Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 01-14-2008, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

Discounting the large amount of evidence because it comes from the supposed victims themselves doesn't seem like the best way to examine this issue.

What victims?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

There is something of a consensus among both secular and Christian historians.

What secular historians?

Johnny Skeptic · 01-14-2008, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

Suetonius:

"Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to
a new and mischievous superstition." [Lives of the Caesars 26.2]

But that does not say anything about the numbers of Christians who were persecuted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

Tertullian:

"Consult your annals, and there you will find Nero the first
emperor who dyed his sword in Christian blood, when our religion
was but just arising at Rome; but we glory in being first dedicated
to destruction by such a monster: for whoever knows that enemy
of all goodness will have the greater value for our religion, as
knowing that Nero could hate nothing exceedingly, but what was
exceedingly good." (Apology)

"The apostles, in obedience to their Master's
command, went about preaching through the world, persecuted
by the Jews to the last degree, but suffering victoriously, in full
assurance of the truth ; but at length the infidels taking the advan-
tage of the barbarous Nero's reign, they were forced to sow the
Christian religion in their own Christian blood." (Apology)

[www.tertullian.org]

But that doies not say anything about the number of Christians who were persecuted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

Clement of Alexandria

"We have still to add to our chronology the following, -- I mean the days which Daniel indicates from the desolation of Jerusalem, the seven years and seven months of the reign of Vespasian. For the two years are added to the seventeen months and eighteen days of Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius; and the result is three years and six months, which is "the half of the week," as Daniel the prophet said. For he said that there were two thousand three hundred days from the time that the abomination of Nero stood in the holy city, till its destruction."

[Stromata book 1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

My problem is not in your opinion that the persecutions under Nero were minimal. My problem is merely with the definitive nature with which you speak. We have few sources to draw from on this period. Since the few sources that we have are contradictory we should be a little more hesitant to speak with such certainty.

But the same goes for Christians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

You may be correct in your belief and you certainly have an educated basis for it. However, the jury is still out on the issue and will probably be out until the end of time.

That is all the more reason that Christian should not claim that large number of Christians were persecuted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

Here are a few sources that are as non-commital as I have been.

"We have no idea how many Christians lost their life under the Neronian persecution, but Historian Harold Mattingly tells us that Nero's persecution 'lasted several years, was not confined to Rome but was practiced throughout the Empire, and cost the lives of a very large number [of Christians].'" [from http://www.boisestate.edu/history/nc...y210/nero.htm]

But Mattingly is contradicted by many scholarly sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

"As the new religion exploded, Roman authorities abandoned their usual policies of toleration. The first recorded persecution were under Nero, after a terrible fire in Rome which Nero was accused of setting himself (he hated the city). Nero imposed horrible penalties upon his Christian scapegoats, including crucifixion and burning alive.

Nero's persecutions were not really religious in orientation — the Christians were just a convenient target. They were regarded by the non-Christian Roman populace with suspicion for variety of reasons. Initially, they were predominantly from the lower classes, and the aura of mystery surrounding the religion led to misunderstandings. The "this is my body" ceremony of the Eucharist was taken to be meant literally, i.e., that the Christians were cannibals who ate babies (a charge which would later be repeated by Christians against the Jews in the Middle Ages). "Love one another" also provoked misunderstandings of a sexual nature. "

[http://www.loyno.edu/~seduffy/christianity.html]

But that does not say anything about the number of Christians who were persecuted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

Interestingly enough, it seems that this discussion has been going on for far longer than you or I have been alive and I think this article lends credence to my belief that we should be more hesitant to speak so definitively.

But that goes for Christians too. As any rate, a lot of prestigious sources disagree with you. I choose to trust them, as do lots of other people. When in doubt, it is best to trust a consensus of skeptic scholars. I trust skeptic scholars a lot more than I trust Christian scholars. Of course, I do not have to rely entirely upon skeptic scholars since lots of prominent Roman Catholics with me. If you had lots skeptic sources on your side, which you indicated is the case, but failed to prove, your arguments would be a lot better than they are, but you haven't yet reasonbly proven that lots of skeptic sources agree with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

Link to a NY Times letter from 1898 from L.D. Burdick on Persecutions under Nero

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...659C94699ED7CF

I was not able to find anything about persecutions of Christians at that web site. You should have quoted the web site.

In "The Rise of Christianity," Rodney Stark says:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodney Stark

Second, persecutions rarely occurred, and only a tiny number of Christians ever were martyred – only 'hundreds, not thousands' according to W.H.C. Frend (1965:413). Indeed, commenting on Tacitus’s claim that Nero had murdered “an immense multitude" of Christians, Marta Sordi wrote that “a few hundred victims would justify the use of this term, given the horror of what happened." (1986:31). The truth is that the Roman government seems to have cared very little about the "Christian menace." There was surprisingly little effort to persecute Christians, and when a wave of persecution did occur, usually only bishops and other prominent figures were singled out. Thus for rank-and-file Christians the threat of persecution was so slight as to have counted for little among the potential sacrifices imposed on them.

schilling.klaus · 01-14-2008, 02:28 AM

There were no Christian persecutions back then,
as there were no Christians before the war,
and after the war Christianity only started
to evolve slowly from Alexandrine eclectic theosophy,
(essentially Neopythagorean exegesis of the Septuagint)
certainly not in the way that Eysebius tricks you to believe.

Klaus Schilling

Johnny Skeptic · 01-14-2008, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

There were no Christian persecutions back then,
as there were no Christians before the war, and after the war Christianity only started to evolve slowly from Alexandrine eclectic theosophy,
(essentially Neopythagorean exegesis of the Septuagint) certainly not in the way that Eusebius tricks you to believe.

I noticed that you are a newcomer. Welcome to the IIDB.

Which war are you referring to?

To be sure, Eusebius should not be trusted.

aa5874 · 01-14-2008, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

It isn't unfair of Christians to make such a case. Tacitus supports them in it. They shouldn't be sure of their case though. You shouldn't be sure of yours either.

The Tacitus passage in Annals 15.44 does not help the Christian case in any way. The passage has at least 5 fundamental problems.

1. It does not confirm that Christus is Jesus of Nazareth.
2. It does not state that Christus was crucified.
3. It does not state when Christus died under Pilate.
4. It does not state where in Judea Christus was killled.
5. It does not state the age of Christus when he died.

Without these fundamental information, it cannot be stated, without doubt, that the followers of Christus were the followers of Jesus of Nazareth.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-14-2008, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

It isn't unfair of Christians to make such a case. Tacitus supports them in it. They shouldn't be sure of their case though. You shouldn't be sure of yours either.

If that is true, no one should make any claims one way or the other. I would be happy with that, but many fundamentalist Christians would not be happy with that. I must thank for helping me defeat fundamentalist Christians.

If as you claim Christianity is not any more attractive if large numbers of Christias were persecuted, a claim that many fundamentalist Christians dispute, if you are right, then Christianity would not be any less attractive is no Christians were persecuted, which invites the question "If how many Christians were persecuted does not make any difference, why are you making posts in this thread?"

Johnny Skeptic · 01-14-2008, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

It isn't unfair of Christians to make such a case. Tacitus supports them in it. They shouldn't be sure of their case though. You shouldn't be sure of yours either.

If that is true, no one should make any claims one way or the other. I would be happy with that, but many fundamentalist Christians would not be happy with that. I must thank you for helping me defeat fundamentalist Christians.

If as you claim Christianity is not any more attractive if large numbers of Christians were persecuted, a claim that many fundamentalist Christians dispute, if you are right, then Christianity would not be any less attractive if no Christians were persecuted, which invites the question "If how many Christians were persecuted does not make any difference, why are you making posts in this thread?"

Regarding "Tacitus supports them in this," how does that help you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

I just think that the fact that there is something of a consensus among both secular and Christian historians has got to count for something.

"Secular historians"? Now that is interesting. Which secular historians are you referring to?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

I believe that my sources are much better than your sources. I believe that most people at this forum will agree with me. I assume that the collective education and reseach of my sources far outweighs the collective education of your sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

I suppose I could dig for more universities that disagree with you.......

No you couldn't. Bluffing does not work at this forum.

Champion · 01-15-2008, 01:47 PM

Johnny Skeptic:

Quote:

But that goes for Christians too.

I have agreed with you on that point many times. As a matter of fact, this is the third time I've told you this.

Quote:

If you had lots skeptic sources on your side, which you indicated is the case, but failed to prove, your arguments would be a lot better than they are, but you haven't yet reasonbly proven that lots of skeptic sources agree with you.

Quote:

No you couldn't. Bluffing does not work at this forum.

No, I was not lying when I said that I had more sources. These seem reputable enough to me:

Quote:

the christians were declared responsible for the fire; a great number were taken into custody, sentenced to death, executed in different ways, during the the festivals that Nero offered to the people to appease them. P.134

[Guglielmo Ferrero "The Lowell Lectures"]

Quote:

Nero Fabricates a charge which he knows to be untrue. To his astonishment, the charge is openly admitted by the people against whom it was fabricated. This is to good to be true so he convicts a lot more Christians P.81

[John Bishop "Nero"]

Quote:

Besides, why should we assume that the persecutions did not spread beyond the bounds of Rome?[...]There was not only time enough to allow a change in the mode of prosecution, but the massacre continued long enough to bring satiety to a populace pretty well accustomed to public butcherings. P.14

his [Nero's] action must have served as a precedent in other parts of the empire. P.15

[J. Jahn Ph.D "A Critical Study of the Sources of the History of the Emperor Nero" Facsimile edition]

Quote:

The existence of Christians as such was inconsistent with the public welfare and safety. Christianity was now, as under Trajan later, a sufficient crime in itself, when the magistrate of Rome or in the provinces chose to act, to discover, or accept accusations against its followers, and, if he liked, to condemn... P.350

[Bernard Henderson: Former Fellow at Exeter College and the University of London "The Life and Principiate of the Emperor Nero"]

Quote:

This is a precious glimpse into the 'fatal charades' of the spectacle- its context is certainly Neronian, and the only concerted persecution of the Christians which involved large-scale, not to mention theatrical suffering- in the first century was that of Nero after the fire.

[Edward Champlin Professor of Classics, Princeton University "Nero"]

Quote:

No it doesn't. Logically, he who asserts first must defend first. Some Christians first asserted centuries ago that large numbers of Christians were persecuted. It is not up to me to reasonably disprove those claims. It is up the Christians to reasonably prove those claims.

If we were talking about the supposed "Massacre of the Innocence" under Herod you would be right. But this case is different. The texts available from the time make the original assertion not silly Christian Apologists desperately searching for facts to back up Biblical stories.

Quote:

"Secular historians"? Now that is interesting. Which secular historians are you referring to?

My definition of "secular historians" might differ slightly from yours. Under my definition, historians count as secular so long as they do not procelytize or have procelytizing as a metioned goal of the institution they represent.

Quote:

many conservative Christians feel the same way. Don't you know that?

Fascinating...

Quote:

If as you claim Christianity is not any more attractive if large numbers of Christias were persecuted, a claim that many fundamentalist Christians dispute, if you are right, then Christianity would not be any less attractive is no Christians were persecuted, which invites the question "If how many Christians were persecuted does not make any difference, why are you making posts in this thread?"

The fact that you cannot concieve of a reason for posting in this thread other than to push one dogma over another is disturbing.

Quote:

Have you ever stated at the IIDB whether or not you are a Christian? If so, what did you say? If you refuse to answer my question, that will be adequate proof that you are a Christian.

You sound like some sort of Atheist Gestapo agent. Are you going to ask me for my papers next?

Quote:

There would not be any reason for you to be evasive unless you are a Christian. If you are a skeptic, if you win this debate, what will you have accomplished that you believe will help skepticism?

Therein lies the reason for my distaste for "party identification". I don't have to take sides in this ridiculous Bill O'Reilly culture war. If I'm a skeptic, who says I must champion the supposed causes of skepticism? Who decides what those causes are anyway, you?

Quote:

If you win this debate, you will have significantly helped to promote fundamentalist Christianity. Even if I believed that large numbers of Christians were persecuted, I would never consider helping fundamentalist Christians promote one their most important issues.

The implication being, that even if it were true that Nero ordered a widespread persecution of Christians, we still shouldn't give the fundies the ammunition. Is that what you meant or do you want to rephrase what you said?

Quote:

If you are not a fundie, you are a great asset to them. This is the third time that you and I have had a debate where you argued like the vast majority of fundies argue.

It is interesting that the only options you seem to think possible for me are Christian/Atheist. As a Scientologist me and Will Smith are very offended :Cheeky:

Quote:

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that homosexuality is sinful or immoral?

I'm not going to play ball, I don't like labels and I don't like this stupid war you keep trying to draw me into. If I wanted to discuss Homosexuality I would have posted in one of the many threads you have started on the issue.

Quote:

It is interesting to note that you withdrew from the other two debates when you knew that you were in trouble.

I withdrew from the debate on PAS when you stopped replying to my posts and instead focused on the gentleman who entered the discussion late.

I withdrew from the Human Nature Thread I started when Sabine said, "Will address the rest of your comments later. I appreciate your willingness to allow me to respond by bits and pieces. " and then never replied. I waited and waited, but she never followed up with her full response.

I don't fault her for it, the discussion went for 3 pages and I think we both got a look at the issue from a different perspective. We were starting to go in circles anyways. Maybe she was too busy, or simply absent minded. Not a big deal. I suppose I could chase her through the forums demanding further responses, but I won't.

Quote:

If you would like to debate those issues some more, just let me know. I am sure that fundies would like for you to help them some more, assuming that you are not a fundie, which I do not assume.

What issues? Don't you mean issue? Refresh my memory, but the only time I remember locking horns with you before was over the PAS issue.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-15-2008, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champion

I just think that the fact that there is something of a consensus among both secular and Christian historians has got to count for something.

We are still waiting for you to produce credible evidence that secular historians are part of a consensus that believe that large numbers of early Christians were persecuted by Nero, and by other Roman Emperors.

Toto · 01-15-2008, 02:41 PM

Would that "secular" historian be Tacitus?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-14-2008, 02:28 AM	#23
schilling.klaus Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Germany Posts: 267	There were no Christian persecutions back then, as there were no Christians before the war, and after the war Christianity only started to evolve slowly from Alexandrine eclectic theosophy, (essentially Neopythagorean exegesis of the Septuagint) certainly not in the way that Eysebius tricks you to believe. Klaus Schilling

01-15-2008, 02:41 PM	#30
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Would that "secular" historian be Tacitus?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.