christians didn't even join the bar kokhba revolt, cmon. people go way too far eulogizing early christianity. you get like 3 degrees removed from the apostles and you had pious christians in the army and state & churches formally interfacing with the imperial system
i'm not saying that even the earliest, most dedicated form of christianity wasn't without extreme contradictions. i just think it's wrong to say it's akin to a new age religious movement.
but where's the meaningful material opposition? christians gotta take up the sword against the empire, not just get hounded by the authorities a few times
everyone who took up the sword against the empire was killed. To give an example to explain what it was like to fight the romans it was traditional in ancient greece to parade their dead killed in battle through the city after battles with the Romans the greeks could not identify the bodies of their loved ones and instead had to sort them into piles of each type of hacked off limb. The soldiers who fought the romans looked more like offal in a butchers shop than the men they had been in life
Just overthrow the roman empire with violence is a taller order than you realise. And it is also worth noting that prior to Christianity the ideas that slavery and colonialism are detrimental to human dignity would have been completely foreign to people and were the natural order. An ancient Roman would no more question the morality of slavery as an institution than they would the morality of the tides going out. Even Spartacus as soon as he secured his own freedom took slaves
Christians and Pharisees were the libs of their times. The real radicals who valiantly struggled to liberate Judea from the Roman yoke were the Zealots.
christians didn't even join the bar kokhba revolt, cmon. people go way too far eulogizing early christianity. you get like 3 degrees removed from the apostles and you had pious christians in the army and state & churches formally interfacing with the imperial system
i'm not saying that even the earliest, most dedicated form of christianity wasn't without extreme contradictions. i just think it's wrong to say it's akin to a new age religious movement.
but where's the meaningful material opposition? christians gotta take up the sword against the empire, not just get hounded by the authorities a few times
everyone who took up the sword against the empire was killed. To give an example to explain what it was like to fight the romans it was traditional in ancient greece to parade their dead killed in battle through the city after battles with the Romans the greeks could not identify the bodies of their loved ones and instead had to sort them into piles of each type of hacked off limb. The soldiers who fought the romans looked more like offal in a butchers shop than the men they had been in life
Just overthrow the roman empire with violence is a taller order than you realise. And it is also worth noting that prior to Christianity the ideas that slavery and colonialism are detrimental to human dignity would have been completely foreign to people and were the natural order. An ancient Roman would no more question the morality of slavery as an institution than they would the morality of the tides going out. Even Spartacus as soon as he secured his own freedom took slaves
rejection of economic participation, strict enforcement of communal wealth. i'd consider those good. i don't disagree.
Christians and Pharisees were the libs of their times. The real radicals who valiantly struggled to liberate Judea from the Roman yoke were the Zealots.