Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Do you have any idea why it is frequently possible to predict where God will reveal himself to people who become Christians?

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I think you can predict what religious education a child will receive by the religious preference of the parents and those parents generally will reflect their own parents religious preference.

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

Exactly, which reasonably proves that it is parents' choice, not God's choice which parents he will use. It is an absurd claim that God prefers to use Christian parents to teach their children about him than using Muslim parents to teach their children about him. If the God of the Bible does not exist, the Gospel message would be spread exactly like it has been spread, by human effort.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

That it is spread by people who are willing to sacrifice everything, even their lives, to do so seems somewhat unusual. How many other people do something like this without the promise of personal gain?

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

Message to rhutchin: Do you have any idea why it is frequently possible to predict where God will reveal himself to people who become Christians?

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I think you can predict what religious education a child will receive by the religious preference of the parents and those parents generally will reflect their own parents religious preference.

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

Do you have any idea why it is frequently possible to predict where God will reveal himself to people who become Christians?

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

You said that some parents are not nice. However, in 3500 B.C., how were parents who lived far away from Palestine supposed to know anything about the God of the Bible?

Originally Posted by rhutchin

If we start from Noah and the dispersion of people from that point, then Noah's sons would educate their children who would then educate their children. What we might expect is a moderation of religious ties with each new generation and the appearance of variety in the stories about the creation and the flood. When God chose Abraham to be the father of the Jewish nation and then became to interact with the Jewish people, we might expect that the only way other people could learn about God was through the Jewish people.

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

The story of Noah is probably false. The vast majority of geologists do not believe that a global flood occured. Even some evangelical Christian geologists do not believe that a global flood occurred, and have said that conservative Christians who claim that a global flood occurred undermine Christianity.

Some conservative Christians claim that flood advocates have misinterpreted what the Bible says about the flood, and that the Bible does not mean that a global flood occurred.

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

You said that some parents are not nice. However, in 3500 B.C., how were parents who lived far away from Palestine supposed to know anything about the God of the Bible?

Originally Posted by rhutchin

If we start from Noah and the dispersion of people from that point, then Noah's sons would educate their children who would then educate their children. What we might expect is a moderation of religious ties with each new generation and the appearance of variety in the stories about the creation and the flood. When God chose Abraham to be the father of the Jewish nation and then became to interact with the Jewish people, we might expect that the only way other people could learn about God was through the Jewish people.

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

If Noah's group repopulated the earth, a claim that cannot be historically verified, and if the flood occurred in 2344 B.C., which would have been the case if the earth is 6,000 years old, and if the Old Testament genealogies of Adam through Noah are accurate, how do you account for the fact that there is not any mention of the God of the Bible in ancient Chinese historical records, nor in that ancient historical records of any other culture. Even if the ancient Chinese rejected the God of the Bible, they would have known about him because Noah's group repopulated China.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Are you sure that this is accurate. Some people claim that the Chinese characters in the alphabet reflect Biblical themes.

Here is one example: http://bibleprobe.com/chinese.htm

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If the Bible is mostly inerrant, how do you decide which parts are true, and which parts are false? How can you be reasonably certain what Jesus said about himself. If you do not have reasonable proof regarding what Jesus said about himself, even if he rose from the dead, you cannot make a good case why he rose from the dead.

At any rate, it doesn't matter since if the Bible said that God will send everyone to hell, you would reject the very same quality of evidence that you accept now, which proves that your emotional, illogical self-interest has caused you to reject any claims that you do not believe will ultimately benefit you.

Originally Posted by cege

How do I decide? I now decide based on what I can determine is most likely true to the original.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Knowledge can be gained because a person is the source of knowledge (God made all things, so He knows all about what He made) or through experiencing an event.

When Christ referred to "...that day and hour..." He was referring to judgment day and the experience of living through that time. This points to one distinction that Christ displays as a human. While He certainly must know all about judgment day because He is God, He will not know judgment day as a human because he will not be subject to judgment as humans will be. Judgment day is not for Jesus or the angels but for man alone. Thus, Jesus is telling people that they cannot conceive beforehand what it will be like to experience judgment day and that He will never know (or experience) what humans will on that day since He will not have to live that day as a human.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

No you don't. If you really cared what is most likely true to the original, if current Bibles said that God will send everyone to hell, you would reject the very same quality of evidence that you accept now.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Are you sure that this is accurate. Some people claim that the Chinese characters in the alphabet reflect Biblical themes.

Here is one example: http://bibleprobe.com/chinese.htm

Originally Posted by rhutchin

OK. Those are good points. However, passion is not necessarily arrogant conviction. Mormons can certainly be passionate about Mormonism and that which it teaches about family values because they have experienced in it their families. Passion can be a conviction that something is right and good because people have tried it and it worked. Jack LaLanne can be passionate about exercise because he knows, through experience, that it works.

People can also be passionate because they have something to gain. Muslims will blow themselves up because they think that they gain heaven by doing so. Salesman can be passionate because they want to make money.

Christians seem to be passionate for no real reason. They have nothing to gain and voluntarily forgo many of the world's "pleasures" for no apparent gain. The apostles faced ridicule and abuse and death to tell others about Jesus. Why?

Originally Posted by cege

How do I decide? I now decide based on what I can determine is most likely true to the original.

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

No you don't. If you really cared what is most likely true to the original, if current Bibles said that God will send everyone to hell, you would reject the very same quality of evidence that you accept now.

Originally Posted by cege

Ah, there now you go telling me what I believe. Tsk tsk.

I don't happen to believe that God will send everyone to hell, or that the Bible says that.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Christians seem to be passionate for no real reason. They have nothing to gain and voluntarily forgo many of the world's "pleasures" for no apparent gain.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The apostles faced ridicule and abuse and death to tell others about Jesus. Why?

Originally Posted by Andrew Criddle

If one accepts the historicity of Nero's persecution of Christians in Rome in c 66 CE, (a subject of dispute on this forum), then it would seem to imply a reasonably large number of Christians in Rome at that time and hence a much larger number in the Empire as a whole.

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

The Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition says:

Originally Posted by Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition

[Nero] became infamous for his personal debaucheries and extravagances and, on doubtful evidence, for his burning of Rome and persecutions of Christians.

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

The Microsoft Encarta 2000 Encyclopedia says:

Originally Posted by Microsoft Encarta 2000 Encyclopedia

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.

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

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

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.

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

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 quotation marks.

Regarding Tactitus' 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."

Originally Posted by Andrew Criddle

By Stark's figures the number of Christians in the Empire in 66 CE would be roughly 2,500 with presumably no more than one hundred in Rome. This seems too low to be a plausible target for heavy persecution.

If Nero's persecution of Christians happened then there were almost certainly more Christians in 66 CE than Stark's figures would suggest.

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

I stand by my previous arguments. In addition, as some historians have stated, if Christians had not been around, Nero would have persecuted someone else.

Originally Posted by users.drew.edu

Professor Darrell Doughty

Evidence for persecution of Christians during the reign of Domitian is slim.

Originally Posted by users.drew.edu

Professor Darrell Doughty

Tacitus' Account of Nero's Persecution of Christians. Annals 15.44.2-8

This passage is often cited by Christian scholars as an early witness by a Roman historian to the presence of the Christian movement, as evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus, and as evidence for persecution of Christians by the Romans. It is a text, therefore, that requires careful and critical examination.

On July, 19th, 64 CE, a fire started in Rome and burned for nine days, finally destroying or damaging almost three-quarters of the city, including numerous public buildings. Rumors spread that the fire had been planned by Nero. And according to Tacitus, to put an end to such rumors, Nero blaimed the disastor on the Christians.

ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos. et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit quos per flagitia invisos vulgus christianos appellabat. Auctor nominis eius christus. Tyberio imperitante per procuratorem pontium pilatum supplicio adfectus erat. repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat. non modo per iudaeam originem eius mali. sed per urbem etiam quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque .,. Igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur. deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens. haud proinde in crimine incendii. quam odio humani generis coniuncti sunt .,.

"Therefore, to put an end to the rumor Nero created a diversion and subjected to the most extra-ordinary tortures those hated for their abominations by the common people called Christians. The originator of this name (was) Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontinus Pilate. Repressed for the time being, the deadly superstition broke out again not only in Judea, the original source of the evil, but also in the city (Rome), where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and become popular. So an arrest was made of all who confessed; then on the basis of their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race." (Tacitus, Annales, 15, 44)

Tacitus continues:

"Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames. These served to illuminate the night when daylight failed. Nero had thrown open the gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or drove about in a chariot. Hence, even for crimnals who deserved extreme and examplary punishment there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but glut one man's cruelty, that they were being punished."

Paul Keresztes, "Rome and the Christian Church, I. From Nero to Sereri," ANRW 2.23.1, 247-315; L. H. Canfield, The Early Persecutions of the Christians (New York, 1913); H. Fuchs, "Tacitus über die Christen," VC 4 (1950), 65-93; E.T. Klette, Die Christenkatastrophe unter Nero nach ihrem Quellen inbes nach Tac. Ann. XV, 44 von neuem untersucht (Tübingen, 1907); Charles Saumagne, "Tacite et Saint Paul," Revue historique 232 (1964), 67-110; "Les incendiaires de Rome et les lois pémales des romains," Revue historique 227 (1962), 337-360.

The text is full of difficulties, and there are not a few textual variations in the mss tradition (e.g., "Christianos" or "Chrestianos" or even "Christianus"? - "Christus" or "Chrestos"?) -- which at least reflects the fact that this text has been worked over.

It is not even clear what Tacitus means to say - e.g., whether he implies that the charge of setting the fires brought against Christians was false; whether some Christians were arrested because they set fires and others because of their general "hatred for humankind"; what those persons arrested "confessed" to--arson or Christianity? -- or whether they were executed by crucifixion or immolation, or some one way and some in another.

But the real question concerns the historical reliability of this information -- i.e., whether we have to do here with a later Christian insertion. When I consider a question such as this, the first question to ask is whether it conceivable or perhaps even probable that later Christians might have modified ancient historical sources; and the answer to this question certainly must be yes!

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

According to H. B. Workman, the average Christian was not much affected by the persecutions. It was Christian “extremists” that attracted the attention of angry Pagans. “Earthly institutions should not be judged by their averages, but by the ideals of their leaders”, Workman adds. Persecution of Christians only became significant, curiously enough, in the 3rd and 4th centuries, on the eve of the Christian triumph.[2]

The Roman persecutions were generally sporadic, localized, and dependent on the political climate and disposition of each emperor. Moreover, imperial decrees against Christians were often directed against church property, the Scriptures, or clergy only. It has been estimated that more Christians have been martyred in the last 50 years than in the church's first 300 years.[3]

Originally Posted by rhutchin

One distinction is that people who spread the gospel are passionate about it. Extraordinary efforts are made to spread the gospel -- Southern Baptists spend $80 million a year to send missionaries around the world. The Wycliffe Bible Translators organization sends people to remote cultures to develop a written alphabet and dictionary in order to then translate the Bible into the native language. There is no material gain to the people doing these things. Would people be passionate in the absence of God or is God the source of that passion?

Originally Posted by rhutchin

One distinction is that people who spread the gospel are passionate about it.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Extraordinary efforts are made to spread the gospel -- Southern Baptists spend $80 million a year to send missionaries around the world. The Wycliffe Bible Translators organization sends people to remote cultures to develop a written alphabet and dictionary in order to then translate the Bible into the native language.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

There is no material gain to the people doing these things.

Originally Posted by Rodney Stark

Moreover, the fruits of this faith were not limited to the realm of the spirit. Christianity offered much to the flesh as well. It was not simply the promise of salvation that motivated Christians, but the fact that they were greatly rewarded here and now for belonging. Thus while membership was expensive, it was, in fact, a bargain. That is, because the church asked much of its members, it was thereby possessed of the resources to ‘give’ much. For example, because Christians were expected to aid the less fortunate, many of them received such aid, and all could feel greater security against bad times. Because they were asked to nurse the sick and dying, many of them received such nursing. Because they were asked to love others, they in turn were loved. And if Christians were required to observe a far more restrictive moral code than that observed by pagans, Christians – especially women – enjoyed a far more secure family life.

The dynamics of stigma and sacrifice have the following direct and formal consequences (Iannaccone 1992). First: ‘By demanding higher levels of stigma and sacrifice, religious groups induce higher average levels of member commitment and participation.’ Second: ‘By demanding higher levels of stigma and sacrifice, religious groups are able to generate greater material, social, and religious benefits for their members.’

Henry Chadwick assured his readers that ‘Paganism was far from being moribund when Constantine was converted to Christianity’ (1967:152), and E. R. Godds noted that in the fourth century paganism began ‘to collapse the moment the supporting hand of the State [was] withdrawn from it’ ([1965] 1970:132). I quote these two distinguished scholars to illustrate the general agreement among historians that paganism was brought down by Christianity and that the conversion of Constantine was the killing blow – that paganism declined precipitously during the fourth century when Christianity replaced it as the state religion, thus cutting off the flow of funds to the pagan temples.

Originally Posted by Joseph McCabe

From the first Constantine had, apart from his unsuccessful decrees, showered wealth and privileges upon the Church. A stream of gold flowed from the palace and new churches of a more attractive nature began to rise. At court and in the army the best way, if not the only way, to secure promotion was to become convinced by the brilliant evidence of the religion. Even ordinary citizens were rewarded with a baptismal robe and a piece of gold. Villages were raised to the rank of cities if all their inhabitants exchanged Jupiter for Christ. In ten years, imperial gold had done more than the blood of all the martyrs, the miracles of all the saints, and the arguments of all the apologists.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Would people be passionate in the absence of God or is God the source of that passion?