On Friday, February 24, 2006 at 10:29:55 AM UTC-8, erl...@bredband.net wrote:   
   > The Roman Empire was religiously tolerant. The state allowed people   
   > from different parts of the empire to keep their own religions. Often,   
   > old and new cults from different parts of the empire were merged   
   > together, that is, there was a lot of _syncretism_ of religions.   
   >    
   > But there was one exception from this Roman tolerance against   
   > religions: Christianity. As I understand it, Christianity was illegal   
   > in the Roman Empire from its appearance in the 1st century A.D. until   
   > Emperor Constantine made it legal in the 4th century. There were many   
   > Christian martyrs that were executed during this period, and there were   
   > major waves of persecution about 250 A.D. during Emperor Decius and   
   > about 300 A.D. during Emperor Diocletian.   
   >    
   > Why? What was the difference between Christianity and other religions,   
   > that made the Romans feel it necessary to ban Christianity and to   
   > persecute and execute Christians?   
   > After all, most Christians were law abiding citizens that just wanted   
   > to mind their own business and, to some extent, convert others. Yet, to   
   > waste so much energy and resources in persecution of Christians, the   
   > Romans must have considered the Christians as a seriuos threat against   
   > society. What was that threat they perceived?   
   >    
   > One possible answer is that the Christians refused to worship the   
   > Emperor, a costum that was made mandatory by the state, and that most   
   > other religions accepted. But this can hardly be all of it, because the   
   > Jews didn't worship the Emperor either, and the Romans granted them an   
   > exception from that rule. Why couldn't the Christians get a similar   
   > exception?   
   >    
   > Could it be the apocalyptics of Early Christianity that was the   
   > problem? The Early Christians believed in a Second Coming of Christ in   
   > the _near_ future, when major upheavals would occur and the world as   
   > they knew it would be destroyed. Perhaps the Romans feared that the   
   > Christians would not just passively wait for this, but also actively   
   > try to cause these upheavals and destruction? If so, the Romans would   
   > naturally consider the Christians as very dangerous potential   
   > troublemakers. And perpaps this fear wasn't entirely unfounded.   
   > Couldn't there actually have existed fringe Christians that wanted to   
   > expedite the Second Coming of Christ in this way? If so, the blame cast   
   > upon the Christians by Emperor Nero for setting fire to Rome in 64 A.D.   
   > might have appeared as quite justified by the public...   
   >    
   > But that's only my own speculations. Does anybode have some more   
   > definite knowledge about this?   
   >    
   > Regards,   
   >    
   > Erland Gadde   
      
   Again nobody seems to remember why Christ was executed. Follow the money. The   
   early church had issues with money in religion. When Christ flipped over the   
   tables the priests flipped out and had him killed. The early church was   
   creating a social structure    
   that did not depend on money. This was a great threat to Rome.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)