What would happen If Romans become Jews

[arauca]

Nope. Not even close.

I ask you again do you know the difference , between the Hasidim Jew and the Nazarene Jew. beside that one have accepted Jashua and the nothe not .

 

[S.A.M.]

Prior Christianity was founded , Jews were spread all over the Roman empire , Why Roman did not embrace Judaism ?

Mostly because they opposed the mutilation of infants.

Hadrian hated “foreign” religions and forbade the Jews to perform circumcisions

In fact, the Roman Judean wars should rightly be called, the wars against circumcision.

Laws banning circumcision are also ancient. The ancient Greeks prized the foreskin and disapproved of the Jewish custom of circumcision.[1] 1 Maccabees, 1:60–61 states that King Antiochus IV of Syria, the occupying power of Judea in 170 BCE, outlawed circumcision on penalty of death.[2] one of the grievances leading to the Maccabean Revolt.[3]

According to the Historia Augusta, the Roman emperor Hadrian issued a decree banning circumcision in the empire,[4] and some modern scholars argue that this was a main cause of the Jewish Bar Kokhba revolt of 132 CE.[5] The Roman historian Cassius Dio, however, made no mention of such a law, and blamed the Jewish uprising instead on Hadrian's decision to rebuild Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina, a city dedicated to Jupiter.

Antoninus Pius permitted Jews to circumcise their own sons. However, he forbade the circumcision of non-Jews that were either foreign-slaves or non-Jewish members of the household, contrary to Genesis 17:12 He also made it illegal for a man to convert to Judaism.[6] Antoninus Pius exempted the Egyptian priesthood from the otherwise universal ban on circumcision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_law#History

 

[arauca]

Mostly because they opposed the mutilation of infants.



In fact, the Roman Judean wars should rightly be called, the wars against circumcision.

You have an interesting point , even in the case of Bar Kohba , It could noth bother Romans to much sense the slowed for a period more then 150 years , beside there were many Jews in Rome yet apparently the state did not persecuted them as they persecuted the Christian and they Christian were not circumcised

 

[S.A.M.]

You have an interesting point , even in the case of Bar Kohba , It could noth bother Romans to much sense the slowed for a period more then 150 years , beside there were many Jews in Rome yet apparently the state did not persecuted them as they persecuted the Christian and they Christian were not circumcised

You asked why the Romans did not convert to Judaism so I answered that question.

Roman citizens, who suffer that they themselves or their slaves be circumcised in accordance with the Jewish custom, are exiled perpetually to an island and their property confiscated; the doctors suffer capital punishment. If Jews shall circumcise purchased slaves of another nation, they shall be banished or suffer capital punishment

http://www.cirp.org/library/history/hodges2/

Now you are asking a different question. When the Romans conquered Judea, Herod was installed as their puppet dictator over the region. Herod convinced the Romans that the way to maintain peace was to allow the Judeans to practice their own religion - in the Roman empire, all Roman citizens were automatically subscribed to the Roman religion

After the First Jewish–Roman War (66-73), Jews were officially allowed to practice their religion as long as they paid the Jewish tax. Historians debate whether or not the Roman government distinguished between Christians and Jews prior to Nerva's modification of the tax in 96. From then on, practicing Jews paid the tax, Christians did not.

Christianity at the time was seen as a Jewish sect. But since they skipped the circumcision, Christians managed to get a lot more converts among the Romans, posing serious competition for the Roman religion

According to Simon Dixon, the early Roman writers viewed Christianity not as another kind of pietas, but as a superstitio, or superstition. Pliny the Younger, a Roman governor writing circa 110 CE, called Christianity a "superstition taken to extravagant lengths." Similarly, the Roman historian Tacitus called it "a deadly superstition," and the historian Suetonius called Christians "a class of persons given to a new and mischievous superstition."[7] In this context, the word "superstition" has a slightly different connotation than it has today: for the Romans, it designated something foreign and different - in a negative sense. A religious belief was valid only insofar as it could be shown to be old and in line with ancient customs; new teachings were regarded with distrust.[1]

The Roman disdain for Christianity, then, arose in large part from its sense that it was bad for society. In the 3rd century, the Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry wrote:

How can people not be in every way impious and atheistic who have apostatized from the customs of our ancestors through which every nation and city is sustained? ... What else are they than fighters against God?[8]

As Porphyry's argument indicates, hatred of Christians also arose from the belief that proper "piety" to the Roman gods helped to sustain the well-being of the cities and their people. Though much of the Roman religion was utilitarian, it was also heavily motivated by the pagan sense that bad things will happen if the gods are not respected and worshiped properly. "Many pagans held that the neglect of the old gods who had made Rome strong was responsible for the disasters which were overtaking the Mediterranean world."[9][10] This perspective would surface again in the 5th century, when the destruction of Rome caused many to worry that the gods were angry at the Empire's new allegiance to Christianity. Saint Augustine's opus The City of God argued against this view.

On a more social, practical level, Christians were distrusted in part because of the secret and misunderstood nature of their worship. Words like "love feast" and talk of "eating Christ's flesh" sounded suspicious to the pagans, and Christians were suspected of cannibalism, incest, orgies, and all sorts of immorality.[11]

According to H. B. Workman, the average Christian was not much affected by the persecutions; rather, Christian “extremists” would have been singled out as disruptive. Persecution of Christians acquired increasing significance in the writings of the Church Fathers during the 3rd and 4th centuries, on the eve of Christian hegemony.[12]

The Roman persecutions were generally sporadic, localized, and dependent on the political climate and disposition of each emperor. Imperial decrees against Christians were usually directed against church property, the Scriptures, and clergy. Everett Ferguson estimated that more Christians have been killed for religious reasons in the last 50 years than in the church's first 300 years.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Roman_Empire

 

[arauca]

You asked why the Romans did not convert to Judaism so I answered that question.



Now you are asking a different question. When the Romans conquered Judea, Herod was installed as their puppet dictator over the region. Herod convinced the Romans that the way to maintain peace was to allow the Judeans to practice their own religion - in the Roman empire, all Roman citizens were automatically subscribed to the Roman religion


The Jews were fighting for independence , there were many faction fighting among them self in their war prior year 65 , so I don't see much about suppressing them because religion, Even during the war 135 Bar Kohba at some point was considered as the messiah because he give independence for the Jews
Some of reference from Wiki , I will take them with reserved opinion.



Christianity at the time was seen as a Jewish sect. But since they skipped the circumcision, Christians managed to get a lot more converts among the Romans, posing serious competition for the Roman religion

The word competition , could be if the emperor considered himself as god.
but otherwise is doubtful

 

[S.A.M.]

The word competition , could be if the emperor considered himself as god.
but otherwise is doubtful

It was the nature of Christianity. Prior to Christianity, Romans were quick to adopt the gods of the people they conquered and add them to the pantheon and the followers of those religions were okay with sacrificing to the Roman gods. But Christians refused to offer sacrifices to the Roman gods and as you intuited, to the semi-god like Roman Emperor.

Pagans were probably most suspicious of the Christian refusal to sacrifice to the Roman gods. This was an insult to the gods and potentially endangered the empire which they deigned to protect. Furthermore, the Christian refusal to offer sacrifices to the emperor, a semi-divine monarch, had the whiff of both sacrilege and treason about it.

Thus the classic test of a Christian’s faith was to force him or her, on pain of death, to swear by the emperor and offer incense to his images, or to sacrifice to the gods.

In the mid-second-century account of the martyrdom of Polycarp, officials begged Polycarp to say ‘Caesar is Lord’, and to offer incense, to save his life. He refused. Later, in the arena, he was asked by the governor to swear an oath by the ‘luck of Caesar’. He refused, and although he was apparently eager to meet his death, beast-fighting had been declared closed for the day and so he was burnt alive instead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/christianityromanempire_article_01.shtml

 

[arauca]

Mostly because they opposed the mutilation of infants.



In fact, the Roman Judean wars should rightly be called, the wars against circumcision.

I would say again, The Jews were spread all around the Mediterranean sea during Roman and Roman did not persecute them and children were born to Jews in the city of Roma .

Do you mean Hadrian brought several legions of military because circumcision.
I think it would make more sense to say ,\
.The was against the circumcised , because the circumcised were rebel and declared independence, and they will not pay taxes.

Let me give you an example of circumcised 65 years ago . When German soldiers wanted to identify who was a Jew ; they told him to get their pants down and show the penis.

 

[arauca]

It was the nature of Christianity. Prior to Christianity, Romans were quick to adopt the gods of the people they conquered and add them to the pantheon and the followers of those religions were okay with sacrificing to the Roman gods. But Christians refused to offer sacrifices to the Roman gods and as you intuited, to the semi-god like Roman Emperor.

Your reference from BBC make more sense.

There can be an argument against bowing to other god . Jews would not bow to other gods also .

 

[S.A.M.]

I would say again, The Jews were spread all around the Mediterranean sea during Roman and Roman did not persecute them and children were born to Jews in the city of Roma .

They did not persecute them for following their religion among themselves, because they made them pay the Jewish tax. However, it is not correct to say that they did not persecute them at all, since circumcising a non-Jew had a legal consequence:

If Jews shall circumcise purchased slaves of another nation, they shall be banished or suffer capital punishment

http://www.cirp.org/library/history/hodges2/

Do you mean Hadrian brought several legions of military because circumcision.
I think it would make more sense to say ,\
.The was against the circumcised , because the circumcised were rebel and declared independence, and they will not pay taxes.

But they did not rebel against the taxes as long as they were allowed to practise their religion. And the Roman aversion to circumcision was also due to their religious beliefs. Which they adopted from the Greeks :

The special value accorded to the prepuce in Greek culture is mirrored in the medical literature, where Galen (ca. 129–210 C.E.) singles it out as being among the most brilliantly useful adornments of the body:

Nature out of her abundance ornaments all the members, especially in man. In many parts there is manifest ornamentation, though at times this is obscured by the brilliance of their usefulness.The ears show obvious ornamentation, and so, I suppose, does the skin called the prepuce [ποσθη] at the end of the penis and the flesh of the buttocks.

The association between the longer prepuce and respectability was so strongly felt that Greeks took steps to prevent unwanted exposure of the glans. In this regard, the consistent artistic portrayal of the adult penis with a generously proportioned akroposthion may well represent an anatomical ideal peculiar to Greeks, but, in some cases, it could accurately represent a penis whose akroposthion has been elongated—either deliberately or accidentally—through the continuous, long-term application of traction. Such traction may have come from the use of the kynodesme (κυνοδεσμη, literally a "dog leash"), a thin leather thong wound around the akroposthion that pulled the penis upward and was tied in a bow, tied around the waist, or secured by some other means.

With evident hostility, Josephus and the authors of 1 Maccabees also report that circumcised Hebrew males during this era voluntarily sought foreskin restoration therapies, interpreting this as an illicit attempt at assimilation into Greek culture.57 It is regrettable that, if any Hellenophile Israelites committed alternative perspectives to writing, nothing of this nature seems to have survived. What has survived, however, is documentary evidence that the Romans picked up where the Greeks left off in the campaign to rid the world of sexual disfigurements of all degrees.58 Upholding a standard of beneficence all their own, the Romans united the Greeks' high regard for the intact body with a greater gift for administration. Accordingly, Emperor Domitian (81–96 C.E.) and his successor Nerva (96–98) issued proscripts against the castration of citizens and slaves.59 Although there remains no direct and indisputable contemporary Roman legal or literary confirmation for it, Hadrian's late biographer, Aelius Spartianus, as well as modern scholars, have argued convincingly that, around 132 C.E., Hadrian issued a universal decree [Page 390] outlawing circumcision, under penalty of death.60 There is, however, conclusive documentation that Hadrian reiterated the ban on castration, and he and his successors seem not to have made any ethical distinction between castration and circumcision, for the wording of the laws as well as the extreme penalties for both crimes are nearly identical: forfeiture of all property and execution of the perpetrators—or, for those of higher rank, deportation to an island.61 The fact that circumcision was punished with the maximum penalty allowed under the law attests to the strength of Greek and Roman views on the subject.

Taking into account the compassionate spirit of the almost identically framed laws banning castration, the ban on circumcision was most certainly motivated by humanitarian and ethical considerations rather than by a purely theological discord with those groups, such as the Hebrew priesthood, whose rationale for the ritualized circumcision of infants was defended (ineffectively, as far as the Greeks were concerned) by an appeal to the supernatural. Yet, of the various peoples affected by this ruling, apparently only the conservative religious element among the Hebrews took umbrage, leaving behind a series of elaborated, mythologized, and, not untypically, contradictory accounts, alleging the interdiction to have been religiously motivated.62 It is interesting to note, however, that the abundance of special rules and regulations regarding the cultic activities of "uncircumcised" Hebrew priests, as preserved in the Talmud, strongly hints that even in the highest circles of the Hebrew ruling classes there existed, for a period, a measure of active pluralism on the question of infant circumcision that was independent of Roman legal persuasion

Let me give you an example of circumcised 65 years ago . When German soldiers wanted to identify who was a Jew ; they told him to get their pants down and show the penis.

And this is relevant to Roman opinions about circumcision because?

 

[AlexG]

How much do you know about Judaism . There is nothing mysterious ,

I would not be surprised if in the last 10 years you have been 10 times in the temple . I would be not surprise if in the last 10 years you have nod read the Tenach , I would not be surprised if you don't celebrate the Yom Kippur and you will not celebrate Sukkot.

So what? I've done 15 years of hebrew school, and my bar mitzvah. That was 50 years ago. I've lived as a jew for that long, and I'm certainly not going argue judaism with someone as ignorant as you.

 

[gmilam]

How much do you know about Judaism . There is nothing mysterious ,

I would not be surprised if in the last 10 years you have been 10 times in the temple . I would be not surprise if in the last 10 years you have nod read the Tenach , I would not be surprised if you don't celebrate the Yom Kippur and you will not celebrate Sukkot.

Are you a troll or an idiot?

 

[arauca]

So what? I've done 15 years of hebrew school, and my bar mitzvah. That was 50 years ago. I've lived as a jew for that long, and I'm certainly not going argue judaism with someone as ignorant as you.

Thank you for the complement .

At your age it is sort of immature to insult , shalom