Persecution of christians

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Why should we trust a historian 2000 years after Christ rather than the church fathers who wrote less than 100 years after Christ? They are much closer to the time than we are.

Of course. And unlike today’s scientists, historians, linguistic scholars, who can only rely on computers, spectrographs, carbon dating, and so on, the Church fathers had second hand accounts (or third hand accounts, or fourth hand accounts) to establish the veracity of the documents. And of course the Church fathers weren’t in the slightest bit interested in establishing a power base were they? Of creating an orthodoxy, a one true church, which would be the receptacle of the revealed truth, which would be the only way to know god?

Your version of early history is a bit lacking in colour. And facts.The passage inserted in Tacitus (most probably by the forger Sulpicius Severus- no one before his time, centuries later, quotes the miraculous ‘christ’ affirming passage- not even Origen. But then, Eusebius and others believed that in order to achieve a ‘greater good’ it was permissible to tell lies for god, especially to confound pagans and heretics. Plus ca change....

I’d have been much happier for instance if you had concentrated on the language used, and the supposed historical background- the fact that Nero was actually in Antium, not Rome, that there wasn’t a large community of Christians in Rome at that time (if you can prove there were, let’s see your evidence), that ‘christ’ means only a messiah, of which the Jews (and some non-jews) had had several already, and does not indicate that Tacitus was referring to a real ‘Jesus of Nazareth’. One has also to wonder- why would any of Tacitus’s intended audience immediately know who Pontius Pilate was? Why would Nero have christians burned at stakes in the middle of a conflagration, in his palace gardens which were already being used to house those people made homeless by the fires?

What we actually know about the early Romans is that they were tolerant of diverse religious practices- the image of an ‘antichrist’ Nero is a later Christian fabrication. The burning of christians is something of course that Christianity would get a lot of experience doing later. As well as burning Jews, Muslims, Cathars, Bogomils, ad infinitum.

As for persecution, well, I suggest some of you muscular Christians who feel you’re really being persecuted move to northern Nigeria, or Pakistan, or the Moluccas, where Christians are being persecuted for their faith. By devaluing a word like persecution to describe a petty law suit in New York State you do their genuine sufferings an injustice.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Alright, I'm back.

Starting with Boris:

Josephus mentions the existence of Christ.

If you go back and read the context of that statement, you'll see why this merits a big "Duuuuuh." I was specifically referring to all the historians who didn't, not Josephus. The problems of Josephus have been addressed ad naseum (and when was Josephus writing, anyway?)

Were they important to the people of the time, to the Roman Empire? No. It is only later, with Nero, that we see Nero blaming the Christians, that they start to make a big enough impact on the world around them. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If Jesus had thrown all of Judea into enough of an uproar that he had the Pharisees higgledy-piggledy and it called for the intervention of the Roman authority in what was an internal Jewish religious matter (something utterly unheard of before or since), I'd say it made enough waves to matter to someone.

Nobody here is saying there is evidence of absence, but rather a distinct lack of evidence for presence. That's the point.

How exactly does Seutonius refute Tacitus? And how is the supposed storm exaggerated? Which accounts are making him to be more than he is?

The synoptic Gospels?

Suetonius, who is given to intense dislike of Nero (he falsely accuses Nero of setting the Great Fire), doesn't mention the tortures and horrors Tacitus describes. He only says Nero punished them, and only in connection with the fire to hide his own guilt.

Now, the problems with even this are many, because by 120 AD the number of Christians in Rome was scarcely a few thousand. In 62 AD it would have been such a small handful as to have been scarcely noticed, especially since there were literally dozens fo other, larger pagan cults around. The martyrdom accounts just don't make any sense--why would Nero care about the Christians, why would he single them out? You yourself said that at the time the Christians were of no consequence to Romans--why would they suddenly be singled out for persecution, and not any other cults the Romans had heretofore tolerated?

Then you can do your own homework.

Lalalala, fingers in yours ears. You know exactly what I'm referring to and you're dodging it.

He made the ascriptions because he believed them to be true.

So you assume. More wishful thinking. But even so, he could have been dead wrong. Which is why I mentioned we have no idea where he got those ascriptions from. Before him, they're absent. Then he makes them. On what grounds?

Not difficult, especially when you have the Early church available to verify and scrutinise everything that has to do with Christ.

And the position of those skeptical of Jesus's existence is that there was barely anything to scrutinize outside of the several gospels floating around, none of which were yet attributed to any eyewitness, and the letters of Paul. How would Papias declaring these to be the works of witnesses be open to any scrutiny, particularly if he was revered as a religious authority already?

And I think you severely overestimate the organization and scholarliness of the Christians of 120 AD. This isn't 14th century Catholic organization--we're talking about motley congregations.

If Papias had it wrong, I'm sure they would have corrected his works, or we would have heard of contrasting interpretations or theories.

Oh, like the contrasting interpretations of the Gnostics, which were supressed? Those who "won" such debates were skilled at erasing the opposing views. Heresy usually isn't retained for posterity.

The reality is that there is no controversy for the church as to the authorship of the Gospels.

This isn't true, as Che pointed out, and not really relevant, as Jack mentioned. That's the difference between people intent on historical accuracy and those pursuing a religious agenda. Ardent believers aren't known for being the most critical of people when it comes to claims that support their religious fervor.

Why would a layperson be a member of the clergy? By definition, the clergy had to have some education in order to become part of the clergy and the clergy would be making these decisions.

You misinterpret "laypeople." I meant laypeople as opposed to historians.

Regardless, as stated above, I highly doubt the Christian clergy of 120 AD had the scholarly resources to be so dilligent. Christian sects were still few and far between and disorganized.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by molly bloom
As for persecution, well, I suggest some of you muscular Christians who feel you’re really being persecuted move to northern Nigeria, or Pakistan, or the Moluccas, where Christians are being persecuted for their faith. By devaluing a word like persecution to describe a petty law suit in New York State you do their genuine sufferings an injustice.

Amen.

Christians seem to be falling into the tendency of white males to bemoan their being less special and a loss of their favored status quo. Heaven forbid.

(this is not in reference to this particular case, which certainly is silly).

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
The biggest case against the existance of Arthur as a person is the fact that Gildas doesn't mention him. Sorry, but you're falling flat there. No serious Dark Ages historian takes Arthur seriously, even as a "real man, not a legend".

http://www.dicksonc.act.edu.au/Showcase/ClioContents/Clio3/kingarthur.html

"There are two versions of King Arthur known to the modern historian, as Jonathan Wooding points out. The first is a legendary Arthur who exists only as that - a legend, without any basis for his existence in the historical record. The second is the historical Arthur - an actual being who most likely did exist."

I've never heard any historian claim there was no historical basis for Arthur. Cite?

Arthur is eluded to in a footnote from the Easter Annals as a real king from the 6th century. He bears little resemblance to the mythological Arthur, but he's there. Likewise, I bet the Jesus presented in the Synoptic Gospels bears very little resemblance to the person(s) on whom he is based.

The case for the factual life of Jesus is every bit as strong as (for example) Ceawlin or Maelgwyn. Whether you accept his divinity or not, there's a strong case for accepting his existance.

It certainly isn't strong, in my opinion. Whether or not Ceawlin or Maelgwyn really existed as decribed isn't much of a historical question, because the evidence for their existence is in the effects of their actions--SOMEONE had to forge Gwynedd and build those castles. But would there be any reason for people to fabricate their existence or the details of their lives for some sort of social agenda? No, of course not. But the same does not hold true for Jesus.

[Berzerker]

Ned -

Berzerker, to the Christian, it appears to them like atheists are raming their hedionistic philosophy down on them when the legislatures and the courts allow abortion and attack the family. But, in the end, this is why we have a democracy where the most votes win.

Roe v Wade was in 1973, Christians have been legislating their religion for more than 200 years and now that just a handfull of their religious laws are being repealed Christians act as if they are the victims of religious bigotry. Huh? I'm a religious bigot if I don't want your religion imposed on me? And no one is forcing Christians to have abortions or engage in any "hedonistic" behavior so no one is "ramming" anything down on Christians. Btw, where in the Constitution did you find the word "democracy"?

Ben -

Maybe he's an Islamic commentator trying to get both sides at the same time.

Interestingly, my argument in jest has as much evidence as yours of forgery.

I've offered no evidence of a forgery, you guys are having that debate, I'm just trolling.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

http://www.dicksonc.act.edu.au/Showcase/ClioContents/Clio3/kingarthur.html

"There are two versions of King Arthur known to the modern historian, as Jonathan Wooding points out. The first is a legendary Arthur who exists only as that - a legend, without any basis for his existence in the historical record. The second is the historical Arthur - an actual being who most likely did exist."

I've never heard any historian claim there was no historical basis for Arthur. Cite?

Arthur is eluded to in a footnote from the Easter Annals as a real king from the 6th century. He bears little resemblance to the mythological Arthur, but he's there. Likewise, I bet the Jesus presented in the Synoptic Gospels bears very little resemblance to the person(s) on whom he is based.

That link isn't working, but my sources are from Sir Frank Stenton's "Anglo-Saxon England". It's the motherlode on this topic.

Aneirin's "Goddodin" contains the single line stating that while one warrior though brave "...was not Arthur". It's a heroic poem, not a history.

The next solid reference is from Nennius, over 300 years after the fact. If Arthur was so real and great, why did the historians of over 300 years ignore him?