schilling.klaus

Defaultwise, 'the war' is the Roman-Jewish war around 70 CE
described by Flavius Josephus.

Klaus Schilling

mountainman

Hey Johnny,

There is one and one only ultimate source
for the persecutions of christians in the pre-
nicene epoch, and that is beloved Eusebius.

Eusebius was ordered to invent a history of
the new nation of christians by his supreme
imperial mafia thug Boss.

Part of the fabrication of the Galilaeans were
the "Horror Stories of the Martyrs" used as
emotional blackmail. These fabrications were
based on the very real persecution of the
followers of the Minichaean religion, which
occurred in ancient history in the period following
the execution (was it crucixion?) of Mani, in
the Iranian capital c.270 CE.

We have monumental evidence for these
persecutions under Diocletian against the
followers of Mani, but we have no evidence
(outside of Eusebius) for the Eusebian claim
that in fact any christian persecutions happened
at all, before Constantine arrived in Rome.

The tradition of the "Early Christian Persecutions"
is completely literary, and specifically, completely
Eusebian.

Alternatively one might say Constantinian.



Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Champion

You do not know that. A Neronian persecution is alluded to in the writings of Clement of Rome as well as in numerous writings in the centuries that followed. I would not presume to guess the sources he used to support the assertion he made in his book.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article...aint-Clement-I


And we can infer from his use of that source that Mr. Bishop disagrees with your sources. I wouldn't presume to guess what Mr. Bishop used as a source for that assertion.

See above.

What does this have to do with our discussion on Nero?

I did not say that. I said that many of your sources claimed that Nero's persecutions did not extend beyond Rome. The source I posted said otherwise.

"as under Trajan later" was part of the quote from my source?

I do not see the logic. Even if Champlin's "only source" is Tacitus, if he uses Tacitus to support his assertion then we can reasonably assume that this man trusts Tacitus as a source. That is not questionable. Clearly Champlin disagrees with the other gentlemen you quoted.

If you ever get the chance to visit the Vatican you'll understand why I think this is what your source is talking about. " No one questions that the Roman Church had a certain number of martyrs in the days of the genuine persecutions, but nine-tenths of the pretty stories which are popular in Catholic literature — the stories of St. Agnes and St. Cecilia, of St. Lucia and St. Catherine, of St. Lawrence and St. George and St. Sebastian, and so on — are pious romances. Even when the martyrdom may be genuine, the Catholic story of it is generally a late and unbridled fiction."

This quote sounds to me like your source is talking more about the miracles, and angelic qualities attributed to people who either never lived or who lived more earthly lives. It seems to me that the 17-18th centure pope you have brought up spent his time refuting legends like St. Peter being crucified upsidedown and St. Sebastion coming back to life after being killed with arrows rather than closely examining Tacitus and Clement for lies etc.

"To these men who spent their lives in the practice of holiness [Peter and Paul], there aught to be added a great multitude of the elect, who, having through envy endured many indignities and tortures, furnished us with a most excellent example." from Clement's letter to the Corinthians: dated sometime between 80 and 140.

I have respect for the sources you posted. To be honest, I have no knowledge of the religious inclination of Mr. Champlin or the others I posted. I don't even know where I could find such information.

Pardon me, there seems to be some sort of miscommunication. When I used the word "expensive" I was speaking in strictly monetary terms. Early Christianity, unlike some of it's contemporary competitors like Mithraism, did not charge converts exhorbitant amounts of money to join. Monetarily speaking, Christianity was cheap.

I don't find them both equally plausible, but you have certainly shown that there isn't a consensus among historians. That is not to say that I don't disagree with your sources though.

Mr. Skeptic it is questions like this that make our discussion incredibly frustrating. I have already answered this question in a previous post.

Johnny Skeptic

I suggest that you do not presume what Ferrero's sources are.

I will not comment on that link unless you quote it. I just visited it and there are lots of comments that do not have anything to do with how many Christians were persecuted. I will only comment on what you quote from the link. When did Clement live, and where he get his information from?

And we can infer that my presitigious sources disagree with Mr. Bishop, and that my secular sources outnumber your secular sources in spite of your claim that a consensus of secular historians agree with your sources.

Nor should you.

See above.

If you wish to limit these discussions to Nero, that is fine with me, in which case you lose hands down based upon the numerous experts that I have quoted who question the use of Tacitus to make a case the Nero persecuted large numbers of Christians, not including the many additional experts that I would be able to find and quote if I need to. The distinguished scholar Robin Land Fox is a good example. I plan to use him as one of my sources.

Which of my sources said that no Christians were persecuted except in Rome?

I do not know what you are talking about, but since you wish to limit these discussions to Nero's, let's do that.

Sure, but it is question of whether a consensus of secular historians agrees with me, or with you. So far, my consensus of secular historians is more numerous and more prestigious than your consensus of secular historians is.

First of all, what does that have to do with Nero? Second of all, what were Clement's sources? Third of all, since all that we have are copies of copies of Clement's letter, how do you know that Clement wrote the letter, or even that it was not written by someone else hundreds of years later?

Then what it the problem?

Which side do you think has the best arguments?

Thank you for admitting that you were wrong when you claimed that there is somewhat of a consensus of secular and Christian source who agree with you. There is most certainly nothing even close to a consensus among non-Christian sources. If by a "consensus] you mean 60% or more of non-Christian historians, I believe that that percentage is actually much higher than 60%. Since you were the claimant when you said that there is a consensus, it is up to do to define the word "consensus," and to provide reasonable evidence that there is a consensus among secular historians whio agree with you.

But your own personal opinion has no significance regarding public opinion. The general public mainly judges the opinions of experts, not your opinions and my opinions. All that you and I are doing is providing readers of these debates with the opinions of experts that readers will use to decide which experts are right, not whether you or I are right. I assume that no once who reads these debates will agree with you. The only two other people who have made posts in this thread agree with me.

Not even your own sources would argue that early Christians did not face serious difficulties because of their beliefs.[/quote]

Stark said:

You said:

But regarding money, Stark AGREED with you that membership was not expensive, and that monetarily, Christianity was not expensive for poor Christians, and was in fact a bargain for them. As Stark said, "For example, because Christians were expected to aid the less fortunate, many of them received such aid......." You misinterpreted "expensive" as meaning money. I can prove that if you wish to debate this issue further. Would you like to start a new thread at this forum where we can debate what Stark meant by the word "expensive"? If so, just to make sure that we both agree on what we will be debating, please state what you believe Stark meant by the word "expensive."

andrewcriddle

Hi Johnny and Champion

Could you please clarify what you both mean by large numbers in your discussion as to whether or not large numbers of Christians were killed by the Roman authorities ?

I am unclear as to quite how great a difference there is between you on this point.

Thanks

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

That is a good question. Thanks for asking it. I have two reasons for debating how many early Christians were persecuted. First of all, if tens of thousands of early Christians were persecuted, which many Christians claim was the case, that means that overall, the early Christian church was much larger than tens of thousands of Christians. In 'The Rise of Christianity,' Rodney Stark estimates that there were 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D. In contrast, 'World Christian Trends,' which is a conservative Christian book, estimates that there were 800,000 Christians in 100 A.D., or over 100 times Stark's estimate. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, and Stark's estimate is anywhere close to being accurate, that reasonably accounts for the very small size of the Christian church in 100 A.D. So, if the best historical evidence indicates that only a few hundred or a few thousand early Christians were persecuted, a good case cannot be made that a few hundred of a few thousand persecuted Christians implies a much larger Christian church. I no longer have a copy of 'World Christian Trends,' but I recall that their numerical estimates for how many Christians were persecuted by single Roman emperors were much larger than Stark's estimate for the size of the entire Christian church. Someone is obviously way off base.

Second of all, 'World Christian Trends' claims that the large numbers of persecuted Christians was the number one reason why the early Christian church grew as fast as it did. Many other Christians agree with that. If the numerous prestigious sources that I have used in this thread are right, no intelligent case can be made that the large numbers of persecuted Christians was the number one reason why the early Christian church grew as fast as it did.

I will order another copy of the book and post some the estimates of how many early Christians were persecuted. The grossly exaggerated estimates do not have any basis in fact whatsoever.

Your question was "Could you please clarify what you both mean by large numbers in your discussion as to whether or not large numbers of Christians were killed by the Roman authorities?" One answer is "However many persecuted Christians that it takes to convince many Christians that large numbers of persecuted Christians is the number one reason why the early Christian church grew as fast as it did, or one of the primary reasons." In other words, I do not really need to come with any numbers at all, Christians do.

andrewcriddle

Thanks for this Johnny.

Am I understanding correctly when I say that you are really interested in the question of how many Christians were killed for their faith in roughly the first two hundred years after the death of Christ ?

ie even if the (IMO unlikely) figure of 20,000 Christians killed in the Diocletian persecution was true it would be irrelevant to your concerns; because it would neither imply an improbably high Christian population at the time or be relevant to the causes of the alleged rapid growth of the early church.

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

Primarily, and to a lesser degree in the third and fourth centuries.

Such a claim would be quite revelant to my concerns. If 20,000 Christians had been killed in the Diocletian persecution, in the opinions of many Christians, that would help to validate the claim that one of the main reasons, or one of the main reasons why Christianity grew as fast as it did was because large numbers of Christians would not have died for something that was not true. That is an illogical assumption for some Christians to make, but since some do, and sometimes gain converts by doing it, I oppose their claims because a good number of prestigious secular scholars oppose their claims, and some prestigious Roman Catholics who lived centuries ago, including two Popes and a Cardinal, who certainly did not have anything to gain by opposing grossly exaggerated numbers of persecuted Christians except to maintain their own honesty and integrity.

Regarding Rodney Stark's estimate of 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D., and the 'World Christian Trends' estimate of 800,000, which is over 100 times Stark's estimate, if Tacitus' mention of "a vast multitude" of persecuted Christians can correctly be interpreted as meaning say 5,000 Christians, that would have to mean that Stark's estimate of 7,530 Christians in the entire world decades later is grossly inaccurate. Since I am agnostic, it is obvious that I distrust fundamentalist Christian sources. Like most skeptics, it is my opinion that a large percentage of fundamentalist Christians assume their conclusions in advance before they even begin to conduct research. This is quite typical of inerrantists and YEC's. Robert Byers has recently essentially argued, of all places at the Evolution/Creation Forum, that all science must by neccessity agree with the Bible.

In my opinion, a very small first century Christian church, if true, embarrasses Christians, especially since the book of Acts claims that 3,000 people became Christians on one occasion.

In the article 'The Impossible Faith,' James Holding mentions "the thousands at Pentecost, making it harder not to believe than to believe." And Holding calls himself a Bible scholar?

I do not assume my conclusions in advance. Even if I believed that a God inspired the Bible, I would not accept him unless he answered some questions to my satisfaction. Otherwise, why should I accept him?

Huguenot

Ah-ha, I see that you're wrong from the get go, because you've blindly relied on the infamous Rodney Stark.

It has been estimated that by the time Stephen was martyred (Acts 7:60), the Jerusalem church consisted of no fewer than 20,000.

Christianity swept over the Roman empire like a tidal wave. The New Testament pays tribute to this phenomenal growth. The Christians were charged with having “turned the world upside down” (Acts 17:6). Their “sound went out into all the earth” (Rom. 10:18); and was “bearing fruit” everywhere (Col. 1:6).

Africa, Syria, Iran, modern day Turkey, Greece, Italy, Spain, etc.

Johnny, if you were giving a recipe on on to make toast, you forgot the bread.

Johnny Skeptic

Yes, and a lot of other experts that he mentions in 'The Rise of Christianity.'

Please quote your sources.

Do you by any chance have some non-Christian sources that back up your claims>

And you forgot to bring some secular sources with you. At any rate, for purposes of this thread, the issue is whether or not large numbers of Christians were persecuted in the first two centuries A.D.

Please read my post #57 in a thread at http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthr...60#post5108560 at the MF&P Forum. After you read it, please make a reply to it in that thread.