I find it interesting how the Mongolian empire has kind of taken a 180 in its historical image. Not long ago they were viewed as just cartoon villains that destroyed everything. But now you see so many people talking about some of the “good” aspects that it almost makes them seem strangely benevolent.
The reality of course was that they were an empire, and like all empires they steamrolled and destroyed anything that stood in their way while taking advantage of anything that furthered their goals. They probably killed far more people than they helped if you asked anyone living through the time.
Dan Carlin’s podcast, Hardcore History, has a series called Wrath of the Khans where he talks about this in length and it’s very interesting to think about.
You see that village over there? they resisted. we burnt everything , killed every man and child, and raped all the women.
See the other village over there? they joined us, and we gave them access to goods from across the world, the latest technology and treat them better than their previous rulers.
Rome was both. The mongols raped and slaughtered. The Romans were too civilized to do that as much, instead they just enslaved some of your village so they could die in the mines or fields or construction projects. And then there’s the internal atrocities. Rome had three servile wars and then without easing up even a bit never had another.
The Kahns were more like the Shahs, conqueror emperors seeking to hold the great titles of the world like emperor of China or pharaoh and in doing so became one. The Romans were like America “we’re different snd our own thing” before being a different kind of brutal
Strangely enough I feel like that crucification isn’t much associated with the Romans. Even though the Romans were the ones who carried it out Judas gets almost 100% of the ire.
Even Jews are given more blame by antisemitic Christians. Like, no one is starting up a pogrom against Italians because their great great great grandpa might’ve been the guy who stabbed Jesus in the ribs.
I think I read somewhere that in order for the Romans to abnegate their role in killing Jesus, as they transitioned to Christianity, they scapegoated the Jews. Although, it was the people who demanded to crucify Jesus. But of course, anti-semites focused on the ethnicity, instead just ascribing the mob justice to just-- on people.
My guess is that because Jews reject the divinity of Jesus, the Christians found it fair to oppress the Jews. It is not different though to the crusading missions of later Christians in the medieval Europe. The non-Christians refuse to recognise Jesus Christ as both the son of God and god himself, the either they convert, or else be killed or ostracised.
You can believe that Jesus Christ is the mortal incarnation of the Lord taken human form to forgive humanity’s sins, and still think Christianity is wrong. Christians worship Jesus. But Jesus is the name for the mortal body of the Lord. Jesus is an avatar. A physical representation of the divine essence. Worshipping Jesus is idolatry. Jesus is as much a physical object meant to represent the Lord as the golden calf was. And worshipping a statue of Jesus on the cross is double idolatry. You’re worshipping an idol of an idol.
Jesus was a Jew. And anyone who follows His teachings is also a Jew. Christians are heretics who abandon the teachings and values of Jesus by worshipping Him. If you want to follow Jesus, then listen to what He says, and worship the spark of the divine essence that exists within your own mind. Jesus said that YOUR faith can move mountains. You don’t get to do that by worshipping an idol. Christianity is not the way.
All this to say that Jews can accept the divinity of Jesus. It’s Christians who reject Him.
I find it interesting how the Mongolian empire has kind of taken a 180 in its historical image. Not long ago they were viewed as just cartoon villains that destroyed everything. But now you see so many people talking about some of the “good” aspects that it almost makes them seem strangely benevolent.
The reality of course was that they were an empire, and like all empires they steamrolled and destroyed anything that stood in their way while taking advantage of anything that furthered their goals. They probably killed far more people than they helped if you asked anyone living through the time.
Dan Carlin’s podcast, Hardcore History, has a series called Wrath of the Khans where he talks about this in length and it’s very interesting to think about.
from my understanding , it’s a chain of
I will be your best friend, then work hard in my lab to create a new unstoppable virus that puts an end to multicellular life on this planet.
When people think about Rome they usually imagine the roads and the aquaducts and not so much the crucifixions and the slavery.
Yeah, the Mongolians front-loaded most of their atrocities. Rome was more of a slow burn
Rome was both. The mongols raped and slaughtered. The Romans were too civilized to do that as much, instead they just enslaved some of your village so they could die in the mines or fields or construction projects. And then there’s the internal atrocities. Rome had three servile wars and then without easing up even a bit never had another.
The Kahns were more like the Shahs, conqueror emperors seeking to hold the great titles of the world like emperor of China or pharaoh and in doing so became one. The Romans were like America “we’re different snd our own thing” before being a different kind of brutal
deleted by creator
Well, they might imagine one specific crucifixion
Strangely enough I feel like that crucification isn’t much associated with the Romans. Even though the Romans were the ones who carried it out Judas gets almost 100% of the ire.
Even Jews are given more blame by antisemitic Christians. Like, no one is starting up a pogrom against Italians because their great great great grandpa might’ve been the guy who stabbed Jesus in the ribs.
Theologically, all mankind was to blame because of their sins.
But it’s far easier to blame a minority and it had the added benefit of pushing whatever agenda the ruling class had.
I think I read somewhere that in order for the Romans to abnegate their role in killing Jesus, as they transitioned to Christianity, they scapegoated the Jews. Although, it was the people who demanded to crucify Jesus. But of course, anti-semites focused on the ethnicity, instead just ascribing the mob justice to just-- on people.
My guess is that because Jews reject the divinity of Jesus, the Christians found it fair to oppress the Jews. It is not different though to the crusading missions of later Christians in the medieval Europe. The non-Christians refuse to recognise Jesus Christ as both the son of God and god himself, the either they convert, or else be killed or ostracised.
You can believe that Jesus Christ is the mortal incarnation of the Lord taken human form to forgive humanity’s sins, and still think Christianity is wrong. Christians worship Jesus. But Jesus is the name for the mortal body of the Lord. Jesus is an avatar. A physical representation of the divine essence. Worshipping Jesus is idolatry. Jesus is as much a physical object meant to represent the Lord as the golden calf was. And worshipping a statue of Jesus on the cross is double idolatry. You’re worshipping an idol of an idol.
Jesus was a Jew. And anyone who follows His teachings is also a Jew. Christians are heretics who abandon the teachings and values of Jesus by worshipping Him. If you want to follow Jesus, then listen to what He says, and worship the spark of the divine essence that exists within your own mind. Jesus said that YOUR faith can move mountains. You don’t get to do that by worshipping an idol. Christianity is not the way.
All this to say that Jews can accept the divinity of Jesus. It’s Christians who reject Him.