Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

He most certainly does. You obviously have not read chapter 1 in 'The Rise of Christianity.' Stark goes to great lengths to reasonably establish that the first century Christian church was very small. Not only did he estimate that there were only 7,530 Christians in the world in 100 A.D., but he discusses archaeological and papyrological evidence that show a very small Christian presence in the first two centures A.D.

Regarding the claim in the book of Acts that says that 3,000 people got saved on one occasion, Stark essentially says that that was an exaggerated literary device that was commonly used at that time.

How may I ask did you find out that Stark does not believe his own model?

There is no need for us to discuss Stark any further unless you read chapter 1in his book and consider not only what he says, but also what his sources say as well.

My main interest in this thread is how many Christians were persecuted in the first two centuries A.D.

By the way, your rudeness is sinful. Paul told the Corinthians that they should not judge skeptics, that they should judge among themselves and leave judging skeptics to God. You have an apparent need to personalize your arguments with ad hominem attacks. Personal attacks needlessly divert attention away from discussing the evidence. I feel sorry for you, and I forgive you.

Originally Posted by spin

When you are asked for your sources, could you please cite accurately referenced primary sources. Thanks.


spin

Originally Posted by Huguenot

Originally Posted by Champion

To repeat what I said in my last post I doubt there is a consensus on this topic I think we'll probably come up with a split.

Originally Posted by Champion

But I am more than willing to continue to find more sources though. I will post more of them later.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Even if Nero killed a large number of Christians, that does not reasonably prove that they died as martyrs. Most of them might have given up Christianity and been killed anyway because Nero needed a scapegoat to blame the fire on. Or, Nero might have had them killed without giving them an opportunity to give up Christianity.

Originally Posted by Champion

There is certainly a distinct possibility of that being correct. Tacitus' report that many Christians confessed to lighting the blaze suggests that they probably confessed to just about whatever Nero wanted them too. I also doubt Nero even cared about any 11th hour de-converstions while he was looking for suitable scapegoats. But I suggest you take this matter up with the writers of that book on Christian martyrs that you keep alluding too.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I do not trust the opinions of fundamentalist Christians regarding the issue of the persecution of Christians because many of them use the New Testament as a partial basis for their opinions about the persecution of Christians. You will not find very many secular scholars who claim that there is credible historical evidence regarding how the apostles died, and how many Christians Paul persecuted before he became a Christian.

Originally Posted by Champion

To repeat what I said earlier, a lot of the major historians who study this particular period of history are Christians. That's not surprising since we are discussing the point in time that witnessed the birth of Christianity.

Originally Posted by Champion

Out of curiousity, how do you view the New Testament from a historical perspective?

Originally Posted by Champion

BTW: Have you found any information that might suggest that Clement 1 is a forgery or can we both agree that it is a contemporary source?

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 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.

Originally Posted by aa5874

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.

Originally Posted by Champion

Johnny Skeptic:

You asked me if I thought that early church persecutions would make Christianity more believable. The fact that members of a young religious movement were persecuted proves nothing about the authenticity of that religious movement's message. In answer to your question, no. The only thing the persecutions prove is that Nero was a loon. Most people already knew that though.

But let's stop playing around. You asked me that question because you think that I'm secretly trying to defend Christianity against the mean mean atheists on an atheist forum. If you wanted this discussion to be purely about the history you wouldn't have asked me what my religious beliefs were. This constant litmus testing is annoying and I don't understand why you think it has any bearing on discussions ranging from Nero's reign to physician assisted suicide. It is getting tiresome.



I am not disputing what Dr. Roth said about writers of antiquity. I just think it is dangerous to disregard those writings when we have so few sources to begin with.

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]

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]

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]


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.

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. 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]

"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]

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.

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

Originally Posted by Champion

Johnny Skeptic:

You asked me if I thought that early church persecutions would make Christianity more believable. The fact that members of a young religious movement were persecuted proves nothing about the authenticity of that religious movement's message. In answer to your question, no. The only thing the persecutions prove is that Nero was a loon. Most people already knew that though.

But let's stop playing around. You asked me that question because you think that I'm secretly trying to defend Christianity against the mean mean atheists on an atheist forum. If you wanted this discussion to be purely about the history you wouldn't have asked me what my religious beliefs were. This constant litmus testing is annoying and I don't understand why you think it has any bearing on discussions ranging from Nero's reign to physician assisted suicide. It is getting tiresome.

I am not disputing what Dr. Roth said about writers of antiquity. I just think it is dangerous to disregard those writings when we have so few sources to begin with.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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. 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]

"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]

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.

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

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Well said.

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.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to Champion: Why are you helping fundamentalist Christians defend one of their sacred cows? Are you aware that many fundamentalist Christians believe that large numbers of persecuted Christians gives great credibility to Christians, and that some non-Christians become fundamentalist Christians because of that issue?