Celebrating the Season of War

[Apologiaphoenix]

Onward Christian Soldiers!

---------

Is everything just merry and bright? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This Christmas for most of us here in the West, Christmas is indeed merry and bright. It will have us coming together with friends and family to celebrate the coming of Jesus. We will exchange gifts, have meals, sing carols, and any number of other traditions.

It's a time of war.

That description doesn't sound like war....

Yet it really is a time of war and we don't realize it because we have it so good in the West. Imagine if you were celebrating this holiday in a Muslim nation where you are proclaiming God incarnate coming. Imagine celebrating it in a country like China. In a number of countries, being a Christian is a death sentence.

It was like that in the Roman Empire as well. A number of Christians faced the death penalty because of the charge of atheism. It was not safe to be a Christian.

This shouldn't surprise us because in the Bible, Christmas is presented as a time of war.

Go to Revelation 12. It's really my favorite rendition of the Christmas story. In this account, you see the birth of Jesus and when the devil can't kill Him, he goes out to seek war on all of the saints. By the way, this is a problem for a totally futurist view of the book of Revelation. It's really difficult to see this as anything other than the birth of Christ.

As a result of God coming into the world, war was declared. If we were really being accurate going to church, we should wear military gear. We often think we will go to get a feel-good message and encouragement, and there's nothing wrong with such encouragement, but we should also consider that we are going to get our marching orders as we are soldiers for the Kingdom of God seeking its spread.

The world has never reconciled to the coming of God. There is still a desire to shut down Christianity. In the West, we are starting to see this more and more as the sexual revolution's fruit is still going strong and more and more, movements are being made against Christianity. We could fear what happens, but it could be one of our greatest gifts. Christianity taken for granted tends to grow weak, much like anything that is taken for granted.

We are right now living in contested territory. We are living in a world where the forces of good and evil are constantly facing off against one another. As someone who studies video games and Christianity, this is something I find easy to understand as a game often throws us into a world where it is good vs. evil fighting constantly.

Go and enjoy Christmas by all means. There is something to celebrate. Jesus did come in the flesh and did start the battle. We are to go and announce the good news that not only the king came, but that the king is still reigning right now. None of this is the case if it hadn't been that that original birth took place. (And I do affirm the virgin birth.)

Merry Christmas.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth!)

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

---------


It was like that in the Roman Empire as well. A number of Christians faced the death penalty because of the charge of atheism. It was not safe to be a Christian.

From where did you obtain that little nugget of nonsense?

[rogue06]

From where did you obtain that little nugget of nonsense?

From c.177 A.D., Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians, 3:

Chapter 3. Charges Brought Against the Christians.

Three things are alleged against us: atheism, Thyestean feasts, Œdipodean intercourse.

From shortly before, Martyrdom of Polycarp 3:2; 9:2:

Chapter 3. The constancy of Germanicus. The death of Polycarp is demanded

For the devil did indeed invent many things against them; but thanks be to God, he could not prevail over all. For the most noble Germanicus strengthened the timidity of others by his own patience, and fought heroically with the wild beasts. For, when the proconsul sought to persuade him, and urged him to take pity upon his age, he attracted the wild beast towards himself, and provoked it, being desirous to escape all the more quickly from an unrighteous and impious world. But upon this the whole multitude, marvelling at the nobility of mind displayed by the devout and godly race of Christians, cried out, "Away with the Atheists; let Polycarp be sought out!"

Chapter 9. Polycarp refuses to revile Christ

Now, as Polycarp was entering into the stadium, there came to him a voice from heaven, saying, "Be strong, and show yourself a man, O Polycarp!" No one saw who it was that spoke to him; but those of our brethren who were present heard the voice. And as he was brought forward, the tumult became great when they heard that Polycarp was taken. And when he came near, the proconsul asked him whether he was Polycarp. On his confessing that he was, [the proconsul] sought to persuade him to deny [Christ], saying, "Have respect to your old age," and other similar things, according to their custom, [such as], "Swear by the fortune of Cæsar; repent, and say, Away with the Atheists." But Polycarp, gazing with a stern countenance on all the multitude of the wicked heathen then in the stadium, and waving his hand towards them, while with groans he looked up to heaven, said, Away with the Atheists. Then, the proconsul urging him, and saying, "Swear, and I will set you at liberty, reproach Christ;" Polycarp declared, "Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?"

Basically, what was meant is that Christians rejected the traditional, government-sanctioned Greco-Roman gods and the cult of the Emperor.

History of atheism: Classical Greek and Rome

52324fc8-896b-4f59-a267-5463c5731971.jpg

:

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

From c.177 A.D., Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians, 3:

Chapter 3. Charges Brought Against the Christians.

Three things are alleged against us: atheism, Thyestean feasts, Œdipodean intercourse.

From shortly before, Martyrdom of Polycarp 3:2; 9:2:

Chapter 3. The constancy of Germanicus. The death of Polycarp is demanded

For the devil did indeed invent many things against them; but thanks be to God, he could not prevail over all. For the most noble Germanicus strengthened the timidity of others by his own patience, and fought heroically with the wild beasts. For, when the proconsul sought to persuade him, and urged him to take pity upon his age, he attracted the wild beast towards himself, and provoked it, being desirous to escape all the more quickly from an unrighteous and impious world. But upon this the whole multitude, marvelling at the nobility of mind displayed by the devout and godly race of Christians, cried out, "Away with the Atheists; let Polycarp be sought out!"

Chapter 9. Polycarp refuses to revile Christ

Now, as Polycarp was entering into the stadium, there came to him a voice from heaven, saying, "Be strong, and show yourself a man, O Polycarp!" No one saw who it was that spoke to him; but those of our brethren who were present heard the voice. And as he was brought forward, the tumult became great when they heard that Polycarp was taken. And when he came near, the proconsul asked him whether he was Polycarp. On his confessing that he was, [the proconsul] sought to persuade him to deny [Christ], saying, "Have respect to your old age," and other similar things, according to their custom, [such as], "Swear by the fortune of Cæsar; repent, and say, Away with the Atheists." But Polycarp, gazing with a stern countenance on all the multitude of the wicked heathen then in the stadium, and waving his hand towards them, while with groans he looked up to heaven, said, Away with the Atheists. Then, the proconsul urging him, and saying, "Swear, and I will set you at liberty, reproach Christ;" Polycarp declared, "Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?"

The Martyrdom of Polycarp is supposed to have been written in the middle of the second century and to be the first text to recognise the category of the martyr and develop a real theology of martyrdom.

Basically, what was meant is that Christians rejected the traditional, government-sanctioned Greco-Roman gods and the cult of the Emperor.

Yet many seem to have been prepared to make their sacrifice, or find legal loopholes, or resorted to bribery, or simply laid low.

Hence the controversy over the lapsi.

History of atheism: Classical Greek and Rome

52324fc8-896b-4f59-a267-5463c5731971.jpg

Ah! Your favourite reference source.

[rogue06]

The Martyrdom of Polycarp is supposed to have been written in the middle of the second century and to be the first text to recognise the category of the martyr and develop a real theology of martyrdom.

That's nice.

It also provides witness to Christians being accused of being atheists, which was what you were scoffing at.

Yet many seem to have been prepared to make their sacrifice, or find legal loopholes, or resorted to bribery, or simply laid low.

Hence the controversy over the lapsi.

Absolutely.

But you'll note that they were doing so to avoid accusations of being atheists, which was what you were scoffing at.

Ah! Your favourite reference source.

Whatever.

And yet again, it also provides evidence that early Christians were persecuted for being atheists, which you were scoffing at.

Since you didn't refute the evidence offered is that an indication that you now recognize that AP was right when he said

It was like that in the Roman Empire as well. A number of Christians faced the death penalty because of the charge of atheism. It was not safe to be a Christian.

I mean it sounds like you owe AP an apology for calling that which has been verified as accurate, a "little nugget of nonsense."

[tabibito]

That's nice.

It also provides witness to Christians being accused of being atheists, which was what you were scoffing at.


Absolutely.

But you'll note that they were doing so to avoid accusations of being atheists, which was what you were scoffing at.


Whatever.

And yet again, it also provides evidence that early Christians were persecuted for being atheists, which you were scoffing at.

Since you didn't refute the evidence offered is that an indication that you now recognize that AP was right when he said

It was like that in the Roman Empire as well. A number of Christians faced the death penalty because of the charge of atheism. It was not safe to be a Christian.

I mean it sounds like you owe AP an apology for calling that which has been verified as accurate, a "little nugget of nonsense."

Romans had this technique of "cutting off the head" (For the sake of the analogy challenged: getting rid of the leaders) in its conquests. With the leadership eliminated, the rest of the nation was more tractable. They followed the same procedure when they were dealing with Christian communities - removing the most learned, able, and prominent members; and leaving the rest more or less unmolested.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That's nice.

It also provides witness to Christians being accused of being atheists, which was what you were scoffing at.

The accusation of "atheism" [Latin deos non colere] is not as simple as you [or AP] would wish to suggest. This was not about having no gods but the refusal to recognise the gods, thereby threatening the fabric of society and endangering what the Romans called the pax deorum [the peace of the gods] that is, the correct harmonious relationship between gods and men.

But you'll note that they were doing so to avoid accusations of being atheists, which was what you were scoffing at.

They offered sacrifice to save themselves and/or their property. Or they laid low, or they bribed officials to provide evidence that they had made sacrifice when they had not.

Since you didn't refute the evidence offered is that an indication that you now recognize that AP was right when he said.

Not strictly. He gave no qualification and provided no contemporary context.

I mean it sounds like you owe AP an apology for calling that which has been verified as accurate, a "little nugget of nonsense."

Written as a bald statement it is nonsense. The charge was not atheism as we now understand that word. That Christians denied the existence of the non-Christian deities was regarded by the contemporary society as being akin to atheism, to deny the gods threatened the wider society..

Their removal of themselves from certain aspects of society and their holding of such eccentric beliefs seemed like superstition. Being designated as a superstitio meant that Christianity was akin to a disease. It wasn’t a true religion or philosophy; it was foreign and inherently anti-Roman.

And we know from earlier periods in Roman history that cults deemed subversive or which threatened the status quo were considered dangerous and were repressed..

[tabibito]

The accusation of "atheism" [Latin deos non colere] is not as simple as you [or AP] would wish to suggest. This was not about having no gods but the refusal to recognise the gods, thereby threatening the fabric of society and endangering what the Romans called the pax deorum [the peace of the gods] that is, the correct harmonious relationship between gods and men.

They offered sacrifice to save themselves and/or their property. Or they laid low, or they bribed officials to provide evidence that they had made sacrifice when they had not.

Not strictly. He gave no qualification and provided no contemporary context.

Written as a bald statement it is nonsense. The charge was not atheism as we now understand that word. That Christians denied the existence of the non-Christian deities was regarded by the contemporary society as being akin to atheism, to deny the gods threatened the wider society..

Their removal of themselves from certain aspects of society and their holding of such eccentric beliefs seemed like superstition. Being designated as a superstitio meant that Christianity was akin to a disease. It wasn’t a true religion or philosophy; it was foreign and inherently anti-Roman.

And we know from earlier periods in Roman history that cults deemed subversive or which threatened the status quo were considered dangerous and were repressed..

In short: AP was correct, save for some inconsequential quibbles about precise definitions.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

In short: AP was correct, save for some inconsequential quibbles about precise definitions.

Accurate and contextualised definitions are so often considered to be "inconsequential quibbles" by some on these boards.

[rogue06]

Romans had this technique of "cutting off the head" (For the sake of the analogy challenged: getting rid of the leaders) in its conquests. With the leadership eliminated, the rest of the nation was more tractable. They followed the same procedure when they were dealing with Christian communities - removing the most learned, able, and prominent members; and leaving the rest more or less unmolested.

The Romans weren't alone in employing this tactic, it is pretty common. But I fail to see any relevance.

[tabibito]

The Romans weren't alone in employing this tactic, it is pretty common. But I fail to see any relevance.

Additional information, perhaps of no particular consequence - not before Chalcedon being the fifth ecumenical council is taken into account, anyway.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Romans had this technique of "cutting off the head" (For the sake of the analogy challenged: getting rid of the leaders) in its conquests. With the leadership eliminated, the rest of the nation was more tractable. They followed the same procedure when they were dealing with Christian communities - removing the most learned, able, and prominent members; and leaving the rest more or less unmolested.

[rogue06]

The accusation of "atheism" [Latin deos non colere] is not as simple as you [or AP] would wish to suggest. This was not about having no gods but the refusal to recognise the gods, thereby threatening the fabric of society and endangering what the Romans called the pax deorum [the peace of the gods] that is, the correct harmonious relationship between gods and men.

Given that I already explained that

Basically, what was meant is that Christians rejected the traditional, government-sanctioned Greco-Roman gods and the cult of the Emperor.

As did the Wiki entry, why do you suppose it necessary to repeat it, or feel it was necessary? Another round of "I knows stuff"?

Your snarky request to explain "From where did you obtain that little nugget of nonsense?" was answered and your sneering was shown to be unwarranted. Are you going to apologize to AP?

They offered sacrifice to save themselves and/or their property. Or they laid low, or they bribed officials to provide evidence that they had made sacrifice when they had not.

You already said that. Why are you merely repeating what has already been covered?

In any case. as explained, they were doing so to avoid accusations of being atheists, which was what you were scoffing at.

Not strictly. He gave no qualification and provided no contemporary context.

Regardless of whether or not he supported his claim, it has been more than adequately demonstrated that he was right and that you're acting to the contrary is duplicitous.

Put on your big girl panties and acknowledge it.

Written as a bald statement it is nonsense. The charge was not atheism as we now understand that word.

His statement was in no way in error. It was absolutely correct. Maybe the self-declared academic historian who's specialty is the Classical Period was ignorant of what was meant when Christians were charged with being atheists back then?

That Christians denied the existence of the non-Christian deities was regarded by the contemporary society as being akin to atheism, to deny the gods threatened the wider society..

Their removal of themselves from certain aspects of society and their holding of such eccentric beliefs seemed like superstition. Being designated as a superstitio meant that Christianity was akin to a disease. It wasn’t a true religion or philosophy; it was foreign and inherently anti-Roman.

And we know from earlier periods in Roman history that cults deemed subversive or which threatened the status quo were considered dangerous and were repressed..

That is correct Frau "I knows stuff." It also does nothing to counter the fact, as AP said

It was like that in the Roman Empire as well. A number of Christians faced the death penalty because of the charge of atheism. It was not safe to be a Christian.

Put on your big girl panties and acknowledge it.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Given that I already explained that

Basically, what was meant is that Christians rejected the traditional, government-sanctioned Greco-Roman gods and the cult of the Emperor.

As did the Wiki entry, why do you suppose it necessary to repeat it, or feel it was necessary? Another round of "I knows stuff"?

Your snarky request to explain "From where did you obtain that little nugget of nonsense?" was answered and your sneering was shown to be unwarranted. Are you going to apologize to AP?


You already said that. Why are you merely repeating what has already been covered?

In any case. as explained, they were doing so to avoid accusations of being atheists, which was what you were scoffing at.


Regardless of whether or not he supported his claim, it has been more than adequately demonstrated that he was right and that you're acting to the contrary is duplicitous.

Put on your big girl panties and acknowledge it.


His statement was in no way in error. It was absolutely correct. Maybe the self-declared academic historian who's specialty is the Classical Period was ignorant of what was meant when Christians were charged with being atheists back then?


That is correct Frau "I knows stuff." It also does nothing to counter the fact, as AP said

It was like that in the Roman Empire as well. A number of Christians faced the death penalty because of the charge of atheism. It was not safe to be a Christian.

Put on your big girl panties and acknowledge it.

, save for some inconsequential quibbles about precise definitions.

That very neatly sums up the responses of those who prefer generalisations, vague statements, and uncontextualized comments.

Several here also forget [or more likely do not know] that the Roman state religion also had a political aspect.

[tabibito]

That very neatly sums up the responses of those who prefer generalisations, vague statements, and uncontextualized comments.

Several here also forget [or more likely do not know] that the Roman state religion also had a political aspect.

1/ This is a site for informal discussion, not for academically rigourously correct in every nit-picking particular presentations.
2/ In sites such as this, Wiki is entirely acceptable: the only reason it is not acceptable in academic presentations is that the content of a presentation can change without notice. Of course, in academic presentations, the writer is expected to verify that the footnotes are valid (but even in academic presentations, that seems to be a reasonably rare process.)
3/ The entire content of your offending post is "From where did you obtain that little nugget of nonsense?" There was no attempt to explain where it was deficient, nor any attempt at even basic civility; just a very obvious display of arrogant disregard for courtesy.
4/ Very few societies of 2000 years ago separated religion and state, and in the later Roman empire, the emperor was also the pontifex maximus.