Question about Jesus. Forgive me if it's insensitive

Rerto

If Romans were the ones who crucified Jesus, then why is Rome the epicentre of the Roman Catholic Church?

Was he a bastard child? Christianity has historically had a thing against bastard children. Mary's husband (Joseph) is not the biological father of the child.

How many people were at his tomb? If he was a condemned criminal, why was he laid in a single tomb by himself and not placed in a mass grave as would have been the style at the time after a crucifixion.

Is worshipping crucifixes not considered to be worshipping a false idol?

Sneak

That would be an ecumenical matter.

gabsdot40

I can answer one of your questions. Jesus was buried in the tomb of one of his followers, Joseph of Arimathea. Joseph donated it to Jesus.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Rerto wrote: »

If Romans were the ones who crucified Jesus, then why is Rome the epicentre of the Roman Catholic Church?

Was he a bastard child? Christianity has historically had a thing against bastard children. Mary's husband (Joseph) is not the biological father of the child.

How many people were at his tomb? If he was a condemned criminal, why was he laid in a single tomb by himself and not placed in a mass grave as would have been the style at the time after a crucifixion.

Is worshipping crucifixes not considered to be worshipping a false idol?

I'll probably regret rising to this....

Rome was the centre of the empire and the logical place to preach the gospel to the whole world.
Mary and Joseph were married in the eyes of the state so to earthly powers he was legitimate.
His body was requested for burial by Joseph of Aramathea, who had some influence.

The crucifix is not a false idol as it represents the true God. Plus, nobody worships a crucifix.

Rerto

Antonella Spoiled Income wrote: »

I'll probably regret rising to this....

Rome was the centre of the empire and the logical place to preach the gospel to the whole world.
Mary and Joseph were married in the eyes of the state so to earthly powers he was legitimate.
His body was requested for burial by Joseph of Aramathea, who had some influence.

The crucifix is not a false idol as it represents the true God. Plus, nobody worships a crucifix.

So if someone fathered a child with your wife the child wound't be a bastard?

pauldla

Rerto wrote: »

If Romans were the ones who crucified Jesus, then why is Rome the epicentre of the Roman Catholic Church?

Was he a bastard child? Christianity has historically had a thing against bastard children. Mary's husband (Joseph) is not the biological father of the child.

How many people were at his tomb? If he was a condemned criminal, why was he laid in a single tomb by himself and not placed in a mass grave as would have been the style at the time after a crucifixion.

Is worshipping crucifixes not considered to be worshipping a false idol?

AFAIK victims of crucifixion were usually not buried but were left to rot on the cross.

As others have stated, the tomb was donated by one Joseph of Arimathea. Good luck finding where that is; Robert Carrier suggests it's a pun in Greek ('best-disciple-town').

Peregrinus

Rerto wrote: »

If Romans were the ones who crucified Jesus, then why is Rome the epicentre of the Roman Catholic Church?

Because it was the epicentre of the world during the formative period of the Christian church. And because the church in Jerusalem, which hypothetically might have mounted a rival claim to primacy based on its connection with the Holy Places, was utterly destroyed in the First Jewish War just about the time the church in Rome was starting to assert itself.

Rerto wrote: »

Was he a bastard child? Christianity has historically had a thing against bastard children. Mary's husband (Joseph) is not the biological father of the child.

He wouldn't have been considered a bastard in his own time because Joseph and Mary were married, and Joseph publicly acknowledged/treated Jesus as his son.

Later generations of Christians, even those who harboured negative attitudes towards bastard children in general, would not have seen Jesus as being in that category because his birth was not the result of an act of fornication or adultery.

Rerto wrote: »

How many people were at his tomb? If he was a condemned criminal, why was he laid in a single tomb by himself and not placed in a mass grave as would have been the style at the time after a crucifixion.

As others have said, according to the gospels Jesus was laid in a tomb provided by a follower. This would have been unusual, since the crucified were normally left to rot where they hung.

Rerto wrote: »

Is worshipping crucifixes not considered to be worshipping a false idol?

Christians deny that they worship crucifixes. Discussions about this usually devolve into arguments about the definition of the word "worship", and tend not to be very enlightening.

Heebie

Rerto wrote:

If Romans were the ones who crucified Jesus, then why is Rome the epicentre of the Roman Catholic Church?

Other than what has been stated, there are those scholars that believe the Roman emperor of the day was having trouble controlling Romans who were converting, and made Christianity the official religion take exert control over it, then bastardising it, creating the Roman Catholic Church and wiping out or absorbing "alternate" Christian sects.
Taking something over to control it is an age-old tactic.

Peregrinus

Heebie wrote: »

Other than what has been stated, there are those scholars that believe the Roman emperor of the day was having trouble controlling Romans who were converting, and made Christianity the official religion take exert control over it, then bastardising it, creating the Roman Catholic Church and wiping out or absorbing "alternate" Christian sects.
Taking something over to control it is an age-old tactic.

Mmm. This is a bit oversimplified. The events you are referring to occurred in the fourth century. The emperor Constantine made Christianity legal in 313 AD and conferred various gifts and privileges on the Christian church, while also attempting to exercise a degree of control over it. (He didn't make the the official religion; that didn't happen until 380 AD under the emperors Theodosisus, Gratian and Valentinian.) But by the time Constantine did that, the church in Rome had already emerged as a strong contender for leadership of the whole church. Inter-church disputes, for instance, were being referred to Rome for settlement more than a century before these events.

In fact, the emperor Constantine was also the emperor who moved the capital of the Empire from Rome to Constantinople. So, if his intervention is to be given credit for the pre-eminence of any church, it's not the church of Rome but the church of Constantinople (which is still the epicentre of Eastern Christianity).

Graces7

Heebie wrote: »

Other than what has been stated, there are those scholars that believe the Roman emperor of the day was having trouble controlling Romans who were converting, and made Christianity the official religion take exert control over it, then bastardising it, creating the Roman Catholic Church and wiping out or absorbing "alternate" Christian sects.
Taking something over to control it is an age-old tactic.

And the surest way to destroy its heart and meaning

Lantus

Antonella Spoiled Income wrote:

Rome was the centre of the empire and the logical place to preach the gospel to the whole world. Mary and Joseph were married in the eyes of the state so to earthly powers he was legitimate. His body was requested for burial by Joseph of Aramathea, who had some influence.

Palestine was a medieval backward country where people were illiterate. China by comparison had written language for most people and was vastly more advanced. Odd the God of all creation didn't pick that region to commence his message. A fact not lost on Chinese emporers when first visited by Christian pilgrims.

splinter65

Rerto wrote: »

So if someone fathered a child with your wife the child wound't be a bastard?

What’s a bastard?

Rerto

An illegitimate child. A child born outside of marriage or a child whose father is not the mother’s husband.