Why arent the Italians called Christ-Killers?

Wrong. Jews killed Jesus
Did Americans elect trump, or did the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court do it when he inaugurated trump?

Not an argument and yes, no, yes.

As expected, im dealing with a brainlet

>im dealing with a brainlet

Attached: 1401714288656.png (500x340, 231K)

Do christians seriously think a bunch of legionnaires killed Jesus?

i also presume you're american too, since your idea of nationhood is simply being born in a certain political entity

Alright fuckwit, you can bitch all you want about "muh ethnic groups" but there was no sense of common Italian identity before the Risorgimento. Sure there was a longing for a strong, unified Italian state among a certain portion of the population, but there were no Italians until the new state set about creating one people out of many through universal education, national symbols, new, purely-Italian cultural icons and even football clubs. This is a fact attested to by any serious Italian historian. So basically take your historical illiteracy and shove it up your prolapsed ass.

who is dante

A Florentine poet who was adopted as a national poet by the Kingdom of Italy, just like Boccaccio.

Who would you blame for Anne Boleyn’s death, Henry the Eighth or the executioner?

I'd blame ANNE FOR BEING A WHOOORE WITH A STUPID NAME!

Oh really? Then why did they call their own language Italian?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floris_Italicae_lingue_libri_novem

>adopted as a national poet by the Kingdom of Italy, just like Boccaccio
uneducated, opinion discarded

>there was no sense of common Italian identity before the Risorgimento
The fucking ancient italics already had a sense of common identity all the way back in 90BC during the social war, you dumbass.

Because it was the language spoken by the people who lived in what the Romans had called Italia. I'm starting to think that reading comprehension mightn't be your strong point.

Yes, and what were the people who spoke Italian as a mother language called?

I'll give you a hint: starts with I ends with N and has T A L I A in the middle

That identity was very, very different to modern Italian identity. I'm sure that the Greeks in Magna Gracia and Celts on the Po had a common identity too, and they lived inside the boundaries of modern Italy. That doesn't make them Italian.

Speaking Italian doesn't make you an Italian, even if the standardisation of Italian was a massive part in the creation of a common Italian identity in the 19th Century.

Ok brainlet, i see what i say enters in one ear and leaves from the other, there is nothing in the middle to contain it it seems

>they also wanted to kill Lazarus for being proof of Jesus' miracles
You are Veeky Forums, not /myth/ology

>That identity was very, very different to modern Italian identity
No shit, there's 2000 years between the two. Modern greek identity is nothing like hellenistic greek identity either, but you don't go around bullshitting about how ancient greeks didn't acknowledge a common identity between city states, do you?

You seem to misunderstand my point that "there was no sense of common Italian identity before the Risorgimento."
When I say "Italian identity" I mean the modern Italian identity, not the identity of any cultural group that happened to live in modern Italy over the past 2000 years.

not the guy

i agree with you, the modern italian identity is post-roman and it stems from the middle ages, not the 19th century

>what were the people who spoke Italian as a mother language called?
Tuscan or Florentine since that’s what the actual language that we now call Italian is. A different language from say Venetian or Sicilian.

>Speaking Italian doesn't make you an Italian
Then what does make you Italian? Speaking Italian doesn't make you an Italian, calling yourself and your people Italian doesn't make you an Italian, foreigners call you Italian doesn't make you an Italian

I guess we're down to a passport and a document the only thing that can determine your nation, eh mutt?

Attached: download.jpg (225x225, 8K)

I don't think that Italian identity is in any way artificial and the medieval influences are noted by any historian worth their PhD. At the same time it's recognised that there wasn't a unified sense of being Italian and a single, concrete identity shared by people living as far apart as Milan and Naples.

We get it, you're an atheist. Stop posting it in every single thread on religion, no one gives a fuck what you believe.

>Italian identity
What I think is that you are confusing italian identity with italian nationalism. The residents of Italy have been acknowledging themselves as "italian" and have considered themselves the direct descendents of the people inhabiting the region for the last 2000 years, there's no such thing as modern as opposed to ancient italian identity.

you have it backwards, friend, the name of the language was ITALIAN, by the people who wrote it and spoke it

"Tuscan" or "Florentine" are what we call these dialects today

>using /pol/ memes
You gotta go back

How was it the Italian language if it was only spoken in a small part of Italy until the Savoyard unification? It’s just one of many languages that all derive from Latin on the Italian peninsula.

I disagree, the Italian identity stems from the early middle ages

what you're referring to is the 19th century idea that all italians should live in a single unified italian nationstate, the peoples of the various city states spoke the same language and considered eachother countrymen and in foreign lands they were refereed to as italians

your idea of how nations worked before 1945 is very screwed by our modern idea of "your identity is the country you are born in"

Italian Nationalism required a unified Italian identity and culture. Sure Garibaldi and co. might have created Italy as a nation, but they still had to turn all the Florentines, Neapolitans and Venetians into Italians.

>Roman Empire was defacto ruled by the jews.

Attached: Billy-Herrington.jpg (225x224, 9K)

The STANDARD language of every nation was always spoken by an educated minority before education systems for the masses were created

Local elites have local power you jabroni

>Italian Nationalism required a unified Italian identity and culture
Which was already there, Garibaldi didn't emerge in a vacuum, he represented centuries of striving toward unity from Machiavelli to Alfieri, Foscolo, Mazzini, etc. What needed to be created was the legitimacy of the Savoia's violent takeover of the country.

>Italian Nationalism required a unified Italian identity and culture
this

savoy didn't just conquer italy with military might, it was supported by italians all over the peninsula who rebelled against their governments

The idea of Italian unification was supported by parts of the population of Italy, it wasn't a massive undercurrent present in the entirety of the people living in Italy before unification. Just look at the composition of the Mille Expedition, a whole lot of volunteers from the North of Italy (more than 50% were from the Savoys' Kingdom). There was certainly support for the Unification but it wasn't some kind of common striving that all "Italians" yearned for. That's a story invented during the Risorgimento.

Well Sicily and the South in general was just annexed, even if they cheered Garibaldi at first the oppression put on them by North evaporated that very quickly.

That's a dumb argument. You're never going to find a region where everyone supports a nationalistic movement anywhere at any point in time.
Italian nationalism was strongly supported by the upper and middle classes of 19th century Italy, especially the intellectuals, and those are the ones who actually start shit.

Actually it only had strong support in parts of Northern Italy, Sicilian liberals mostly desired an independent Sicily within an Italian Kingdom

Italy at the time wasn't a nation. It was a geographic region you retard. Italy is made up of a multitude of varying ethnic groups. Not every Italian is a gweedo Sicilian you brainlet

*Barnable

Cringe at these Zeitgeist-tier Christianity was actually this and that theories where most of the similarities are actually ccmplete fabrication.

But the Italians are claiming Roman achievements as their own, why not their sins?

Because killing Jesus was just an excuse. Jews were hated and loathed because they were the ISIS of antiquity and the reputation stuck with them even after the reasons were forgot because they refused to assimilate.

Were jews the original niggers?

>europoors who have no history clinging desperately to ethnic identity
my sides

Same thing happened with Spain. It's the reason why Basques, Catalans and (to a lesser extent) Galicians want independence.

Look at Walter Veith's sermons.

Rome/Papacy is the Antichrist beast system. Mystery Babylon.

>Pantheism
>Gnostics
>Kabbalists
>Knight's Templars
>Rosicrucians
>Freemasons
>Illuminati
>New Age / Marxist movements

The Vatican is the seat of Satan.

>Still without realize that Catholic church is just a continuation of Roman Empire.

Bruh.

Attached: images.jpg (201x251, 23K)

how does one 'have' history?

>The Vatican is the seat of Satan.

Yup. Probably in Nod, where Cain set up his city, first. Then the Flood wiped them all out. Then they rebuilt and regrouped at Babylon, and that was the seat of satan. Then when Babylon was destroyed in the 6th century BC, it moved to Pergamos (Rev. 3). When Pergamos was annexed into the Roman empire, the seat of satan moved to Rome and has been there ever since.

Europe is built on history.
America is built on ideas.

Nobody killed Jesus.

Jesus had the power to lay down his life, and the power to pick it back up again. No man had the power to take Jesus' life away from him, and no man did. Jesus gave it up, voluntarily.

Reading the new testament illustrates how it's Jewish writers got progressively more pissed off at their brethren for rejecting the messianic claims of Jesus.

I, billy herrington

Because Italians aren't roman

Easter is coming... Luckily you'll get to watch on TV all these great films: QuoVadis, BenHur, The Fall of the Roman Empire... good for culture.

/thread

Reading the New Testament illustrates just how bad Christians/Greeks are at pretending to be Jewish.

Show sources. Here’s your you.

Attached: 27EA5D4F-BD8C-4A0C-BE7B-E8C35EC1B5E6.jpg (600x590, 55K)

Why do trips get wasted so often?

Idiot.

Tbh its the same with every country thats bigger than two cities and a roadside restaurant.

they are in America

what do you think catholics weren't allowed into schools until after religion was removed from schools during the monkey/evolution trial? It's because catholics killed christ. This was also used to justify discrimination against mexicans, italians and the irish

Political reasons. Early proto-Christians made strong efforts to differentiate themselves from Jews and suck up to the Romans after Hadrian got sick of putting down revolts in Judea and implemented brutal repressive measures against anything Jewish. Notice how the crucifixion narrative goes out of the way to remove any blame from Pilate, show Roman soldiers converting/respecting Jesus's endurance, etc. Paul's followers were also very Hellenized/Latinized, and the only ones left around after the aforementioned crackdowns destroyed the original Jerusalem following centered around Jesus' brother James, though some might have survived as the Ebionites.

> Early proto-Christians made strong efforts to differentiate themselves from Jews and suck up to the Romans after Hadrian got sick of putting down revolts in Judea and implemented brutal repressive measures against anything Jewish
They were doing this WAY before Hadrian came along. In all likelihood, you had strains of this from near the beginning, and it's almost certain the first Jewish war, not the third, that was the impetus for the major break away from Judaism, if for no other reason than the ones who most aligned themselves with Judaism tended to try to fight the Romans and got squished.

Is that why there is a blood oath placed upon the Jewish crowd with them saying "His blood is on us and our children"?

>Publius Pilate says he couldn't find any fault in Christ

>Meanwhile Jesus himself calls them the Synagogue of Satan
>had to brandish a scourge and call them the Sons of the Devil
>Acts 14 is entirely about unbelieving jews subverting a city in order to ruthlessly slaughter the Christians
>Acts 14:2 "But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren."
>The jews wanted to kill Lazarus solely because Jesus rezd him and they wanted to cover up his miracles

I mean it's a pretty one sided subject here.

Checked, it's really true. Written in a language Romans considered educated from their motherland, and a religion completely constructed within it's borders.

Attached: holy gas.jpg (565x641, 256K)

>tfw the guy that technically allowed jesus to be brutally killed is shown more sympathetically than the jews in jesus’s own holy book

fucking kek, jews btfo

If we're going by the narrative, Romans are the lease to blame, then the Jewish leadership, and just of all mankind due to Adam's sin given Eve's influence due to Lucifer's temptation after God's reaction to his pride.
So yeah..

Attached: 20180319_193531.png (1080x1072, 1.17M)

Least* to blame, most* of all