Rome Took White Slaves

Embrace of the Apostles Peter and Paul

Paul the Apostle: Did his homosexuality shape Christianity? (qspirit.net)

“Struggle against his own homosexual desires in an intolerant society may have inspired Paul the Apostle to write sublime Biblical teachings on unconditional love and inclusivity — and also a few “clobber passages” used by anti-LGBTQ bigots.

Both Paul’s sense of unworthiness and his appreciation for God’s grace may have the same unexpected cause: Some scholars believe that Paul was a celibate homosexual man trying to reconcile faith and sexuality in a culture that condemned same-sex attraction. This may have been the “thorn in the flesh” that God refused to remove despite his prayers.”

If I become Governor of Oregon, I will have the National Guard seize the truck convoys if they obstruct the flow of traffic. These trucks will be sold to normal and sane drivers in order to keep vital supplies flowing in time of war, and in threat of war. We must appear strong to our real enemies! We must show our friends our Democracy works. Jesus was famous for his healing. Anyone who opposes ANY HEALING – is not a follower of Jesus – who healing was politicized by Roman Wolves disguised as Healing Shepherds.

I have long suspected the reason Constantine chose the insane teaching of Saul-Paul was his father encountered so called Judaizers in Britian and Germany that were aligned with John the Baptist. I suspect Roman legions were Baptized by John – who had to be healing people! Was he healing Gentiles? I suspect the Norseman were becoming followers of the Jubilee Messiah, and thus were a threat to the Slave Masters in Rome – who spent a thousand years conquering and converting the Caucasian northerners via extortion and bribery of the royal Franks.

The TTT – The Trucker Traitors – have a good chance of toppling our Democracy. Jesus had to be aware that boy slaves were forced to engage in homosexuality, and thus would not celebrate the idea of the Centurion got his slaves to do what he asks. Was the sick slave Jesus healed from a distance – his gay lover? Did the Herodians allow their Roman friends to bring their males lovers to the temple area? Paul is arrested after bringing two men to the temple to complete their Nazarite Vow. I suspect they were gay. Were the Roman soldiers? Why did Paul hate the Jews? Did they drive the Pharisee’s Pharisee out of their religion after learning he was gay? Jesus raised the dead from a distance?

Was Constantine a homosexual – as was his father? The Catholic and Christian Church has waged a very fierce war against heterosexuals, and has long shamed their sexuality. Consider virgin Nuns walking amongst Virgin Fathers – a oxymoron. The excuse for doing this – is to end Paganism. Jesus is not interested in doing this. Rome is the most powerful Pagan institute the world has ever known. Jesus does not attempt to convert the slave he healed. This is a deliberated message to Roman friends of the Herodians. Whoever added Mark 4 – had to know the Jewish Nation lost their war with the Roman Legions, and their sacred objects were taken to Rome. How then can Jesus BE GOD as millions of Christians believe?

John Presco

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healing_the_centurion%27s_servant

Cicero, Varro’s contemporary, indicates the importance of origin for other kinds of slaves.  Writing to his friend Atticus in November 55 BCE, he jokes about the potential captives from Caesar’s invasion of Britain:  “I think that you will not expect any of them to be learned in literature or music.” Cicero assumes a common Roman perception of Britons, so any buyer who went to market to buy a personal servant, secretary, or musician, would eliminate any Briton on the catastaOrigin even entered the considerations of men in the market for a sexual favorite:  fantasizing about his ideal boy toy, the poet Martial chooses a boy from Egypt because of its reputation for sexual wantonness.

Philip’s son, Alexander the Great, led his armies all the way east to northern India in the greatest conquest of ancient times. Although historical accounts are sketchy, Alexander was not only married but also had a passion for boys and a relationship with a eunuch, according to an entry in the ″Encyclopedia of Homosexuality.″

Julius Caesar had assorted wives, mistresses and male lovers, prompting the poet Catullus to refer to Caesar as ″the husband to every woman and wife to every man″ in Rome.

Caesar carried on a scandalous relationship with King Nicomedes of Bithynia, now in present-day Turkey. After conquering Gaul, Caesar’s victorious legions chanted, ″Caesar got on top of the Gauls, Nicomedes got on top of Caesar,″ the Roman historian Suetonius wrote.”

What this means is that the vandals and the Visigoths passed over, or simply didn’t find, the select treasures secreted away in that palace, and instead took with them the many items on public display in the Temple, located not far away.

It says in the Talmud that the famous Jewish sage and author of the Zohar, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, went to Rome with his colleagues to nullify harsh decrees placed on Judea, and while there, saw the exact items mentioned in this article. They ended up being royal guests at Vespasian’s palace after being asked to attend to his ailing daughter. When they miraculously did heal her, the sages were afforded the chance to see these extremely holy items, proving that they were kept in that place.

Is there new evidence of Jewish Temple treasures in the Vatican? (msn.com)

Homosexuality Not Unusual In Military History From Caesar’s Day | AP News

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Did Paul and Constantine invent Christianity? – bethinking.org

Victory of Caesar over Belgians

Caesar boasted of killing a million Gauls, and enslaving another million. Like most recorded boasts of antiquity, Caesar’s is most probably an exaggeration. Yet in the aftermath of Caesar’s campaign a lot more of Gauls would have died of diseases and famine.

Romanization proceeded from the top down, the upper classes adopting Roman culture first and the old ways lingering longest in outlying districts among peasants. This is what the British also tried to do in India in 19th Century, albeit with much less success.

Hostages played an important part in this process, as elite children, from Mauritania to Gaul, were taken to be raised and educated in Rome. One characteristic of cultural Romanization was the creation of many hundreds of Roman colonies in the territory of the Roman Republic and the subsequent Roman Empire. Until Trajan, colonies were created using retired veteran soldiers, mainly from the Italian peninsula, who promoted Roman customs and laws, with the use of Latin. The effect of Romanization is visible even today in the countries which are known as Latin countries.

It is true in 56 BC Bretagne was conquered by Julius Caesar. After their defeat their leaders were killed and the tribe sold as slaves. But the rule of Constantine (307–350) led to a certain renaissance.

Constantine came to Britain with his father, the emperor Constantius, in 305.  Constantius died in July the following year in York.

The system of succession at the time demanded that another Caesar should become emperor but the soldiers in York immediately proclaimed Constantine their leader.  It proved to be a pivotal moment in history.  He is known as Constantine the Great for very good reasons.

After nearly 80 years, and three generations of political fragmentation, Constantine united the whole of the Roman Empire under one ruler.  By 324 he had extended his power and was sole emperor, restoring stability and security to the Roman world.

Constantine also abandoned Rome as the most important city in the empire, building a new capital modestly named Constantinople (now Istanbul).  In the next two centuries, Rome and Italy became vulnerable to barbarian invasions.  The much more easily defensible Constantinople lasted for another thousand years.

Finally, and perhaps most famously, Constantine’s strong support for Christianity had an incalculable impact on European history.  He is said to have been converted to the faith in AD 312, although this has not been corroborated.

At the time only around ten per cent of the Roman empire’s population was Christian.  The majority of the ruling elite worshipped the old gods of Rome.  Constantine was the first emperor to allow Christians to worship freely, helping to unite and promote the faith.  He went on to instigate the celebration of the birth of Christ we call Christmas.

In 314, a year after Constantine’s edict on religious tolerance, Eboracum had its first Bishop.  Along with the Bishop’s of Londinium (London) and Lindum (Lincoln), he attended the Christian Council at Arles.

Constantine didn’t stay long in York, establishing Trier as his base for his campaigns against the Germans perhaps a year after his succession.  However his place in York’s history was already very firmly sealed.

ROMAN SLAVERY AND THE QUESTION OF RACE

POSTED ONJANUARY 4, 2009BY CONTRIBUTED BY: SANDRA JOSHEL

Statue of possible African slave in Rome

Courtesy Louvre Museum (MA4926)

Most historians of the Roman world have decoupled the concepts of bondage and race that are central to the arguments justifying the enslavement of millions of people in the United States and other modern western nations. Instead they argued that those enslaved by the Romans had a rough equality regardless of their region of origin.  Historian Sandra Joshel, however, makes note of important distinctions  the Romans made among their bondspeople. Her argument appears below.

Those who sell slaves must state the natio [place of origin] of each at the sale; for the natio of a slave frequently encourages or deters a prospective buyer; hence it is advantageous to know his natio, since it is reasonable to suppose that some slaves are good because they originate from a tribe that has a good reputation, and others bad because they come from a tribe that is rather disreputable.
(Edict of the Aediles, Digest 21.1.31.21, trans. Alan Watson)

As the Roman law on the sale of slaves makes clear, the ancient Romans paid attention to the origin of the slaves whom they bought, sold, and used in their houses, farms, and businesses. The term, “origin,” in Latin is natio:  the Oxford Latin Dictionary tells its readers that natio can mean origin, people, nation, or race.  Which noun a translator chooses will connote particular meanings for readers of ancient Roman texts in the twenty-first century, especially in the context of slavery.  Although we acknowledge that slavery existed in places and cultures other than the southern United States, in particular Greco-Roman antiquity, popular historical imagination usually associates slavery with race—in particular with the millions of black Africans shipped to the Americas from the seventeenth century on.  In effect, slave is associated with black.  While the Romans had clear notions about non-Romans, other cultures, and even different body types and facial features, they lacked the notions of race that developed in Europe and the Americas from the fifteenth century to the present: that is, a notion that associates a particular set of characteristics (usually deeply discrediting for all but whites) with a skin  color and particular physiogamy.

This is not to say that the Romans never saw a black African or that some slaves in the Roman empire were black. Roman paintings and statuary, like a small statuette from the third century CE, which accompanies this article, depict men and women with African features.  Currently in the Louvre Museum in Paris, France this man is identified as a slave probably because he looks African. Yet, we cannot be sure that he, or any Roman depiction of an African, is a slave. Free Africans appeared in the Roman empire as traders, travelers, and workmen.  In this case, however, factors other than race may well indicate a slave: his simple tunic and the vessel he carries for some task.  Domestic servants, in fact, were most often slaves, and depictions of servants, dressed in simple tunics or in livery, most probably represent slaves.

Modern associations with race will not help us to understand the Roman view of slaves’ ethnicities, natal cultures, and origins.  The Romans did have negative ethnic stereotypes and they did denigrate slave bodies and supposed characteristics.  In many ways, the attitudes and stereotypes of freeborn (usually elite) Romans, reflect what the sociologist Orlando Patterson calls “social death”—the slave’s the loss of ethnicity, family, and membership in a tribe or a state.  At Rome, attitudes toward slaves and slaveholders’ practices denied the ethnicity of slaves even as they acknowledged it, and this simultaneous affirmation and denial contributed to the slave’s social death.

The Romans had various sources of slaves—war, birth, piracy, and the long distance trade from outside the empire.  Of these, war, the enslavement of Rome’s defeated enemies, was one of the most important.  The commanding general determined the fate of war captives, whom the Romans considered part of the plunder.  Usually, the general handed over the captives to an official who sold them at auction to traders who followed the armies.  Cicero’s behavior after a small victory during his governorship of Cilicia was typical.  He gave his soldiers all the plunder except the captives whom he sold on 19 December 51 BCE:  “as I write, there is about 120,000 sesterces on the platform.”  Cicero’s words mark out auction as a step in the commodification of the humans sold—a step toward social death.  Cicero did not even count the captives that he put up for sale; for him, they were not Cilicians—just 120,000 sesterces.

To use modern terms, the Romans were “equal opportunity” enslavers: they did not limit their enslavements to one people, place, or, in our terms, race.  From the late third century BCE through the early third century CE, as the Romans conquered the Mediterranean basin, the Balkans, much of the modern Middle East, Europe west of the Rhine River, they often enslaved at least some of their defeated enemies.  Although the numbers given in ancient sources are notoriously unreliable, a few examples indicate the scale of capture and enslavement.  In 177 BCE, during his campaign in Sardinia, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus killed or enslaved 80,000 of the island’s inhabitants.  In 167 BCE the Roman senate granted the victorious Roman general in Greece the right to sack seventy cities on the west coast of Greece: 150,000 persons were enslaved. Although the nearly continuous wars of expansion of the last two BCE came to an end under imperial Rome, the empire still waged wars and enslaved many of the conquered.  To name a few, Augustus’s wars against the Alpine tribes and in Spain, Tiberius’s wars along the Rhine, Claudius’s conquest of Britain, campaigns against the Parthians, Trajan’s wars in Dacia, and Marcus Aurelius’ campaign across the Danube all brought captives to Rome as slaves.  Revolts in the provinces, though rarer, too, resulted in enslavements.  In the Jewish War (in what is now Israel) in 66-70 CE, to take a dramatic example, 97,000 people were enslaved.

The association between conquest and slavery shaped Roman perceptions of all slaves, regardless of their origin, as defeated outsiders. The jurist Florentinus (Digest 1.5.4.2-3) claims slaves were called servi because generals were accustomed to sell those captured in war (captivos), saving rather that killing them (servare), and mancipia because they were seized from the enemy by force (manu capiuntur). Thus, like war captives, children were born into slavery.  Moreover, men and women brought into the empire in the long-distance slave trade not only lost their natal cultures, they became outsiders, and their lack of power as bodies sold in the market likened them to the condition of defeated enemies who, like their goods, became plunder.

If all differences of ethnicity and origin were reduced to the category of defeated captive in the crucible of conquest, sale in the marketplace reinscribed natio not as a social, ethnic, or racial identity but as a set of personal characteristics.  The identification of origin prescribed by the Roman law on slave sales took place among—indeed belonged to–practices which reduced the human being to a commodity for sale and which from a Roman point of view deeply shamed the person who underwent them.  Penned up and readied for sale, slaves in Rome were fattened, painted, slathered with various concoctions, and dressed up or covered up to hide wounds and scars.  The slave climbed onto a platform called a catasta—the object of the piecing gazes of on-lookers and buyers.  A plaque with the relevant information on the slave (including origin) hung around his or her neck.  New captives had their feet chalked to mark their condition.  Some were made to leap around to demonstrate their health or agility.  Sometimes, the buyer would order the slave stripped, and he or the dealer would poke or prod the slave to check for defects or flaws.

The slave’s place of origin interested buyers as an index of character and behavior.  Imagine, for example, the author and writer of the late first century BCE, Marcus Terentius Varro, at the slave market near the Temple of Castor in Rome.  His manual on agriculture includes advice on the kinds of slaves fit for different tasks on the farm and suggest the standards that he, or a reader following his advice, applied in the slave market.  He would pay close attention to origin in his selecting slaves.  First, he would calculate the origins of the slaves that he already owned, so as not to buy too many from one place, because, according to Varro, too many slaves from the same place caused “domestic quarrels.”  Second, origin was a yardstick of potential.  If the buyer was in the market for herdsmen, he should choose Gauls and avoid Bastulans or Turdulians. If he wanted female slaves as mates for his herdsmen, he would do well to consider slaves from Illyricum, as these women were “strong and not ill-looking, in many places they are as fit for work as men.”

Cicero, Varro’s contemporary, indicates the importance of origin for other kinds of slaves.  Writing to his friend Atticus in November 55 BCE, he jokes about the potential captives from Caesar’s invasion of Britain:  “I think that you will not expect any of them to be learned in literature or music.” Cicero assumes a common Roman perception of Britons, so any buyer who went to market to buy a personal servant, secretary, or musician, would eliminate any Briton on the catasta.  Origin even entered the considerations of men in the market for a sexual favorite:  fantasizing about his ideal boy toy, the poet Martial chooses a boy from Egypt because of its reputation for sexual wantonness.

These judgments, of course, depended on stereotypes of character and physique and not reality.  Roman slaveholders paid attention to slaves’ ethnicity, origin, and even what we might see as race, yet, at the same time, they denied the lived reality of natio.  Their distinctions were based on a set of personal characteristics that indicated the slave’s potential use and acceptance of subjection.  Thus, even as the Roman slaveholders recognized ethnic and physical differences, they collapsed those differences to a single consideration that erased the lived realities of the former lives of the enslaved.  A Gaul lost his cultural identity as a member of this or that tribe to become a potential herdsman; the Briton was useless for anything but physical labor; the Egyptian boy was reduced to a single quality in the sexual ethnography of a Roman poet.

About Royal Rosamond Press

I am an artist, a writer, and a theologian.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.