Knights Templar: No longer heretics

[Gaidin]

Unless you hold Judaism responsible for the spawning of Chiristianity and Islam, Judaism hasn't managed to do nearly so much damage.

[/damning with faint praise]

Well Abraham did fuck his wife's servant and the Pharisees did talk Pilate into letting them crucify Jesus... >.>

[Kanastrous]

She was an irresistable hottie.

And, the Pharisees had business interests to protect...

[Patrick Degan]

the Pharisees did talk Pilate into letting them crucify Jesus... >.>

Well, Jesus was already accused of being a practitioner of magick, which I believe was itself worth a death sentence under Roman law. Combined with his apparent religious and political agitation and I doubt Pilate needed much convincing to nail him up.

[SirNitram]

the Pharisees did talk Pilate into letting them crucify Jesus... >.>

Well, Jesus was already accused of being a practitioner of magick, which I believe was itself worth a death sentence under Roman law. Combined with his apparent religious and political agitation and I doubt Pilate needed much convincing to nail him up.

I don't recall any laws against being a follower or beneficiary of Hecate, but I could be wrong. Been a long time. But the fact is he was snubbing the Imperial Cult and not playing along like a good Jew, so he didn't have the immunity.

[Adrian Laguna]

Though in my opinion, there were certain things they didn't have to apologize for.

I'd be interested to hear what these are?[/quote

Non doctrinal issues. I see the apology as a "we were wrong" statement regarding the Church's teachings. Thus the belief that heresy should be punishable by death is one that they could apologize for, same for believing witchcraft should be punishable by death (though quite frankly I'd rather be tried for that by Catholics than Protestants, at least the Church has evidence requirements). On the other hand the execution method, burning at the stake, is less a Church doctrine issue and more of what Europeans at large thought a suitable punishment for heinous crimes. I don't see the English apologizing for how they dealt treason.

[Kanastrous]

My understanding is that ecclesiasical courts made findings of guilt or innocence, and then handed the condemned over to civil authorities for the actual execution.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Even if they weren't found guilty, the French King would have had them killed anyway. The Church was a willing accomplice of the French King.

[Adrian Laguna]

Even if they weren't found guilty, the French King would have had them killed anyway. The Church was a willing accomplice of the French King.

That's exactly what happened. They weren't found guilty of heresy, but the King had important debts to not pay.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Even if they weren't found guilty, the French King would have had them killed anyway. The Church was a willing accomplice of the French King.

That's exactly what happened. They weren't found guilty of heresy, but the King had important debts to not pay.

It was kinda.. taking over the bank for which you owned quite a lot of money and declaring the debt non-existent.

[hongi]

Well, Jesus was already accused of being a practitioner of magick, which I believe was itself worth a death sentence under Roman law. Combined with his apparent religious and political agitation and I doubt Pilate needed much convincing to nail him up.

I don't think there was a law against magic.

I don't recall any laws against being a follower or beneficiary of Hecate, but I could be wrong. Been a long time. But the fact is he was snubbing the Imperial Cult and not playing along like a good Jew, so he didn't have the immunity.

Yes, I think this was the reason. Jesus declared himself to be God and hence declared that there were no other deities besides him. That would have ticked off the Roman officials and I think there was a law against people who did not worship the Emperor. It was blasphemy basically. The Roman Prefect wouldn't kill someone even if the upstart Jewish population demanded it. There needed to be something that he could use as an excuse, and the blasphemy was just handy.

Well Abraham did fuck his wife's servant and the Pharisees did talk Pilate into letting them crucify Jesus... >.>

I'm pretty sure Abraham wasn't a Jew. I think according to their religion, the Jewish people came about at Mt Sinai.

As for the Pharisees...well, who knows. The writers of the NT probably embellished all sorts of things.

[Kanastrous]

I'm pretty sure Abraham wasn't a Jew. I think according to their religion, the Jewish people came about at Mt Sinai.

Abraham was the first Jew, in the sense that Jews believe that it was a covenant between Abram (his original name) and God that began the Jewish tradition and relationship with God. After circumcising himself at God's instruction (voice outta da sky tell me to do what?!) Abram's name changes to Abraham as a further sign of the Convenant (I shall make your descendants as numerous as the stars of the sky, as the grains of sands on the beach, and yea they shall wrap themselves in little fringey shawls and lend money at profit...)

The Jews receievd the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai, which was an establishment of God's Law - not the beginning of the Covenant, but a continuation of it.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Yes, I think this was the reason. Jesus declared himself to be God and hence declared that there were no other deities besides him. That would have ticked off the Roman officials and I think there was a law against people who did not worship the Emperor. It was blasphemy basically. The Roman Prefect wouldn't kill someone even if the upstart Jewish population demanded it. There needed to be something that he could use as an excuse, and the blasphemy was just handy.

Actually no. The reasons why the Romans detested the Jews, and vice versa, was because the Romans expected the Jews to believe in their Parthenon of Gods.

[Kanastrous]

That's pantheon of Gods.

The real crux of the problem was that the Jews refused to make the required sacrifices and obeisances to the Roman Emperor.

The Romans were actually very tolerant of the religious practices of the people they conquered; they insisted upon the addition of the Roman Emperor's addition to local pantheons because it was a sign of political loyalty.

The Jews' refusal to accommodate that demand, was infuriating because it was an insult to Roman sovereignty and authority, more than any sort of offense against Roman religion, in general.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

That's pantheon of Gods.

The real crux of the problem was that the Jews refused to make the required sacrifices and obeisances to the Roman Emperor.

The Romans were actually very tolerant of the religious practices of the people they conquered; they insisted upon the addition of the Roman Emperor's addition to local pantheons because it was a sign of political loyalty.

The Jews' refusal to accommodate that demand, was infuriating because it was an insult to Roman sovereignty and authority, more than any sort of offense against Roman religion, in general.

Make sacrifices to the Roman Emperor? Julius Caesar got himself killed for nearly deifying himself. The Romans only deified the Emperors only after they were dead.

But that aside, yeah, the Romans insisted on that every where they went. It helps that the Greeks spread their influences around, but down on the Levant, things got tricky.

[Tiriol]

That's pantheon of Gods.

The real crux of the problem was that the Jews refused to make the required sacrifices and obeisances to the Roman Emperor.

The Romans were actually very tolerant of the religious practices of the people they conquered; they insisted upon the addition of the Roman Emperor's addition to local pantheons because it was a sign of political loyalty.

The Jews' refusal to accommodate that demand, was infuriating because it was an insult to Roman sovereignty and authority, more than any sort of offense against Roman religion, in general.

Make sacrifices to the Roman Emperor? Julius Caesar got himself killed for nearly deifying himself. The Romans only deified the Emperors only after they were dead.

But that aside, yeah, the Romans insisted on that every where they went. It helps that the Greeks spread their influences around, but down on the Levant, things got tricky.

Imperator Gaius Julius Caesar was assassinated because his opponents in the Senate feared that he had amassed too much power already and had already been offered the king's crown (there is a reason why the Roman emperors didn't call themselves kings), possibly making the Senate needless and useless (and thus liable to be dismissed). So far as I am aware Ceasar didn't have any ideas about deitifying himself.

However, the emperor cult is real. Some emperors did declare themselves gods during their lifetimes; however, the idea behind the emperor cult was not to worship the Emperor of Rome as a deity, but rather sacrifice for his good health and long life by making offers to his genius (a protective spirit, not level of intelligence) and also by worshipping the past emperors as deities as well. This was something the Jews (and the Christians) couldn't do since it would have violated their belief in one God.

[Dillon]

Another 700 if the pattern holds.

If we're lucky, by then the damn Catholic Church will have gone the way of human sacrifices, i.e., GONE.

Every human on earth would have to pool their luck on that one. I mean...Judaism is still around...

True, but it's a real minority. Hopefully the next world religions will be more enlightened.

[Eris]

[quote=Reuters]
The parchment, also known as the Chinon Chart, was "misplaced" in the Vatican archives until 2001, when Frale stumbled across it.

"The parchment was catalogued incorrectly at some point in history. At first I couldn't believe my eyes. I was incredulous," she said.
[/quote]

Why this sounds like a classic instance of a serious clerical error.

*hides*