Josephus Quotes
Now Caius Caesar [Caligula] did so grossly abuse the fortune he had arrived at, as to take himself to be a god, and to desire to be so called also, and to cut off those of the greatest nobility out of his country. He also extended his impiety as far as the Jews. Accordingly he sent Petronius with an army to Jerusalem to place his statues in the temple, and commanded him that, in case the Jews would not admit of them, he should slay those that opposed it, and carry all the rest into captivity.
Flavius Josephus, Antiquities, ~70 AD
Sourced by: Eigen's Political and Historical Quotations
Describing the conquest and destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple in 70 AD.
After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. : Joseph ben Matthias
The Catholic Papacy was very ambivalent regarding the morality of slavery. Callistus, in effect authorized the morality of enslaving “infidels.” In the past this was a reaction to the Muslim ethic of banning slavery of Muslims but allowing it for “infidels.” This bull has been used to defend slavery ever since despite the fact that there are several other (before and after) Papal pronouncements condemning slavery. See {617550} , {617880} , {617632}
Olmert was speaking for a significant minority of Israelis who believe that God consecrated the land of Palestine to the Jewish People and all other peoples who controlled it did so by conquest. So their logic is for those who do not believe in the Bible and give no modern credence to God’s will, the Jews have no taken back the land by conquest which is the way the Palestinians and all of the many peoples had controlled that land. For believers, the Jews have the highest right; for non-believers, their right of conquest is no weaker than any of the others.
Constantine the Great. This is one of Constantine’s major defenses of his decision to adopt Christianity. Scholars today still argue as to what part practical politics played in Constantine’s conversion and what part was his personal religious conversion.
It is this verse that for some Muslims justifies terrorism against non-Muslims. See {584354} for a specific example. There are similar provisions in the Old Testament which a few extremely conservative Jews and Christians have used to advocate for blasphemy being a capital crime. Note that if an unbeliever repents and becomes a Muslim, he should be spared.
In what may have been amongst the lowest intellectual discussions regarding religion, the mores of the time was that slaves belonged to the slave owners and just as the owner had all power over the slave, he could also select the religion of the slaves as well. From a Christian point of view, freedom to be a Christian was critical, so what was to be the position and law regarding non-Christian slave owners, especially the Jews. Should property rights be dominant as was the tradition or should the Church have the right to dictate the religion of slaves? At no point in the discussion was the possibility even considered that the individual slave might have the right to select his/her religion. As a practical matter, at the time there were relatively few Jewish slave-holders, but as the Jews integrated into Christian society many assimilated—especially the wealthy who also traded and bartered with slaves. Muslims were not a problem as the newly emerging religion prohibited Muslims from holding other Muslims as slaves—although Christians and Jews could be held in servitude and were.
Joseph ben Matthias
The Roman Empire of 70 million people contained at the time 7 million Jews—the vast majority of the world’s Jews.
This verse is often cited by Muslim scholars who are defending against the claim that The Koran teaches violence against non-Muslims. In this case, the Jews are admonished to kill their defeated enemies. Today many Muslims claim that Jews and Christians who believe in the Old Testament believe that the violence was justified because it was ordered by God. Therefore when God orders Muslims to kill idolaters and other enemies, it is the same thing and not reprehensible.
In his version of Islamic logic, since non-Muslims are heretics they should be subjected to capital punishment anyway so there is no such thing as an “innocent” Christian, Hindu, Bahai or Jew. This is an extreme position held by very few of the English Muslims but unfortunately held by radical Islamic extremists in many counties.
