Justin Martyr Essay

Fulcher of Chartres noted that during the meeting with the council of dignitaries in the city of Clermont, France Pope Urban II gave an eternal decree to all Christians that were willing fight the war.2 He promised that any Christian who died in the defense of Jerusalem would be given remission of all sins. Pope Urban II explicitly states “I grant them through the power of God.”3 By giving such a promise that all sins would be forgiven in death, Pope Urban alleviated the fear any Crusader had of being punished by God of wrongdoing. For some that alone was enough justification to go to battle. This “promise” also gives greater

Justinian I Justinian had a very significant role in world history. There are many things that are overlooked when speaking of Justinian. For instance, Justinian was a great architect. Many times we overlook the little characteristics of Justinian and we focus on the code of Justinian.

McGiffert, A. (1909). The Influence of Christianity upon the Roman Empire. The Harvard Theological Review, 2(1), 28-49. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1507353

The development of christianity under the empire undoubtedly changed the relation between the political and spiritual spheres in following centuries. In fact, this transpires in how often emperors and empresses played dominant roles in the Eastern church after Constantine I's reign. In many

a. Pagan philosophers studied the Bible and found that it contrad- icted each other. b. They also found that Genesis implies multiple gods. i. Saint Bernard of Clairvaux said that gathering knowledge was pagan and unholy, unless it was “sanctified by a holy mission.” c. Christians were often blamed for the fall of Rome. C. Aurelius Augustinus (Saint Augustine)-Bishop of Hippo, Catholic prelate 1.

Many believe that the writings of early Church Fathers were lectured to different sects. In fact, one may assume that there are Similarities and differences between Tertullian and Justin Martyr. Particularly, let’s compare Tertullian’s and Justin Martyr perspective of faith, reason, and philosophy! Justin Martyr is Known as the defender of the faith (Tony lane), (p.10) He looked for truth in Greek philosophy. Likewise, his apology is in defense of the Christian faith and belief of Christianity. Of the writings that subsist, his First Apology (c. 155 c.e.; English translation, 1861) contains a resilient appeal for justice lectured to Antoninus. In that work, he clarifies Christian morals to influence his reader of Christian faithfulness and honesty. However, also central to this writing is his claim that Hebrew prophecy and Greek philosophy, both informed by the divine Logos (the Word), pointed to the coming of Christ. Through such dispute, he facilitated to institute the early Christian theme which faith is greater than Greek philosophy and is the result of Judaic belief. In Justin’s awareness, merely those who were controlled by fears failed to recognize these facts. His Second Apology (c.

She begins her statement with some logos about how 7,000 people were killed for their beliefs. Then she followed up with some ethos about her personal experiences with interacting with the neighbors and learning about their faith. Because of her experiences, she spoke against the intolerance and defending her neighbor from unjust persecution. For me, it is convincing and she uses ethos and pathos to demonstrate how society is very narrow-mined towards monotheistic religion. To further strengthen her argument, she uses more imagery and ethos to describe the abuse Christians have experienced, especially to children who are innocent. While to many Romans can find religions such as Christianity to be strange and weird, I believe that the Christians and the Jews should have the right to exercise and practice their faith freely. Even if they may not understand their faith, as the neighbor pointed out, it is the lack of knowledge that most Romans would want to persecute the Christians and

By comparing the following primary sources, “The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas” and “The Rape of Lucretia,” historians can learn about the archetypes of Roman society. The former text, written in 202 or 203 CE, is a prison diary of a young martyr in Carthage. The protagonist, Perpetua, is arrested and sentenced to death because she refused to renounce her Christian faith. Despite having a newborn and hearing consistent outcry from her father to renounce her faith, Perpetua refused to absolve from Christianity. Prior to her execution, she and her comrades experience visions of entering Heaven and specifics of how their deaths would be bestowed upon them. These visions provided comfort to the prisoners because they legitimized the belief in God, as well as sanctioned the power of God to perform miracles. As God willed it, Perpetua, the “most valiant and blessed martyrs”, was ultimately executed in the arena. The latter text, written in 17 AD by Roman historian, Livy, is a story of propaganda about the rape of a honorable woman named Lucretia. Lucretia, Tarquinius Conlatinus’s wife, was the quintessential example of a Roman martyr. She was applauded for her modest, hospitable, and dutiful nature. Tragically, she was forcibly raped by the emperor’s son, Sextus Tarquinius. Consequently, Brutus, Tarquinius, and Lucretia’s father, did not object while witnessing Lucretia commit suicide in order to preserve her and her family’s

You said that both Christians and the Romans were disrespectful against each other because of their beliefs, but I think that Christians had some opportunity to believe their religion till Nero, and the respect of a belief was one of the most important dynamics for both religions, and the Christians had respect to the Roman religion, too. Belief and ritual were both the foundation of both religions, too. But, the perceptions and the views against each other created the dangerous conflicts between both religions that these conflicts negatively affected on both religions dynamics. So, the conflicts and the persecution of Christians lasted till Constantine I.

In addition to your post, I think that the initial respond to the Christians from the Romans was reprimand. Later, cruelty and punishment came along with this reprimand. As I wrote in Deionna’s first post, there was an understanding in Romans that it was called piety. Piety was about being united and loyal to their emperors that the Romans were not able to see these virtues in Christians because they were believing differently and had different perception on the world, politics, military and economic issues. Why Pliny was punishing them might be lack of piety in Christians that the Romans thought that Christians had no piety related to the Roman religion.

Another interesting point was when the Pharisees made false accusations about Jesus that led him to his death on the cross. Jesus was crucified because he said he was the savior and the Romans couldn’t take that, they thought he was lying so they killed him for lying. The problem with Jesus based on the Rome point of view was that he didn’t just preach loving kindness. He also preached justice and it wasn’t Rome’s justice; it was God’s justice. Based on .

The individual works of Porphyry and Justin gives just a glimpse of the opposing views they held of Christianity. They both had ideas about the place of Christianity in the Roman world, based on the roots and origins of Christianity. Justin chose Christianity later on in life, where he found truths in the ideas of Christianity and pursued showing how there were faults in the views that were held about Christianity. Porphyry, who is said to be someone who left Christianity, found faults and issues with concepts of Christianity that they held as critical pieces of their origins. Porphyry held issues with the idea of Christians claiming Moses or the Apostles as actual major influences on Christianity. Justin Martyr’s work was an ‘Apology’ towards the Emperor Antonius Pious and his sons, members of the Roman senate. This was Justin’s response to the mistreatment he felt was being done

Even he, as a high authority figure, doesn’t fully understand this genocide of our kind. He does not understand the circumstances that are required for our punishments, and refuses to diminish Christians without proper approval and clarification from Trajan, so that he feels that it is more fair to my people. Trajan’s response seems typical, but to the extent that a public accusation is required. Therefore, I must ask you now, what offenses can you bring towards us? Do we really deserve the punishment of death from our different religion? We cause no war, violence, protests, but only peace and order. We obey the laws of your land, except those of your religion, of course.

Domitian is most likely one of the last people whom should be referenced in this situation, considering he even killed his own cousin. During Domitian’s rule it was very explicit that there were no exceptions when it came to the matter of persecuting Christians, “Christians alone are forbidden to say anything in exculpation of themselves, in defense of the truth, to help the judge to a righteous decision; all that is cared about is having what the public hatred demands-the confession of the name, not examination of the charge.” (Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3.) So when a Christian had been denounced he or she did not attain the right to defend themselves, Domitian did not even considering amending this impractical process when his cousin, Flavius Clemens had been denounced as a Christian; “Finally he put to death his own cousin Flavius Clemens, suddenly and on a very slight suspicion, almost before the end of his consulship; and yet Flavius was a man of most contemptible laziness and Domitian had besides openly named his sons, who were then very young, as his successors, changing their former names and calling the one Vespasian and the other Domitian. And it was by this deed in particular that he hastened his own destruction.” (Suetonis, 15.) Domitian yet again felt the need to prove to his family members (for the sake of his own self worth) that he

the blame upon the Christians. He did this for two reasons: to excuse himself of the