why do you believe paul had an impact in rome??
551892
Who is paul and why did he goto rome?
436351
You are correct.  That is part of where Paul was going in the Romans quotes you cited.
234573
I think Jesus might arrive in a Triumph.  But I know the apostles used a Honda; in Acts it says they were all in one Accord!!
1109014
Man, I understand where your coming from.  I've studied other religions and looked into this Jesus and I've asked the same question and many more.  Jesus is special for a number of reasons.  Yes, there were many people who crucified as saviors before and after Jesus.  We still get people popping up claiming divinity.  The real question isn't so much as is Jesus the savior because he got a few books written about him, its why were there books written about him in the first place.  The most basic point anyone can show you is this...its not that Jesus died, its that he rose after his death.  And there is more evidence that he did actually rise 3 days later and not just Biblical evidence.  First off, the fact that the Roman leaders and armies wanted him gone, because it was the time of Pass Over which is the celebration of Jews getting out of Egypt, and at this time of year, the Jewish community gets a little out of hand, for the are now under the Roman rule.  So when Jesus comes in, and he's claiming to be their savior...the crowd thinks he's going to be a king and run the Romans out.  So, if Jesus didn't rise again, why did the Romans say nothing?  Why did the Jewish Pharaseas (please excuse my spelling) who pushed to have him killed, not stand up and say..."he's still dead!"?  What was it that gave Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John the confedance to step out of their hidding, for fear they were going to be crucified, and boldly speak of a living God, Jesus...and welcome their death?  These questions may seem weak, but if you really think about them and look at the history and try to get in the minds of all these people...only one thing makes since...Jesus is not dead...he rose, becoming a savior that no one expected, but a savior from ourselves.  Thats why Jesus is special, the others were saviors...they were fanatics.  There are a lot of other reasons why Jesus is special, but I honestly have the feeling that if this thought doesn't at least make you rethink the history, then anything else I say, will truly be pointless.
501042
It happened to long ago for blood samples.\n\nJesus was put in another mans tomb.  This was done so that he could be burried for the holiday.  The man that owned the tomd was one of the jews that had him killed.  With that understanding we would have reason to belive that he would have had the body moved to a criminal grave site as soon as they could.  Now we need to look at how long it took his followers to request to see the body.  It took 70 days before the made a request to see the body.  A body was produced for them but they denied it was jesus.  \n\n^That is history.  Not some superstition made up by Paul.
108164
Tis where Rome was... ya see, that's where the early church started out and the capital of the roman empire (which twas in charge) also the book of Romans was written to Christians in Rome... so there ya go, very important I'd say one of the top 3 citites, Jeusalem, Antioch, Rome
305065
I think that whoever is to be blamed, it makes no difference, because Jesus HAD to die somehow in order for everyone to be saved.  If Jesus didn't die, we would all be condemned to Hell.  It so happens that the Jews did it.  Perhaps they did not get the brunt of the blame.  But does it matter?\n\nTo some of the above posters, yes, there have been many injustices that have occurred at the hands of Christians as well as many other religious folks.  But that does not change the basic fact that Jesus died for our sins and that we are human.  We make mistakes.  But God does not make mistakes.  Everything happens for a reason.  And God knows infinitely more than you or I, whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not.\n\nTo another poster--Heron By The Sea...your logic is good but some of your facts are wrong.  Yes, Rome did control the land where the Jews lived.  But they knew little about Jesus.  They were the most powerful civilization in the world...and do you really think they feared anyone?  Much less one man (Jesus) and his movement that polarized Jews of His day?  I don't think they really gave much of a d@mn about Jesus, OR the Jews, for that matter.  Pilate basically did not care anything about the trial until the Sanhedrin and the Pharisees said that Jesus claimed to be "King of the Jews."  Once he heard that, if Jesus was really a threat to Rome, do you think he would offer to release Jesus?  I don't think he would.  At that point, the Jews wanted Barabbas released.  So yes, it was the JEWS who wanted Jesus dead.\n\nSecondly, the Bible was NOT altered by Rome or Romans.  The Bible is a collection of books that were selected for the truth and sincerity and accuracy of the faith.  Yes through time there are many different translations today, but I would say the major translations have not been altered to the point where such central ideas have been warped and distorted beyond their original meaning and truth.  I see that you are a religious studies major, so I am not going to fully dismiss everything you say, but based on our Christian faith, God would not allow such things to be distorted (that's where the Holy Spirit comes in).
354410
Roman Governor Pontius Pilate!!!! he gave jesus' life over to the jewish community, who decided it was a good idea to crucfiy him rather than a murderer
309088
Historically, they weren't in agreement about any. Jesus followed and presented his own message with no indication that he ever, while alive, met Paul.\n\nPaul followed and interpreted what he felt Jesus' message was and only began doing this after Jesus' death. No conference calls. ("Saul, why do you persecute me?")
374382
Alright all you would be Biblical scholars out there -- Paul did have 2 friends in which he was close to -- They were Aquillia who was the husband to Priscilla and they were tent makers -- Paul was a Free Roman at birth on to adult hood witch was no small matter in and of itself during that day in time -- He was raised at a Gentile (non-Jew uncircumcised) and only claimed to be Jewish in his later years from the tribe of Benjamin, from a long-established Pharisee family in Tarsus that was practically erased off the face of the earth so there was no one around to validate his claim. -- Before he became Paul he was known as Saul in the Roman Empire and carried a fair amount of status. Men of that status were automatically expected to have a wife even just for show. Usually a mutually agreed upon business arrangement between the brides father and the groom for more political power -- The wife always stayed at home while the men when away and about to deal with business. So it is commonly accepted that he did have a wife in that capacity but not a wife in the since of how we perceive them today. As for "the thorn in his side" it has been speculated on for thousands of years -- Most commonly believe that it was eye sight problems he continued to have after the blinding light of seeing the full glory of Jesus that day -- Others speculate that it was his wife calling him back home to Rome and quit his insanity with the new religion -- And some take it literally that he had some sort of kidney, bowel or internal problem -- But the truth is no one knows -- There is a lot of new information on Paul in the newly published Gnostic Gospels found with the Nag Hamani Library from the 70's -- You can find the complete Gospels and English translations on the Internet that can shed new light and a different perspective on biblical times if that's what you are looking for -- Maybe a few more facts to fill in the gaps -- Hope all this helps and please feel free to email me if you have any more questions, I'll be happy to help and share what I know --\n---Angel
660311
Just north of Corinth was a city named Eleusis. This was the location of a pagan religion where baptism in the sea was practiced to guarantee a good afterlife. This religion was mention by Homer in Hymn to Demeter 478-79.2 The Corinthians were known to be heavily influenced by other customs. After all, they were in a large economic area where a great many different people frequented. It is probable that the Corinthians were being influenced by the religious practices found at Eleusis where baptism for the dead was practiced. \n     Paul used this example from the pagans in 1 Cor. 15:29, when he said, "...if the dead are not raised, then why are they baptized for the dead?" Paul did not say we.1 This is significant because the Christian church was not practicing baptism for the dead, but the pagans were. \n     Paul's point was simple. The resurrection is a reality. It is going to happen when Jesus returns. Even the pagans believe in the resurrection, otherwise, why would they baptize for the dead?\n     However, some are not convinced by this argument and state that the word "they" is not in the Greek and, therefore, Paul is not speaking about the pagans..  Let's take a look.\n     Literally, the verse is translated as "Since what will do the being immersed on behalf of the dead if wholly dead not are raised why also are they immersed on behalf of them."\n     The issue here is the word, "baptizontai" -- "they are baptized."  It is the present, passive, indicative, 3rd person, plural. In other words, it is THEY ARE BEING BAPTIZED or, THEY ARE BAPTIZED.\n\n     I -- first person singular\n     you (singular) -- second person singular\n     he/she/it -- third person singular\n     we -- first person plural\n     you (plural) -- second person plural\n     they -- third person plural \n\n     It is the latter form, the third person plural (they) which the verb "baptizo" is in. Therefore, the best translation is "THEY are baptized."
667111
john the baptist. he openly re-enacted the exodus and baptised those who would follow. that was a pretty bold move that showed not only his faith, but also successfully struck a political nerve. he demonstrated that he could get mass demonstrations that there were ppl that werent afraid to openly follow someone besides those in political power at the time.
575223
Sure looks that way, don't it?  I mean, the Christians even include the entire Jewish Bible in their own, along with considering the divinity of Jesus in the light of old testament prophecies which he fulfilled.  He did indeed sound like something of a reformer, but the one who actually said it was no longer necessary to follow the old Jewish law was Saul of Tarsus aka Saint Paul.  That was after Jesus had died and gone to heaven.
248714
There's no scripture to support this idea one way or another.  People are affected in different ways when in the spirit.  There was a man at my church who would run around the pews (admittedly it freaked me out a bit when he first did it) and a woman who would wail.  I think you'll find the most about the issue in Paul's stuff, but don't quote me on that.
5182
A historical/anthropological answer might go along the lines of:\n\nHomosexuality was rife in Greek and Roman societies as it was in many other pagan societies. The early Judeans opposed Greek and Roman oppression and occupation and responded by targeting the fabric of their society by making Laws or interpreting laws (e.g. idol worship became blasphemous, homosexuality became an abomination and women were not to be treated as slaves - tho the Bible records periods when this was not the case - and some traditions continued to view women as second class citizens).\n\nThen came the Christian era.\n\nThis semi-monotheistic faith saw the bible as a pic-n-mix. One minute the Law dictated to Moses at Mount Sinai is what makes you a sinner and you dont need the Law anyway cos belief in Jesus is all that is required, the next your actions and behaviour are all important when certain things offend Paul (e.g. women and homosexuals).\n\nIf it werent for Pauline Christianity, Christianity today would either follow the Law more closely like Judaism (and thus still be a sect of Judaism) or it would have only two rules (love God and your neighbour) and no Law.\n\nThe reason for this schism is the dilemma that faced Paul. On the one hand, Paul sought to form a new religion (after his attempts to 'convert' Jews were unsuccessful) but also needed the "old" one for legitimacy (it was the one God of Israel that gave the Law at Mount Sinai, how could Paul - a mere mortal - cancel the Law of God given to man at Mount Sinai? Interestingly in the original Greek texts, one way Paul got around this was to express that he was the reincarnation of Jesus and therefore also the son of God).\n\nIf you want to read more on whether it was Jesus or Paul who invented Christianity, see the links below.\n\nFinally, I'd like to say that whatever people believe about your sexuality, it is just their belief. You should stick two fingers up to them and get on with your life. There's a reason you were created the way you were - it's just a shame these religions can't appreciate that. However, that is their limit, not yours.
366051
To fulfill his work on earth.  He was meant to come as the sacrificial lamb to be given up as Lambs were at the time.  \nBy doing so those who believed in him would not die but have everlasting life.  \n\nAs far as who Crucified him, some would say the Romans were responsible some would say the high priests, but in truth it was the people who honored his arrival in Jerusalem that later turned on him and freed Barabbas (a rebel and a murderer) instead of Jesus when Pontius Pilate gave them the choice.  So in a sense it was the people, or you and I, that crucified him.
1173955
It was probably Paul's personal opinion.