
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

English Standard Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Berean Study Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.

Berean Literal Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.

King James Bible
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

New King James Version
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

New American Standard Bible
“Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.

NASB 1995
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

NASB 1977
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.

Amplified Bible
“Do not think that I came to do away with or undo the Law [of Moses] or the [writings of the] Prophets; I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

Christian Standard Bible
“Don’t think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
“Don’t assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

American Standard Version
Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Do not think that I have come to revoke The Written Law or The Prophets; I am not come to revoke but to fulfill.

Contemporary English Version
Don't suppose I came to do away with the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to do away with them, but to give them their full meaning.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

English Revised Version
Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill.

Good News Translation
"Do not think that I have come to do away with the Law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets. I have not come to do away with them, but to make their teachings come true.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
"Don't ever think that I came to set aside Moses' Teachings or the Prophets. I didn't come to set them aside but to make them come true.

International Standard Version
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I didn't come to destroy them, but to fulfill them,

Literal Standard Version
Do not suppose that I came to throw down the Law or the Prophets—I did not come to throw down, but to fulfill;

NET Bible
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them.

New Heart English Bible
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

Weymouth New Testament
"Do not for a moment suppose that I have come to abrogate the Law or the Prophets: I have not come to abrogate them but to give them their completion.

World English Bible
"Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill.

Young's Literal Translation
'Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or the prophets -- I did not come to throw down, but to fulfil;

 

[Politesse]

If when he said "the Law" he meant the fundamental principle that governs the world, then his statement that it "cannot be abolished" is likewise simply literally true, as opposed to being the basis of some legal or moral system.

Um, verse 19 makes it obvious that Jesus is talking about the legal/moral system: "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

That, again, depends on what you think he was referring to in the first place.

So, explain to me how it is likewise simply literally true that the laws Jesus has come to fulfill rather than to destroy is just as likely the fundamental principle that governs the world as the legal or moral system. You'll need to show how that gels with verse 19.

No difference, from a Hebrew perspective. Their moral and legal perspective was one that flowed from the will of the unnameable G-d. What you're getting hung up on is the connection to scrolls. Jesus' conception of Torah is not necessarily of something defied by its physical representation in a scriptorium, and in fact that read is very difficult to support. Jesus obviously wasn't a textual literalist, or if he was he was a rank hypocrite, as he broke the Sabbat rules many times and taught his disciples to do likewise.

 

[Hermit]

If when he said "the Law" he meant the fundamental principle that governs the world, then his statement that it "cannot be abolished" is likewise simply literally true, as opposed to being the basis of some legal or moral system.

Um, verse 19 makes it obvious that Jesus is talking about the legal/moral system: "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

That, again, depends on what you think he was referring to in the first place.

So, explain to me how it is likewise simply literally true that the laws Jesus has come to fulfill rather than to destroy is just as likely the fundamental principle that governs the world as the legal or moral system. You'll need to show how that gels with verse 19.

No difference, from a Hebrew perspective. Their moral and legal perspective was one that flowed from the will of the unnameable G-d. What you're getting hung up on is the connection to scrolls. Jesus' conception of Torah is not necessarily of something defied by its physical representation in a scriptorium, and in fact that read is very difficult to support. Jesus obviously wasn't a textual literalist, or if he was he was a rank hypocrite, as he broke the Sabbat rules many times and taught his disciples to do likewise.

Even if there was no conceptual difference to the ancient Hebrews between the fundamental principle that governs the world and the legal or moral system, it makes no difference to what Jesus meant. He has not come to destroy the Law or the Prophets, the Law being a matter of moral behaviour. This is made crystal clear in verse 19: "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

 

[steve_bank]

And that brings us around to a recurring theme, exactly what morality is presented in the bible? In terms of behavior the ancient Hebrews were not much different than the rest. Abraham as we would say today pimped out his wife.

Other than the 10 Commandments there is a list of 613 commandments that can be pulled out of the OT. Some bizarre. The death penalties in Leviticus.

Jesus left no coherent moral philosophy. Given he was Jewish quoting scripture he would not have. Buddhism predating Jesus by about 300 years left a very clear set of moral principles.

The Code Of Hammurabi was a consistent legal and moral system. In comparison the OT is a jumbled mess of unconected texts that survived. The OT books were written across centuries with no coherent theme.

 

[Politesse]

If when he said "the Law" he meant the fundamental principle that governs the world, then his statement that it "cannot be abolished" is likewise simply literally true, as opposed to being the basis of some legal or moral system.

Um, verse 19 makes it obvious that Jesus is talking about the legal/moral system: "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

That, again, depends on what you think he was referring to in the first place.

So, explain to me how it is likewise simply literally true that the laws Jesus has come to fulfill rather than to destroy is just as likely the fundamental principle that governs the world as the legal or moral system. You'll need to show how that gels with verse 19.

No difference, from a Hebrew perspective. Their moral and legal perspective was one that flowed from the will of the unnameable G-d. What you're getting hung up on is the connection to scrolls. Jesus' conception of Torah is not necessarily of something defied by its physical representation in a scriptorium, and in fact that read is very difficult to support. Jesus obviously wasn't a textual literalist, or if he was he was a rank hypocrite, as he broke the Sabbat rules many times and taught his disciples to do likewise.

Even if there was no conceptual difference to the ancient Hebrews between the fundamental principle that governs the world and the legal or moral system, it makes no difference to what Jesus meant. He has not come to destroy the Law or the Prophets, the Law being a matter of moral behaviour. This is made crystal clear in verse 19: "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Correct. Again, your confusion stems from assuming that "Torah" refers to the scrolls that today make up the Christian Old Testament. No one is denying here that God and his covenant with the Jewish people were considered the basis of correct moral law and social order.

Your read is nonsensical. You're quoting poetry at me from Jeremiah as evidence that nothing other than the literal was ever meant by the covenant of God. I guess you think God was literally planning to emboss the New Testament onto people's organs, in the verse you quoted? He had better type small, there aren't a lot of free spaces on a heart not taken up by important vascula.

 

[Hermit]

If when he said "the Law" he meant the fundamental principle that governs the world, then his statement that it "cannot be abolished" is likewise simply literally true, as opposed to being the basis of some legal or moral system.

Um, verse 19 makes it obvious that Jesus is talking about the legal/moral system: "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

That, again, depends on what you think he was referring to in the first place.

So, explain to me how it is likewise simply literally true that the laws Jesus has come to fulfill rather than to destroy is just as likely the fundamental principle that governs the world as the legal or moral system. You'll need to show how that gels with verse 19.

No difference, from a Hebrew perspective. Their moral and legal perspective was one that flowed from the will of the unnameable G-d. What you're getting hung up on is the connection to scrolls. Jesus' conception of Torah is not necessarily of something defied by its physical representation in a scriptorium, and in fact that read is very difficult to support. Jesus obviously wasn't a textual literalist, or if he was he was a rank hypocrite, as he broke the Sabbat rules many times and taught his disciples to do likewise.

Even if there was no conceptual difference to the ancient Hebrews between the fundamental principle that governs the world and the legal or moral system, it makes no difference to what Jesus meant. He has not come to destroy the Law or the Prophets, the Law being a matter of moral behaviour. This is made crystal clear in verse 19: "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Correct. Again, your confusion stems from assuming that "Torah" refers to the scrolls that today make up the Christian Old Testament. No one is denying here that God and his covenant with the Jewish people were considered the basis of correct moral law and social order.

Your read is nonsensical. You're quoting poetry at me from Jeremiah as evidence that nothing other than the literal was ever meant by the covenant of God. I guess you think God was literally planning to emboss the New Testament onto people's organs, in the verse you quoted? He had better type small, there aren't a lot of free spaces on a heart not taken up by important vascula.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 is not meant as evidence that nothing other than the literal was ever meant by the covenant of God. I have no idea where you got that from.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 is not poetry either. It is one of many prophecies in the old testament. Jesus contradicts it in Matthew 5:17-19. Hence the mental acrobatics aimed at convincing us that Matthew 5:17-19 does not mean what it actually says.

 

[steve_bank]

Christianity is the invention of a number of people over centuries, some of which was accepts and some suppressed ot rejected.

First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The First Council of Nicaea (/naɪˈsiːə/; Ancient Greek: Νίκαια [ˈnikεa]) was a council of Christian bishops convened in the Bithynian city of Nicaea (now İznik, Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325.

This ecumenical council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all Christendom. Hosius of Corduba may have presided over its deliberations.[4][5]

Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the divine nature of God the Son and his relationship to God the Father,[2] the construction of the first part of the Nicene Creed, mandating uniform observance of the date of Easter,[6] and promulgation of early canon law.[3][7]

While Constantine had sought a unified church after the Council, he did not force the homoousian view of Christ's nature on the Council (see The role of Constantine).

Constantine did not commission any Bibles at the Council itself. He did commission fifty Bibles in 331 for use in the churches of Constantinople, itself still a new city. No historical evidence points to involvement on his part in selecting or omitting books for inclusion in commissioned Bibles.

Despite Constantine's sympathetic interest in the Church, he was not baptized until some 11 or 12 years after the Council, putting off baptism as long as he did so as to be absolved from as much sin as possible.[98]

One of the projects undertaken by the Council was the creation of a Creed, a declaration and summary of the Christian faith. Several creeds were already in existence; many creeds were acceptable to the members of the Council, including Arius. From earliest times, various creeds served as a means of identification for Christians, as a means of inclusion and recognition, especially at baptism.

In Rome, for example, the Apostles' Creed was popular, especially for use in Lent and the Easter season. In the Council of Nicaea, one specific creed was used to define the Church's faith clearly, to include those who professed it, and to exclude those who did not.

The original Nicene Creed read as follows:

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down, and became incarnate and became man, and suffered, and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and dead, And in the Holy Spirit. But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or created, or is subject to alteration or change - these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.[63]

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's a fun little fact, or metafact, about the Christian/Byzantinian Iconoclast debate. It's origins was the fact that the Byzantinian church venerated icons. In the 630 the rise of Islam came and fucked the Byzantinians over completely. This led to Byzantinian Christians on a journey on finding the sinning scapegoat. The ONLY reason they lost must have been because God was angry with them for something. It couldn't possibly be that the Muslims used tactics that the Byzantinian military system was not designed to combat. Nope. After a hundred years of military defeats the debate came to settle on, for or against icons. Either it was idolatrous and sinful, or the icons gave Christians special powers to help them beat the Muslims. Basically, to win we need to venerate the icons more or less.

But here's the thing about empire. Building sustainable power structures takes a long time. Any empire that spreads fast, is inherently unstable and often collapses just as quickly as it forms. The empire under Alexander the Great is a good analogue. Quite soon after the Caliphate was formed emirs questioned why the caliph was the caliph, and why they weren't? According to Muslim ideology, Mohammed was special, nobody else was. The Shia/sunni split (ie, the bit that was former Sassanian vs the bit that used to be the Byzantine empire ) happened immediately after Mohammed died. The rest was bit by bit shaking itself to bits under internal strain. From about 750 the caliphate was rocked by seemingly endless civil wars. The caliphs did little else but put down rebellions. This made them vulnerable to external attacks and by 850 the Byzantine empire was again the biggest kid on the block (it was a bunch of significant battles won around this year, that gave the Byzantines their confidence back).

So when did the iconoclast debate end? That's right 850. The moment the Byzantine emperor was kicking ass again the time of soul searching was over. The guy in charge liked icons. So the iconoclasts were out. And it had nothing to do with any improvement among the the Byzantinians. The iconoclast debate/conflict only acted to weaken the empire. It's just that the Byzantine empire was an older empire, so had a bunch of traditions that had evolved to keep it together. By design Byzans/Rome was made so that the top guy was eminently replaceable. The Caliphate was not built that way. They just weathered internal division and strife better than the Muslims which is why they came out on top. Well... for now. Soon the Turks will take over the Caliphate and then... But that's later.

My point is that after 850 the Byzantinians were successful despite sucking.

There's a lesson here about politics in general. Sometimes your guy is successful despite sucking. Or the reverse. Just because the guy at the top was holding the reigns at some great boon time might not at all have anything to do with anything he did. History is a lot of random shit we only figure out how it worked hundreds of years later. Our own time will obviously be the same.

 

[steve_bank]

The ROMAN Catholic Church. It was modeled on Rome. The RCC once had irs own army.

Pope - Emporer
College Of Cardinals Senate

 

[DrZoidberg]

The ROMAN Catholic Church. It was modeled on Rome. The RCC once had irs own army.

Pope - Emporer
College Of Cardinals Senate

I don't think that is accurate.

Ceasar was the pontifex maximus before becoming a general and then dictator. It's just an accident in history. Because of this a tradition developed where the emperor would also be the pontifex maximus. But there was a long tradition already of what the pontifex maximus should be doing, which had little to do with weilding secular power. Those traditions persisted in the empire.

Constantine was the one who famously decided to perform his pagan rituals in private, (perhaps because he didn't want people to know he wasn't doing them?). After Constantine the Christian emperors at no point performed any pagan rituals (except Julian).

It was Theodosius I, (60 years after Rome became Christian) who broke with the tradition and who invested the bishop of Rome with that title instead of himself. But at that point the role of the Bishop of Rome was firmly established, is quite distinct from pontifex maximus, and is largely the same as the pope today. The addition of the papal title changed nothing. It was a bit like when Idi Amin was crowned the king of Scotland. He didn't change one iota nor did the Scots care.

The collage of cardinals is quite distinct from the senate. The college consists of priests. The senatorial class is just another word for the top level of the aristocracy. In Christian times senators might send some of their members into the clergy, to get rid of them. But the senators always looked down on the college of cardinals.

Under the emperors the power of the senators kept shrinking. Dioclecian (250 AD? was the one who made them officially politically irrelevant. After that being a senator just meant you were rich. Nothing else. By the time the cardinals had actual power senators hadn't met to dicuss and vote on politics for over a century. They stayed in their country estates and enjoyed the good life.

So I think you are seeing patterns that don't really map to reality

 

[steve_bank]

It is what I recall reading or hearing in a documentary. It is not a perfect analogy, but the RCC was definitly 'empire'. The popes were occupied with military conflict, power, and acquisition of wealth. The pope was a major political power.

The Vatican had palace intrigue and power factions including assassinations. The Vatican has a modern history of corruption and intrgue. The Vatcan bank was involved with organized crime. There is internal power politics.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It is what I recall reading or hearing in a documentary. It is not a perfect analogy, but the RCC was definitly 'empire'. The popes were occupied with military conflict, power, and acquisition of wealth. The pope was a major political power.

The Vatican had palace intrigue and power factions including assassinations. The Vatican has a modern history of corruption and intrgue. The Vatcan bank was involved with organized crime. There is internal power politics.

There is no topic with so many bullshit documentaries that unless the information is from an academic book or a nerdy academic podcast based on those books, it's going to be bullshit. Yes history channel, I am looking at you