There's no Roman Empire in the Bible.
Just a place (city?) called Rome, that some people mention and go to. And one mention of the language used there. That's it.
#WordStudy
Discussion
Lessee, there's Caesar and centurions, Roman soldiers and cohorts and colonies. So there's more ...
I don't see anything linking Ceasar to Rome specifically though.
If anything, these things seem to be mentioned in more of a worldwide "Greek Empire" of sorts.
Helps to read the Bible some. Try Luke 2.1 and 3.1.
Caesar on the denarius, Mark 12.15-16.
Just for starters ...
What links tertrachs, denarii and Caesar specifically to the Rome of the Bible?
(and not the Rome we were given in history)
I don't see that link.
Where does it say that Herod is a Roman? Or Pilate? Or Augustus?
If I don't step out of the Bible and try to figure out what reign people are under at the start of the New testament, I don't come to the conclusion that Rome (a location that is mentioned a handful of times) is a huge empire under which rule everyone is living.
Certainly because at that time this was so obvious it was not worth mentioning it.
And so? What do you mean?
I'm trying to figure out in what context the New Testament kicks off, by only looking within the Bible itself.
trying to figure out context by ignoring context
*ignoring false doctrines
How did you come to the conclusion that the Christian Bible (and which version anyway, Lutheran?) teaches true doctrines but everything else is false?
If I wanted to understand some historical event I would consult all of the documents of the time + the most recent and comprehensive historical analysis. I would not assume to start that some documents were correct and others false, but only come to such a conclusion comparing each to objective facts as best I understand those.
“In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.”
— Luke 2:1 (NIV)
That's a link some translators make and seem to sneak in there, though.
οικος (oikos) doesn't mean ROMAN World. It doesn't even necessarily mean World for that matter 😉.
Wasn't Pontius Pilate the Roman governor (ie dictator) of Judea?
So far as I can tell "Emperor" is basically a euphemism for "King", which various societies have had severe phobia about.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/emperor
The Roman emperors took the title of "Imperator" meaning something like "conquering general" because the Romans might have revolted if the rulers took the title of "Rex" (King).
The concept of "Empire" is a later invention that the people of that time would not have used.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/empire
The etymology is literally 'an area which is ruled', which Pilate's central role seems to establish.
So, I think you are playing a word game rather than thinking clearly.
Moreover, if you understand how the Roman governorship worked you see clearly that the Romans could never have crucified Christ. Once Pilate declares him innocent it would be murder to crucify him anyway.
I'm taking the Word as my one true foundation and I'm seeing where that takes me.
Mainstream history, like most other teachings of men, doesn't make sense and is full of contradictions. So, especially when it also contradicts three Bible, I'm not looking at it for this exercise.
Wikipedia can say whatever it wants about Pilate, I'm not reading it. Who is he in the Bible?
If that exercise sounds totally retarded to you, no problem.
I find it very interesting that "Empyrean" means "on fire" in Greek btw :fire:
The best case for Rome being something that's, at least legally, recognized more broadly is Acts 22:25-28