spamandham

I didn't say that. You're confusing me with Sheshbazzar.

Amaleq13

There were, apparently, some Christians willing to suffer martyrdom for their beliefs but, simply from the fact that the movement not only survived but grew, we know that many more were not so willing but more interested in continuing the movement.

No, it isn't. That some were willing to become martyrs says nothing about those who had no choice or those who kept their Christianity a secret.

And you imagine this sort of evidence to have been so plentiful that we should expect to find it? No, this is a tremendously weak argument from silence.

And, yet, we are told that some did just that by Minucius Felix (8).

Amaleq13

I think you are confusing the use of symbols by an "underground" movement and the notion that they would be expected to leave behind "hard archaeological evidence". The whole point of using symbols for such a group would be to secretly identify themselves to each other. Does that suggest something permanent or easily recognizable two thousand years in the future?

Be sure any proposed "such a group" shares the same issues with going public.

Such as?

Amaleq13

Why waste time refuting a position nobody holds?

You haven't explained why we should expect anything else.

Citations, please.

Amaleq13

Yes, the quote comes from this post.

MarkA

Modern examples of underground and persecuted groups using symbols publically - not just to identify themselves to others of the same group - and therefore risking arrest or death include: the French Resistance in WWII; all the European resistance groups in WWII in particular their use of V for Victory daubed and scratched on public buildings and walls all over occupied Europe; the various nationalist groups in the Balkans eg The Black Hand and nationalist groups in Italy prior to unification and the Basques in both Spain and France; the Communist Party everywhere but particularly in Tsarist Russia; Independence movements all over the world in every continent including Australia at Eureka and Castle Hill. Symbols of American independence were publically displayed before any declaration of rebellion in the War of Independence. These examples show that symbols are not just used to identlfy members of a group to each other but are meant to be publically displayed as a means of announcing the existence of such groups.

In times of repression the use of symbols displayed publically are a means of enforcing group solidarity. How did christians enforce group solidarity and identity if they simply kept themselves hidden from the world? Talking among themselves only and mixing with their own exclusively is unique among all such groups in history. It is also a sure way to go extinct. You do not gain new adherents by simply talking to them you gain new followers by being a publically recognizable group no matter the risk.

Even if you conceive of the early christians being a mix of a secret society and a club like the Masons, it still needs to be explained why no symbols prior to the fourth century have been found? Plenty of symbols from the past that were used in private and between themselves from clubs and societies exist why not christian ones prior to the fourth century.

Toto

I'm trying to think of comparable groups in modern society. The Scientologists have some symbols and own a bit of real estate, but do not tag the streets of Los Angeles with their symbol - totally obscure gangs and individual teenagers do that. If the main Scientology building in LA were destroyed, you might not find any evidence that Scientology was a major institution in LA in the late 20th century, but Scientology cells and front groups are everywhere.

mountainman

What do we know about Philip the Arab?


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

There are a number of posters to this thread making the mainstream allusions to the historicity (or otherwise) of christian persecution in the first three centuries as a means to explain away the lack of evidence.

As early as 1912 we have Arthur Drews showing that the Neronian persecution of christians is not an historical activity - that the Neronian persecution of christians is a fraudulent misrepresentation of the history. The arguments made by Drews in his work Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus need to be refuted as far as I am concerned - perhaps even separately - by such posters.

The Eusebian fiction postulate of course commences with the hypothesis that when Eusebius wrote "The Histories of the Martyrs" he was simply writing Romantic Fiction under contract to the Boss until 337 CE.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Toto

What does Philip_the_Arab have to do with this?He might have been seen as tolerant in contract to his successor, Decius.