Huon

I will not insist much on Nero, and the quote from Tacitus, Annals, 15,44. Tacitus probably lived and wrote into Hadrian's reign (117-38) and may have died in 120. At the time of Hadrian (117), the Christians were clearly distinct from the Jews.

At the time of Nero, the difference between the Jews and the Christians was far less evident to an ordinary Roman. It is also remarkable that no other ancient source associates Christians with the burning of Rome (July, 19th, 64) until Sulpicius Severus (Sacred History, 2.29), in the fifth century (c. 408). And, even if some Christians perished in this affair, nobody says that the repression was general in the Empire, and commanded by a political anti-christian choice.

http://www.courses.drew.edu/sp2000/B...1/Tacitus.html

Huon

About St Peter :
From Catholic Encyclopedia, which is decidedly very funny :

"That the manner, and therefore the place of his death, must have been known in widely extended Christian circles at the end of the first century is clear … ".

This statement is followed by a long justification of 12 paragraphs, showing clearly that the situation is not so clear. And the "widely extended Christian circles" amount at how many people ?

"The task of determining the year of St. Peter's death is attended with similar difficulties. In the fourth century, and even in the chronicles of the third, we find two different entries."

"The date of Peter's death is thus not yet decided; the period between July, 64 (outbreak of the Neronian persecution), and the beginning of 68 (on 9 July Nero fled from Rome and committed suicide) must be left open for the date of his death. The day of his martyrdom is also unknown; 29 June, the accepted day of his feast since the fourth century, cannot be proved to be the day of his death."

So, the "widely extended Christian circles" could not keep an undiscuted trace of the death of their leader...

Huon

About St Paul, from Catholic Encyclopedia :

"Ancient tradition makes it possible to establish the following points:
(1) Paul suffered martyrdom near Rome at a place called Aquae Salviae (now Tre Fontane), somewhat east of the Ostian Way, about two miles from the splendid Basilica of San Paolo fuori le mura which marks his burial place.

(2) The martyrdom took place towards the end of the reign of Nero, in the twelfth year (St. Epiphanius of Salamis, after 310 - 403), the thirteenth (Euthalius, middle of the 5th c.), or the fourteenth (St. Jerome, c. 340 -420).

(3) According to the most common opinion, Paul suffered in the same year and on the same day as Peter; several Latin Fathers contend that it was on the same day but not in the same year; the oldest witness, St. Dionysius the Corinthian (Bishop of Corinth about 170), says only kata ton auton kairon, which may be translated "at the same time" or "about the same time".

The "ancient tradition" is at least one century later than the alleged facts, and rather imprecise.

Lafcadio

And I thought the empire's extent under Trajan was the maximum extent

Johnny Skeptic

To be sure, there were Christian martyrs, but likely nothing anything near the numbers claimed by many Christians.

Some Christians attempt to build a case for a sizeable early Christian Church by referring to Tacitus' mention that Nero persecuted "a vast multitude of Christians." The notion has been widely discredited. Consider the following:

The Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition says that Nero "became infamous for his personal debaucheries and extravagances and, on doubtful evidence, for his burning of Rome and persecutions of Christians."

The Microsoft Encarta 2000 Encyclopedia says "In July 64, two-thirds of Rome burned while Nero was at Antium. In ancient times he was charged with being the incendiary, but most modern scholars doubt the truth of that accusation. According to some accounts (now considered spurious), he laid the blame on the Christians (few at that time) and persecuted them."

Following is part of an e-mail exchange that I had with Jonathan Roth, Ph.D., ancient history, San Jose State University in California. Dr. Roth's comments are in quotations marks.

Regarding Tacitus' statement that Nero persecuted "vast multitudes" of Christians, does the statement provide any indication of how many Christians are implied?

"It does mean that more than a handful were involved, but says nothing other than that. If you read the passage, however, it can be construed to mean that some Christians were arrested and tortured into confessing that they set the fires. Then they gave the names of others Christians 'a large number of whom' (another way of translating this) were executed not for arson, but simply for being Christians. In other words, the expression refers to the percentage of the number killed, rather than a total number."

Is it reasonably possible that Tacitus was using hyperbole?

"Tacitus frequently uses such hyperbole. A good example is in his description of various emperors killing members of the Senatorial opposition. He implies that large numbers are involved, but when one counts up the numbers, they are only a few dozen at most. All ancient writers use exaggeration and hyperbole."

Is it true that the use of hyperbole can vary greatly depending upon who is using it and that there is no way of knowing to what extent Tacitus might have used hyperbole?

"Yes. We seldom have a source other than Tacitus, so it is difficult to check
his statements."

Is it true that Tacitus's use of the words "vast multitudes" did no favors for future historians?

"True, but remember that history was considered literature and meant for entertainment. Tacitus is always thinking about making his stories more
interesting and readable."

In ‘The Rise of Christianity, Rodney Stark says the following:

“Indeed, as Robert M. Grant pointed out, ‘one must always remember that figures in antiquity…were part of rhetorical exercises’ and were not really meant to be taken literally.� Stark was referring to, but obviously not only to, the “many thousands of Jews� that are mentioned in the book of Acts.

Stark also says the following:

"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."

Christians claim that most of the disciples died for their beliefs, but no external sources corroborate the claim.

Regarding Paul’s supposed persecution of Christians, even if Paul did persecute Christians, there is no evidence how many. In addition, in an article at the Secular Web, I forget exactly where, Richard Carrier presents a plausible argument that Paul might not have had the authority to persecute Christians.

Following are excerpts from two articles written by Joseph McCabe that can be found in their entirety at the Secular Web:

"According to the Catholic writers, and even the official liturgy of their Church, the Roman community of the first three centuries was so decked and perfumed with saints and martyrs that it must have had a divine spirit in it. Now the far greater part, the overwhelmingly greater part, of the Acts of the Martyrs and Lives of the Saints on which this claim is based are impudent forgeries, perpetrated by Roman Christians from the fourth to the eighth century in order to give a divine halo to the very humble, and very human, history of their Church.

"This is not merely a contention of 'heretics and unbelievers.' It is not even a new discovery. The legends of the martyrs are so gross that Catholic historians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries frequently denounced them. Cardinal Baronius and Father Pagi repeatedly rejected them. Pope Benedict XIV, of the eighteenth century, a scholar who by some mischance was made a Pope, was so ashamed of the extent to which these forgeries permeate the official ritual of his Church that he entered upon a great reform; but the cardinals and monks obstructed his work, and the literature of the Church still teems with legends from these tainted sources. In fact, many of these forgeries were already notorious in the year 494, when Pope Gelasius timidly and haltingly condemned them.

"These forgeries are so gross that one needs very little historical knowledge in order to detect them. Large numbers of Roman martyrs are, like the Pope Callistus whom I have mentioned, put in the reign of the friendly Emperor Alexander Severus, who certainly persecuted none. One of these Roman forgers, of the sixth and seventh century, is bold enough to claim five thousand martyrs for Rome alone under the gentle Alexander Severus! Other large numbers of Roman martyrs are put in the reign of the Emperor Maximin; and Dr. Garres has shown that there were hardly any put to death in the whole Empire, least of all at Rome, under Maximin. The semi-official catalogue of the Popes makes saints and martyrs of no less than thirteen of the Popes of the third century, when there were scarcely more than three or four.

"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.

"A short account of the havoc which modern scholars have made of the Acts of the Martyrs is given by a Catholic professor, Albert Ehrhard, of the Vienna University, and will cause any inquiring Catholic to shudder. Dr. Ehrhard mentions a French work, L'Amphithtre Flavien, by Father Delehaye, a Jesuit, and calls it 'an important contribution to the criticism of the Roman acts of the martyrs.' It is a 'criticism' of such a nature that it dissolves into fiction all the touching pictures (down to Mr. G. B. Shaw's Androcles and the Lion) of the 'martyrs of the Coliseum.' It proves that no Christians were ever martyred in the Amphitheatre (Coliseum). The English translation of Father Delehaye's 'Legends of the Saints' (1907) gives an appalling account of these Roman forgeries. Another scholar has, Professor Ehrhard admits (p. 555), shown that 'a whole class' of these saints and martyrs are actually pagan myths which have been converted into Christian martyrs. The whole literature which this Catholic professor surveys is one mighty massacre of saints and martyrs, very few surviving the ordeal. These fictions are often leniently called 'pious fancies' and 'works of edification.' Modern charity covers too many ancient sins. These things were intended to deceive; they have deceived countless millions for fourteen centuries, and in the hands of priests they deceive millions today.

"The early Roman Church was a poor little sect, like any other. It had some noble-spirited martyrs during the three or four short persecutions (in two hundred and fifty years) which affected it; but it had a far larger number who either sacrificed to the gods or bought a false certificate that they had done so. It had many men and women of strict life, and still more of lax life. Its first thirty Popes were obscure men of no distinction in the Church, of no learning, who just managed to hold together their ten or twenty thousand followers until the golden days of Constantine began.

"Even the most orthodox reader will recognize the force of the modern criticism of martyr-legends when so retrograde a work as the 'Catholic Encyclopedia' is compelled to admit it. Usually its writers deny the most certain facts of science or history with an ease that must command the envy of a politician."

Few Christians are aware of the following, and those who are aware of it seldom admit it in public:

Elaine Pagels: For nearly 2,000 years, Christian tradition has preserved and revered orthodox writings that denounce the Gnostics, while suppressing and virtually destroying the Gnostic writings themselves. Now, for the first time, certain texts discovered at Nag Hammadi reveal the other side of the coin: how Gnostics denounced the orthodox. The 'Second Treatise of the Great Seth' polemicizes against orthodox Christianity, contrasting it with the 'true church' of the Gnostics. Speaking for those he calls the sons of light, the author says: '...we were hated and persecuted, not only by those who are ignorant (pagans), but also by those think they are advancing the name of Christ, since they were unknowingly empty, not knowing who they are, like dumb animals.'"

Larry Taylor: How does this apply to the story of Jesus? Simply that all of the early critics are dead. Skeptical opinions were banned. Christian opinions, other than those of the establishment, were banned. Books were destroyed, and later, heretics were burned.

Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia says “By the 3rd century Gnosticism began to succumb to orthodox Christian opposition and persecution. Partly in reaction to the Gnostic heresy, the church strengthened its organization by centralizing authority in the office of bishop, which made its effort to suppress the poorly organized Gnostics more effective.�

In his book titled 'The Religious Quests of the Graeco-Roman World,' Christian author S. Angus, Ph.D., D.Lit., D.D., says the following:

"No one could have dreamed that the Christians, who had themselves suffered so much from persecution and protested so vehemently against the injustice and futility of persecution, would so quickly have turned persecutors and surpassed their Pagan predecessors in fanatical savagery and efficiency, utterly oblivious of the Beatitude of the Divine Master (Matt. V. 10, 44, 45). It became ominous for subsequent history that the first General Council of the Church was signalized by bitter excommunications and banishments. Christians, having acquired the art of disposing of hostile criticism by searching out and burning the objectionable books of their Pagan adversaries, learned to apply the same method to the works of such groups of Christians as were not in power or in favour for the time; when this method proved unsatisfactory, they found it expedient to burn their bodies. The chained skeleton found in the Mithraic chapel at Sarrebourg testified to the drastic means employed by Christians in making the truth conquer otherwise than by the methods and exemplified by the Founder. The stripping and torture to death with oyster-shells in a Christian church and the subsequent mangling of limb from limb of Hypatia, the noblest representative of Neo-Platonism of her day, by the violent Nitrian monks and servitors of a Christian bishop, and probably with his connivance, were symptomatic and prophetic of the intolerance and fanaticism which Christianity was to direct throughout the centuries upon its disobedient members and troublesome minorities until the day - yet to dawn - when a purer, more convincing because more spiritual, Christianity gains 'the consent of happier generation, the applause of less superstitious ages.'"

Vespasian succeeded Nero as Roman Emperor. There is no evidence that he persecuted Christians to any great extent.

Titus succeeded Vespasian as Roman Emperor. There is no evidence that he persecuted Christians to any great extent. Some Christians attempt to use the Tacitus Fragment 2 in order to make a case the Titus persecuted Christians. The fragment comes via Severus, who lived from approximately 467 - 538 A.D. It reads as follows:

Severus' Chronica 2.30.6 and 2.30.7

"2.30.6 It is reported that Titus first deliberated, by summoning a council of war, as to whether to destroy a Temple of such workmanship. For it seemed proper to some that a consecrated Temple, distinguished above all that is human, should not be destroyed, as it would serve as a witness to Roman moderation; whereas its destruction would represent a perpetual brand of cruelty."

"2.30.7 But others, on the contrary, disagreed -- including Titus himself. They argued that the destruction of the Temple was a number one priority in order to destroy completely the religion For although these religions are conflicting, they nevertheless developed from the same origins. The Christiani arose from the Jews: With the root removed, the branch is easily killed."

Titus's forces invaded Palestine in 70 A.D. because of Jewish nationalist ambitions, most notably among the Jewish Zealots. The Sacarii faction of the Zealots were killing Jews who disagreed with their nationalist ambitions, including a good deal of Romans as well.

Titus's invasion of Palestine had nothing whatsoever to do with Christians. Consider the following:

E. Mary Smallwood, in her literary work 'The Jews Under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian,' says the following:

"The hardening of Jewish Nationalist feeling into a militant resistance movement at the very start of the period of Roman rule was the fundamental cause of the recurrent disturbances of the next sixty years and of the revolt which was their climax, in the sense that it created or sharpened the dilemma facing the Romans in attempting to govern Judaea as a province. They were committed to a policy of protecting Jewish religious liberty, but on the political level they were opposed to nationalist aspirations among their subjects. The problem in Judaea was that to the Jews religion and politics were inextricably bound up together as two facets of a single way of life, and though a 'modus videndi' might have been established between Rome and moderate Jewish opinion, the existence of a belligerent nationalist party focusing discontent and fostering opposition posed a problem which the Romans signally failed to solve. Their failure in turn aggravated matters, and the story of the years 6-66 is largely the story of how the occupying power and the nationalists reacted on one another, each provoking the other to further excesses, until the final explosion came."

Clearly, Titus had little or no interest in Christians in Palestine, or anywhere else for that matter. There is no evidence whatsoever that he instituted, or desired to institute, a widespread policy of persecuting Christians and attempting to destroy Christianity.

Domitian succeeded Titus as Roman Emperor. There is no evidence that he persecuted Christians to any great extent. Consider the following from a web site at
http://www.roman-emperors.org/domitian.htm:

"Less easy to gauge is Domitian's attitude toward Christians and Jews, since reliable evidence for their persecution is difficult to find. Christians may have been among those banished or executed from time to time during the 90's, but the testimony falls short of confirming any organized program of persecution under Domitian's reign. On the other hand, there is clear evidence that Jews were made to feel uneasy under Domitian, who scrupulously collected the Jewish tax and harassed Jewish tax dodgers during much of his rule. As with Christians, such policies did not amount to persecution, but it does help to explain the Jewish fears of expulsion present in the sources. On balance, the tradition of Domitian as persecutor has been greatly overstated, yet given his autocratic tendencies and devotion to Roman pagan religion, it is easy to see how such stories could have evolved and multiplied."

Nerva succeeded Domitian as Roman Emperor. There is no evidence that he persecuted Christians to any great extent.

Trajan succeeded Nerva a Roman Emperor. Although some Christians claim otherwise, there is no evidence that he persecuted Christians to any great extent. Christians attempt to use as "evidence" Pliny's exchange of letters with Trajan. Consider the following:

Translated by K.C. Hanson

Pliny to the Emperor Trajan
Ep. 10.96

It is my custom, O lord, to refer all questionable issues to you. For who is more capable of resolving my doubts and instructing my ignorance?

I have never been present at a formal inquiry of "Christ-niks." Consequently, I do not know the nature or the extent of the sanctions usually administered against them, nor the grounds for opening a formal inquiry and how far it should be pressed. Nor am I at all sure whether any distinction should be made between them on the basis of age, or whether young people and adults should be treated identically, whether a pardon ought to be granted to anyone retracting his beliefs, or if he has once professed being a "Christ-nik," he shall gain nothing by renouncing it; and whether it is the mere label which is actionable, even if not guilty of a crime, or rather the crimes associated with the name.

In the meantime, this is the approach I have taken with everyone brought before me on the charge of being "Christ-niks": I have asked them in person if they are "Christ-niks"; and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time with a warning of the sanction awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution. For, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubbornness and unshakeable obstinacy should not go unpunished. Others as fanatical who are citizens of Rome I have listed to be remanded to "the City" for trial.

Now that I have begun to deal with this problem, as so often happens, the charges are becoming more widespread and increasing in variety. An anonymous writing has circulated which contains the names of several accused individuals. From these, I considered dismissing any who denied that they were or ever had been "Christ-niks" when they had recited after me an invocation of the gods and made offerings of wine and incense to your statue--which I ordered brought into court for this purpose along with the images of the gods--and further reviled the name of Christ: none of which, I understand, any true "Christ-nik" can be induced to do. Others, whose names were given to me by an informant, first admitted the charge and then denied it; they said that they had ceased to be "Christ-niks" two or more years before, and some of them even twenty years ago. They all venerated your statue and the images of the gods in the same way as the others, and cursed the name of Christ. They also declared that the totality of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a certain day to chant verses antiphonally amongst themselves in honor of Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves with an oath, not in a criminal conspiracy, but to abstain from fraud, banditry, and adultery, to commit no breach of trust, and not to renege on a deposit. After completing this foolishness, it was their custom to disperse and reassemble later to take food of an common and innocuous type; but they had in fact given up this practice since my edict, issued on your instructions, which banned all associations. This made me decide it was all the more necessary to extract the truth from two female slaves--whom they call "ministers"--by means of torture. I found nothing but a degenerate sort of superstition carried to immoderate lengths.

I have, therefore, put off any further consideration awaiting your counsel. The matter seems worthy of your consideration, especially in light of the number of persons at risk. For numerous persons of every age and every class, both genders, are being brought to trial, and this is likely to continue. It is not only the town, but villages and countryside as well which are infected through contact with this perverse superstition. I think that it is still possible for it to be checked and directed to better ends, for there is no doubt that people have begun to throng the temples, which had been almost entirely abandoned for a long time. And the sacred rites which had been allowed to lapse are again being performed, and the flesh of sacrificial meat is on sale everywhere, though until recently hardly anyone was buying it. It is easy to infer from this that a great many people could be rehabilitated if they were given an opportunity to recant.

Trajan to Pliny
Ep. 10.97

You have followed the correct course, my favored one, in your investigation of the cases of persons charged with being "Christ-niks"; for it is impossible to construct a universal principle applied as a fixed standard. These people should not be hunted down; if they are brought before you and the charge against them is proven, they must be punished. But in the case of anyone who denies that he is a "Christ-nik," and makes it clear that he is not by offering supplications to our gods, he shall be acquitted as a result of his recanting, however suspect his former conduct may be. But anonymous accusations shall not be introduced into the proceedings. They set a bad precedent and are not in the spirit of our age.

Regarding the preceding, the Britannica Deluxe Edition 2002 says the following:

"In one exchange, Pliny asked Trajan how he should handle the rapidly spreading sect of Christians, who, refusing to conform to normal religious practices, suffered from great unpopularity but were, as far as Pliny could see, harmless. In his reply, a model of judiciousness, Trajan advised Pliny not to ferret out Christians nor to accept unsupported charges and to punish only those whose behaviour was ostentatiously recalcitrant. Clearly in Trajan's time the Roman government did not yet have (and, indeed, was not to have for another century) any policy of persecution of the Christians; official action was based on the need to maintain good order, not on religious hostility."

However many Christian martyrs there actually were does not make any difference at all. A person can become a martyr because he believes a lie just as well as he can become a martyr if he believes the truth. There have been plenty of religious martyrs who were not Christians, and as I showed previously, a good deal of those martyrs were killed by Christians. Regarding the supposed large numbers of Christian martyrs, if every Muslim was willing to die for his faith, would Christians become Muslims? Of course not.

A martyr is someone who is given a chance to recant his beliefs, refuses to do so, and is persecuted and/or killed as a result. There is no evidence that a sizeable number of Christians who were persecuted and/or killed met those criteria.

The largest colonial empire in history by far that was conquered under a single religion was conquered by Christian nations by means of persecution, murder and theft of property.

Huon

I wrote earlier :
1 - The Early Roman Empire (27 BCE – 161 CE), from Augustus to Antoninus Pius.
....
In the first period, the Early Roman Empire is solid, more or less unified, and not too big.

You are right, The empire's extent under Trajan (98-117) was the maximum extent. The period of Hadrian (117-138) and Antoninus Pius (138-161) was a period of consolidation. In Britain, Hadrian's Wall and Antoninus's Wall are examples.

So my writing "not too big" is a mistake. Sorry.

Another point which i will not develop, since it does not belong to this thread. During Hadrian's reign, the Danubian limes was troubled in 117-118. I have about 15 lines of text, not very precise.

andrewcriddle

In terms of the number of Christrian martyrs it is beside the point , that their later legend is often basically fiction

To take the examples above.

Although their later legends are more or less dubious, Agnes Lucia (Lucy) Lawrence Sebastian and (probably) George were genuine martyrs. Catherine probably never existed and Cecilia was probably a genuine early Christian women but not a martyr.

ie although we know very little reliable about them the great majority were probably genuine martyrs.

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

I am not sure what your position is. Over the last 2,000 years, how many Christian martyrs do you estimate that there were, including how many in the first century? As I stated in my previous post, in many instances, after the 1st century, it was Christians themselves who became persecutors and murders. I also stated that the largest colonial empire in history by far under a single religion was conquered by Christian nations by means of persecution, murder and theft of property.

Religious martyrdom is only as valid as the foundation upon which it is built. I maintain that Christianity is not a valid foundation "even if Jesus rose from the dead." I discuss this in my thread titled 'Apologists assume too much about the nature of God.' The Resurrection without accompanying evidence that God is good is a useless argument. At my web site at www.johnnyskeptic.com, I discuss this issue in greater detail in my mini-essay, which appears just before my main essay. My mini-essay is an irrefutable argument against Christianity. I have found out from personal experience in a number of debates at the Theology Web and here at the Secular Web that while apologists are perfectly willing to debate the Resurrection, they are much less willing to debate the nature of God because when they do so against a prepared skeptic opponent, they always embarrass themselves. Most skeptics are missing a golden opportunity to oppose the Resurrection by admitting for the sake of argument that it "did" happen. I am trying to make more skeptics aware of this golden opportunity.

andrewcriddle

I don't really want to get into a modern history debate here and talk about the how high the evils of modern and early-modern colonialism rank compared to say the atrocities of Timurlane or how many of Stalin's victims can be regarded as Christian martyrs.

a/ I lack the detailed expertise needed on some of the points involved
b/ It seems off-topic for this forum and thread.

Restricting the question to the early church I would estimate 4-8 thousand Christian martyrs before the 'peace of the church' under Constantine. It is difficult to estimate the number of Christian martyrs before 100 CE but I would guess between 100 and 400.

(Also any persecution by Christians is much later than the 1st century.)
If you mean that strong evidence that something extraordinary happened to Jesus after his death, is not in itself sufficient to demonstrate the truth of Christianity, I quite agree.

If you mean that showing that Jesus is the revelation to man of the ultimate principle behind the Universe would not be sufficient to justify Christianity because you would have to show separately that the ultimate principle behind the Universe is worthy of worship , then this seems a rather strange argument.

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

Not "much later than the 1st century." The Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2005 says "By the 3rd century [in other words, by 200 A.D.] Gnosticism began to succumb to orthodox Christian opposition and persecution. Partly in reaction to the Gnostics heresy, the church strengthened its organization by centralizing authority in the office of bishop, wihc made its effort to suppress the poorly organized Gnostics more effective."

Elaine Pagels says "For nearly 2,000 years, Christian tradition has preserved and revered orthodox writings that denounce the Gnostics, while suppressing and virtually destroying the Gnostic writings themselves. Now, for the first time, certain texts discovered at Nag Hammadi reveal the other side of the coin: how Gnostics denounced the orthodox. The 'Second Treatise of the Great Seth' polemicizes against orthodox Christianity, contrasting it with the 'true church' of the Gnostics. Speaking for those he calls the sons of light, the author says: '...we were hated and persecuted, not only by those who are ignorant (pagans), but also by those think they are advancing the name of Christ, since they were unknowingly empty, not knowing who they are, like dumb animals.'"

That is what I mean.

I am not sure what you mean, but what I mean is that even if Jesus did rise from the dead, that doesn't tell us anything at all about his true nature. If Elvis Presley rose from the dead and said that he had died for the sins of mankind, his claim wouldn't be any more valid than the claim that Jesus died for the sins of mankind. The only reasonable proof that Jesus died for the sins of mankind would be if he returned to earth.

There isn't any reasonable proof at all that Jesus ever performed miracles. Regarding miracles healings, today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. Why should anyone assume that it was any different back then? Regarding the feeding fo the 5,000, the texts do not mention that anyone other than the disciples knew about the miracles. None of the anonymous Gospel writers claimed that they saw the miracles. The Gospel writers did not reveal their sources, which at best were second hand, and possibly third hand, fourth hand, etc. The Gospel of Mark contains the first written record of the feeding of the 5,000. It was written around 70 A.D., but as Richard Carrier told me, no one knows when it was first released. When the claim first appeared in print, was it widely accepted? No one knows.

The Bubonic Plague, the recent tsunami in Asia, and Hurricane Katrina, just to cite a few examples, call God's supposed goodness into question. Matthew 14:14 say "And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick." We need compassion today just as much as people did back then. Where is God's compassion today? The texts say that both sides (the Pharisees and admirers of Jesus) were aware that Jesus had supernatural powers. Today, both sides are not aware of God's supernatural powers. So, the evidence is not nearly as good today of God's supernatural powers as it supposedly was back then.

Regarding Hurricane Katrina, in typical fashion, God favored rich people. A lot of rich simply left town. Many of the the poor people didn't have enough money to travel. Rich people can easily afford to repair or rebuild their homes, and they are easily able to move elsewhere. Rich people also enjoy better educational opportunities, and they have access to better medical treatment. Either God favors rich people, or he doesn't exist.

You said that my arguments seem strange to you, but I find it to be very strange that even though Jesus supposedly performed many miracles, and even though the Holy Spirit had come to the Church, and even though there were a veritable plethora of eyewitnesses available to testify first hand that they had seen the risen Jesus, the book of Acts says that the disciples went about confirming "the message of his grace" by performing signs and wonders. It is a fact that today, we need to see some signs and wonders that can be directly attributed to God, just like it supposedly happened back then, much more than people did back then. There aren't any eyewitnesses around today.

Even if God does not wish to explain himself in great detail at this time, at the very least he should show up in person and tell us to be patient and that all will be revealed in due time. What would be wrong with that? Hearsay evidence in bad enough in court trials, but human proxies claiming to speak for God is an absurd notion. God supposedly spoke directly to Moses, Noah, Paul and the writer of the book of Revelation. Do we deserve any less?
I believe that for the most part, Bible apologetics is faith in disguise. In Kosmin and Lachman's 'One Nation Under God,' a book that Billy Graham praises, but I have no idea why, the authors cite a lot of documented evidence that the chief factors that determine religious beliefs are geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender and age. No loving God would allow himself to be limited by such factors.

In summary, even if the Resurrection happened, all that it proved was that God raised Jesus from the dead, nothing more.