The King of the Jews

[Arie]

Just to share some things I've learned.

When Jesus walked the earth...  after he healed a good number,  the common people wanted to make him King... a material king.  The concept of a coming Messiah or Savior was deep-rooted in Jewish culture.

Of course this is normal and natural considering the Roman oppression that was going on at the time.  Jesus's mission was spiritual in nature... so most of the Jews simply did not comprehend it... they were material-minded.

It is sad to say...  that this very concept of the King of the Jews having a material significance... is what caused the destruction of Jerusulem by the Romans.

[Palehorse]

Agreed completely.  This thought that the messiah would be an earthly king and military leader who would defeat Rome was what incited some of the Jews to provoke the Romans into a war they couldn't win, and then it was what made the rest stay in Jerusalem until it was surrounded, and eventually destroyed.  Jesus had more to say and more explicit prophecies about this event than perhaps any other topic, but unfortunately very few people understood or believed him.  This continues today, which is why Revelation, which describes that war in apocolyptic terms, is probably the most misunderstood book in the Bible.

Unfortunately, modern Christians and Jews do not seem to have learned the lessons of history.  Today America is on the verge of being bled to death and bankrupted gradually by spreading its military thin in too many unnecessary conflicts, in much the same way the Roman empire spread itself to the point that its defenses were gradually chipped away by repeated barbarian invasions.  The Jews (at least the Zionist ones) have not learned the lessons of their historical persecutions and exiles, and are unfortunately using their relatively newfound power to persecute and exile others.  Both fully believe God is on their side in all their efforts.  Neither would recognize the messiah if he were to come again today.  Both might very well see a day of reckoning in our lifetime, in much the same way Jerusalem, and later Rome, paid dearly for their offenses all those centuries ago.  The parallels are numerous, and more than slightly eerie.

I ascribe to a partial-preterist view on Revelation, which is to say that most of the book was fulfilled by the Roman/Jewish war and surrounding events, but there is a bit toward the end of the book that has not been fulfilled by any historical circumstances from what I can tell.  IMO, history trails off at about Rev. 20:7, where Satan is loosened after the 1000 year period, after which comes the battle of Armageddon.

Just a brief look at current events says that the part where Israel is "surrounded by armies" is not all that farfetched, especially if America is too tied up in other military commitments to come to her aid.  As dire a situation as this would be, I believe there may be a silver lining.

It is a generally not too well understood fact that in the Bible, fire is commonly used as a metaphor for purification, and positive (though potentially painful) change.  Well, just as the armies surround Jerusalem and prepare to invade, "fire came down from Heaven and devoured the enemies of God."  I take "the enemies of God" in this instance, not to refer to human beings, but rather the carnal ego that makes them engage in these futile activities.  Thus, if I'm right, then just when things are at their worst, there will be some event that causes people to come to a rather sudden realization of the foolishness of their actions, and stop warring with each other.

A bit too idealistic?  Maybe.  But I think that at this point, praying for a miracle seems pretty appropriate.

[Arie]

Thanks for the reply... very perceptive and unique,  I have not truly studied the Book of Revelation in depth as of yet,  but will look into it more.

Take care.

[Gandalf]

as far as I'm aware 'king of te Jews' was the usual title for any jewish king. For example, when Judea became a client kingdom of Rome I believe that Herod was given the title by Mark Antony and later by Augustus.

In the political hotbed of Judea at this time, which was radically split between moderate 'hellenised' jews who wished to work with the empire and accepted the dominant political power of the day and the fundamentalists who rejected all forms of hellenised influence and Roman political tinkering; it was this uncompromising view which ultimatly led to their destruction.  It is wrong to simply think of the situation as 'Jews vs Romans'. The Jewish rebellion later in the 70's AD was very much a civil war as well.
Anyway, I've went off topic but what I was trying to say is that any prominant leader might well have such a title thrust upon them, leading to the 'jesus king of the jews' line, which the Romans called him sarcastically to take the p**s out of him; not because they were fundamentally opossesed to his teachings (if they were even aware of them), but simply because they did not view him as a legitimate ruler. He was treated like any other rabble rouser... and you can't really blame them, since at the time there were a hell of a lot of them around!

Doug

PS

Both might very well see a day of reckoning in our lifetime, in much the same way Jerusalem, and later Rome, paid dearly for their offenses all those centuries ago.

well, we shouldnt be to hard on Rome, afterall it was the Roman empire that eventially adopted christianity as the official religion; thus turning it into a world religion.. we wouldnt have christianity if it wasnt for them; christianity, as we understand it today *is* a Roman religion; a fusion of simplistic judeo-christian monotheism and complex theological neo-platonism.

and the empire didnt do to badly either, by the 3rd century Rome had divorced itself from the idea of just being the city on the Tiber, Rome was an idea and the *WHOLE EMPIRE was Rome*. only the *western* half collapsed in the 5th century ad, the eastern Roman empire (called rather incorrectly until recently the 'byzantine empire) continued until 1453!!

so i wouldnt say they 'paid dearly for their offences' this idea was Augustine's, who had to come up with a reason to explain to pagans (and christians) why god allowed the city of Rome to be sacked by barbarians in 410, even although the empire had been officially christian since 313AD.

[Palehorse]

well, we shouldnt be to hard on Rome, afterall it was the Roman empire that eventially adopted christianity as the official religion; thus turning it into a world religion.. we wouldnt have christianity if it wasnt for them;

I'm not convinced this is the case.  Christianity was around for over three centuries, and was growing at an exponential rate when Constantine made it the state religion.  In fact, I'm sure that was a major reason *why* it was adopted by the empire -- because it was so popular.  IMO, it seems to me that Rome needed Christianity a lot more than Christianity needed Rome at that point, and I see no reason to believe Christianity would not have continued to thrive if it hadn't been co-opted.

christianity, as we understand it today *is* a Roman religion; a fusion of simplistic judeo-christian monotheism and complex theological neo-platonism.

Perhaps, but I don't see that as necessarily being a good thing.  Anytime you mix politics and religion (especially when the religion is made compulsory) you get people pouring into the religion whose motivations are more political than spiritual.  In the case of Christianity, that's when we start seeing the popularization of doctrines that weren't there to begin with, but nonetheless are effective toward consolidating money and power; the greatest example of which is the formerly Pagan belief in eternal torment after death.

so i wouldnt say they 'paid dearly for their offences' this idea was Augustine's, who had to come up with a reason to explain to pagans (and christians) why god allowed the city of Rome to be sacked by barbarians in 410, even although the empire had been officially christian since 313AD.

The offenses I'm thinking of are things like the usual atrocities and oppression that come with empire-building, but also the fact that Roman culture itself seemed particularly barbaric and brutal before its decline.  The Coliseum as a favorite form of entertainment immediately comes to mind.  I'd have to double check on this, but as far as I know, none of this came to an end with the adoption of Christianity.

So yeah, I tend to doubt that the Christianization of Rome (or the Romanization of Christianity) was all that pleasing to God, or good for the Church from a spiritual perspective, all things considered.

[Gandalf]

I'm not convinced this is the case. Christianity was around for over three centuries, and was growing at an exponential rate when Constantine made it the state religion. In fact, I'm sure that was a major reason *why* it was adopted by the empire -- because it was so popular. IMO, it seems to me that Rome needed Christianity a lot more than Christianity needed Rome at that point, and I see no reason to believe Christianity would not have continued to thrive if it hadn't been co-opted

Actually the current historical view is that numbers of christians in the empire actually fluctuated rather than growing steadily, although there was a sharp rise during the chaos of the 3rd century.

Although it is true that Christianity had grown significantly by 313, it must be remembered that it was still a minority religion in the empire as a whole, with only one in five being christian, and even then, most of them were in the east. Most historians are actually agreed that it if Constantine hadnt dopted it as the official religion, it was *highly unlikely* that it would have ever become the dominant religion, since it was imperial patronage that gave the church so many benefits.....HUGE amounts of money started pouring into church coffers and state subsidies were taken away from pagan temples. Constantine then invited bishops into the higher echelons of governemt, an opportunity which the church grabbed with both hands so that within a few years they controlled or at least influenced most of the affairs of state..

This was immpossible without imperial support. The most likely reason for the adoption of christianity was that Constantine was looking for ways to bind the empire together, this has to be seen in the context of his wider imperial policy... Diocletian before him had used traditional religion in the same way.. Constantine also decided to adopt this policy but chose a new religion to do this; it just so happened that his mother was one of those chrisitans.. a chance occurance as they say..

If you look at coinage you can see that Constantine had been at this for a while..
in the early period he was identified with Mars, then he switched to Sol invictus, an eastern sun god, connected with Mithras, then finally Christ.
He stuck with christ.. he saw it as a means of binding the empire together and the one god in heaven seemed to perfectly compliment the one ruler on earth.... a device used by monarchies ever since... and states... god save the queen... god bless america et etc.


One of the best evidence that christianity would never have become the dominant religion without imperial support is the example of Persia, the empire next door.. they had a similar circumstances and a similar amount of christians as the roman empire.. however there, christianity was never officially adopted by the state so the numbers of christians never grew beyond their 4th century rate, they stayed a significant but minority religion.. until the muslim conquests of the 7th century.

Basically, Rome didnt 'need' christianity but it decided to use it.. but the state underestimated the extent to which this would change everything.
The church certainly needed the empire to become a dominant world religion and they took full advantage of this opportunity.. so much so that by the 5th century the empire was basically a christian theocracy.

Bishop Ambrose actually forced emeperor theodosius to publically do penance for his murder of the citizens of thessonalika in the 370s!



The Coliseum as a favorite form of entertainment immediately comes to mind. I'd have to double check on this, but as far as I know, none of this came to an end with the adoption of Christianity.

yes, Gladitiorial combat was only outlawed by the christian emperor Honorius c400, and animal fights etc continued for centuries afterwards..indeed Spanish bull fighting is a decendant of this.

Christianity did not change all that much, it acutally reinforced the dominant order, gave divine right to rule to emperors and kings.. did nothing for slavery.. in fact christianity actually reinforced the slaves position!
oh they waxed lyrical to slaves that they were all equal and would all go to heaven, and they should be happy, were the spiritual equals of their masters etc but not one christian ever thought to actually question the institution of slavery itself, they accepted it's role here on earth; 'you were born a slave, that is gods will, but its your soul that matters so dont worry' and so on... brutality to slaves continued as well.

Mind you, this perception continued until recently, George Washington for example, ran a slave estate and it didnt occur to him that this was wrong.. indeed modern slavers often tried to model themselves on ancient slavey systems.

Doug

[Leo Volont]

Dear Arie,

Have you ever read from the works of Anne Catherine Emmerich, Catholicism's foremost Seer and Visionary?  She speaks in detail of the Visit of the Three Kings from the Orient.  Their Prophesies described not a King of the Jews but a King of Kings.

It is all a stark reminder that Free Will can be so much more powerful than anything that is prophesized to happen.  It is sobering to consider that a small conservative political elite was able to so easily defeat what was meant to have been a Messianic World Unity.

Under Paul, a christian doctrine was formulated which supposed that Christ being murdered was all part of the Plan to begin with.  However, this does not agree with the World Prophecy that the Three Kings were operating from.

My conclusion was that God was testing Humanity, and Humanity failed miserably.  With Conservatives still so willing to assassinate Political Liberals, it is not so certain that Humanity would not fail the same test today.