Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've always had suspicions about the conclusion that Nero burned down Rome. I've always wondered if it was possible that radical Christians could have been the actual culprits. Stay with me.
The conventional thought has been that Nero set fire to the city to provide an excuse for him to build one more to his liking. Uncorroborated legend also adds that he fiddled while the city burned, given the impression he was more than thrilled to see it go up in smoke. On Nero's part, he blamed the Christian community, but the word has come down to us that Nero was the more likely suspect. It did not help Nero's case that he was crazy and that Christian propaganda, over the centuries, presenting themselves as victims, claimed that Nero was hell bent on exterminating them. But who had more invested in Rome being burned?
The Book of Revelation is the greatest propaganda literature piece in Christian writing. In highly symbolic language, it hammers the city of Rome and its leadership, namely the emperor. Rome was presented as a vile, demonic entity on a mission to wipe out the people of God. The general belief, based on the book's content, was that Jesus was soon to return to destroy Rome, but often with radicals, they feel the strong need to help their deities out with dispensing justice on earth.
When I look at Romans 13, it appears some Christians were drawing unwanted attention to the sect by scorning Roman authority and failing to recognize or respect it. The writer warns these Christians to obey the laws and to look at Roman authority as God ordained. Clearly there were some Christians who wanted to rock the boat and like SOME Muslims today, may have seen Rome as a "Great Satan" that had to be destroyed.
Thoughts?
Well, it's not always I get a question addressed directly to me. As the resident scholar in here on Christian poppycock I guess it would fall to me anyway to give my perspective. Let's take them point by point:
1. I don't think Christians were the culprits. If it were a choice between Christians and Nero. I'd go with Nero based on the following circumstantial evidence:
The Christians were already a persecuted group. Most of them were in hiding. The ones that were out and about had no good reason to stir the pot and possibly incite even more persecutions against themselves. Nero was insane and he hated Christians. It's not a stretch to think he'd rig the fire as an excuse to annihilate them. That he fiddled I think is nonsense. That he did it to build a city I also think doesn't hold water, but who knows.
2. You got Revelations spot on. That Revelation is some cockamamie look into the future of an antichrist ruling the world from the EU and launching rockets at Israel, the USA and Russia and getting stabbed in the head with a sword is absolute trash, just a prophecy pimp writer's wet dream of making oodles of $$$$'s combining Revelation with Ezekiel's Gog blather and the Book of Daniel. Revelation is actually a manuscript written pre-destruction of Jerusalem with all sorts of symbology warning Christians to get out of Jerusalem before Nero burns it to the ground. As such it echos Mark's "Little Apocalypse" written shortly afterwards. It clearly demonstrates that the writer expected Jesus to return any minute to save the elect before Nero lowered the boom on the Christians in Jerusalem. If the reader puts all thoughts of "This is about the events leading up to Jesus returning to earth 2000 years from now (68 AD)" and instead read it (if you absolutely have to read this rubbish) as "This is about all the events leading up to the Romans led by Nero (666) totally obliterating Jerusalem and its inhabitants" then everything makes much more sense---the trumpet, the scrolls, the vials judgements all symbolizing increasing disasters falling on Jerusalem culminating in a symbolic triumph of Christians over Romans led by Jesus. But to think Jesus is literally riding down from heaven on a white horse brandishing a sword with "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" tattooed on his thigh (which should earn it an "R" rating) followed by a quadrillion raptured Christians also riding down on white horses is so comical you should try running that like a movie scene in your mind and you'll fall out of your chair holding your sides.
3. Romans 13 I've always thought was Roman propaganda to get Jews especially Christianized Jews to stop fighting Roman rule and to submit peacefully to it. The constant rebellions were costing the Roman empire a fortune. Remember at this time nearly all the Christians were Jews centered in Jerusalem. The ones outside Jerusalem were so few they didn't cause a blip on Rome's radar.
Last edited by thrillobyte; 08-04-2016 at 02:52 PM..
Well, it's not always I get a question addressed directly to me. As the resident scholar in here on Christian poppycock I guess it would fall to me anyway to give my perspective. Let's take them point by point:
1. I don't think Christians were the culprits. If it were a choice between Christians and Nero. I'd go with Nero based on the following circumstantial evidence:
The Christians were already a persecuted group. Most of them were in hiding. The ones that were out and about had no good reason to stir the pot and possibly incite even more persecutions against themselves. Nero was insane and he hated Christians. It's not a stretch to think he'd rig the fire as an excuse to annihilate them. That he fiddled I think is nonsense. That he did it to build a city I also think doesn't hold water, but who knows.
2. You got Revelations spot on. That Revelation is some cockamamie look into the future of an antichrist ruling the world from the EU and launching rockets at Israel, the USA and Russia and getting stabbed in the head with a sword is absolute trash, just a prophecy pimp writer's wet dream of making oodles of $$$$'s combining Revelation with Ezekiel's Gog blather and the Book of Daniel. Revelation is actually a manuscript written pre-destruction of Jerusalem with all sorts of symbology warning Christians to get out of Jerusalem before Nero burns it to the ground. As such it echos Mark's "Little Apocalypse" written shortly afterwards. It clearly demonstrates that the writer expected Jesus to return any minute to save the elect before Nero lowered the boom on the Christians in Jerusalem. If the reader puts all thoughts of "This is about the events leading up to Jesus returning to earth 2000 years from now (68 AD)" and instead read it (if you absolutely have to read this rubbish) as "This is about all the events leading up to the Romans led by Nero (666) totally obliterating Jerusalem and its inhabitants" then everything makes much more sense---the trumpet, the scrolls, the vials judgements all symbolizing increasing disasters falling on Jerusalem culminating in a symbolic triumph of Christians over Romans led by Jesus. But to think Jesus is literally riding down from heaven on a white horse brandishing a sword with "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" tattooed on his thigh (which should earn it an "R" rating) followed by a quadrillion raptured Christians also riding down on white horses is so comical you should try running that like a movie scene in your mind and you'll fall out of your chair holding your sides.
3. Romans 13 I've always thought was Roman propaganda to get Jews especially Christianized Jews to stop fighting Roman rule and to submit peacefully to it. The constant rebellions were costing the Roman empire a fortune. Remember at this time nearly all the Christians were Jews centered in Jerusalem. The ones outside Jerusalem were so few they didn't cause a blip on Rome's radar.
You and I must have attended the same church or read the same "end time" books because your second point touched on much of the ninsense I believed or was taught. That Gog and Magog crap was good one.
You and I must have attended the same church or read the same "end time" books because your second point touched on much of the ninsense I believed or was taught. That Gog and Magog crap was good one.
Well, you got me curious. I was just reading something that said that scholars say it was a full moon, and arsonists would have wanted the cover of a dark night. So, not likely that it was purposely set by anyone. Forget the conspiracy theories; blame the cow.
Wasn't following this because of the obvious "Christian poppycock" connection, but loved your comment.
You just HAVE to ruin good poppycock don't you? I suppose you will say that continued conflagration was probably abetted by looters.
Wasn't following this because of the obvious "Christian poppycock" connection, but loved your comment.
You just HAVE to ruin good poppycock don't you? I suppose you will say that continued conflagration was probably abetted by looters.
Glad you came in though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
