Johnny Skeptic

I suggest that you pay better attention to what I write. I asked you the question because I do not know what your position is, and yet you started out by saying "If you truly think......." If I already knew what your position was, why would I have asked you the question? I cannot make any sense at all out of your reply. If you don't mind, please answer the question that I asked you. A simple "yes" or "no" will do if that is all that you want to say.

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

Johnny Skeptic

Well, if there are only a few sources, Christians should not use them to make a case that large numbers of Christians were persecuted.

But that does not say anything about large numbers of Christians.

Again, that does not say anything about large numbers of Christians.

Again, that does not say anything about large number of Christians.

But Harold Mattingly is only one source.

I believe that my sources are much better than your sources. I believe that most people at this forum will agree with me. I assume that the collective education and reseach of my sources far outweighs the collective education of your sources.

Please be advised that in order to defeat Christians who claim that large numbers of Christians were persecuted, since they are the claimants, I do not have to reasonably prove that large numbers of Christians were not persecuted. Rather, they have to reasonably prove that large number of Christians were persecuted.

You originally said:

Now you said:

First you said "Discounting the LARGE amount of evidence because it comes from the supposed victims themselves doesn't seem like the best way to examine this issue," but now you say "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." Which is it, a large amount of evidence from the supposed victims themselves, or a few sources that are contradictory?

Who are "the supposed victims"?

Are you not aware that history is full of lies, deceptions, and innocent but inaccurate revelations?

Regarding "we should be a little more hesitant to speak with such certainty," since it is Christians who are the original claimants, you should be telling that to them, not to me. I have no problem with neither side making any claims, but you can bet that many Christians will not do that. The supposed persecutions of large numbers of Christians is highly touted by many Christians who claim that the persecutions of large numbers of Christians greatly adds credibility to Christians. "World Christians Trends" is a large book. It was written by two conservative Christians. The authors claim that the persecutions of large numbers of Christians is the best evidence that the Gospel message is true.

You said:

What consensus of secular historians are you referring to? The only historian that you mentioned was Harold Mattingly. He is not a consensus. Is he a skeptic?

That fact that a number of prominent Roman Catholics opposed claims of large numbers of persecutions, including a Pope and a Cardinal, all of whom had nothing to gain from their opposition except to save their integrity, proves that my sources are much better than your sources are. Those Roman Catholics sources would probably not have opposed claims of large numbers of persecutions without have very good reasons for doing so.

Any at rate, I win because my sources are much more credible and more numerous than your sources are, and because my sources come from both sides of the aisle, and because since I am not the original claimant, I do not actually have to reasonably prove anything, especially since you said "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." I am happy to be hesitant. Are you and Christians happy to be hesitant to and not talk about persecutions anymore?

You ought to know that the party who should be the most hesitant is the party who is the ORIGINAL claimant, who in this case are Christians. My comments are a reply to PRIOR claims by Christians.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Champion: If you reread my opening post, you will see that I started this thread in response to the following statements by rhutchin, who is a Calvinist:

Those statements obviously deal with persecution and martyrdom. You said:

Does what you said not apply to what rhutchin said as well? The issue of the deaths of the disciples has been debated at this forum in the past. As far as I recall, the consensus what that the jury is still out regarding that issue.

Regarding rhutchin's claim that Christians "have nothing to gain and voluntarily forgo many of the world's pleasures for no apparent gain," what do you have to say about that? In "The Rise of Christianity," Rodney Stark says:

A comfortable eternal life certainly does not compare favorably with "no apparent gain," especially considering that the brief human life span is but a speck of time as compared with eternity. If the Bible did not offer present and eventual gain, few people would be Christians.

Champion

Johnny Skeptic Post #1

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.

Suetonius refers to them as a "class of men" suggesting a group of some size. He also knows something of who they are.

Tertullian puts Nero at the head of the list of Christian persecutors alongside the names of violent emperors who lived in better documented times.

In the passage I posted, Clement was trying to find a place for Nero's persecution within a violent prophecy in the book of Daniel. If Clement had believed Nero's persecution was merely a few executions of scapegoats then the event would most likely been considered to inauspicious to consider part of something as major as the book of Daniel.

I suppose I could dig for more University's that disagree with you until our computers are blue in the face. But I won't do that. The fact that over a hundred years ago there were still arguments over this exact issue is evidence enough that there is uncertainty as to the scope of Nero's persecutions.

You are half right. Christians must also stop speaking with such overconfidence with regards to what they believe Nero did. But the burden of proof lays squarely with you. The Christians have the sources on their side. You have a strong argument from silence and the belief that Tacitus now isn't exactly what original Tacitus was back in the day. It seems to me that you are the one without direct sources. You must prove that their sources are false.

If we were talking about the supposed 'Massacre of the Innocence' things would be different.

In my argument I thought I'd discount the Christian sources for Nero's persecution. Many of them have been corrupted and we should be hesitant to use them. We have few sources that are marginally reputable, and even they are under some suspicion. Comments like "Nero's persecutions were on a grand and horrific scale" are just as unfounded as "Nero's persecutions are mainly exaggerations and myth". We don't know if either is true.

See above.

The Christians. Not the Christians hundreds of years after the fact of course.

I am aware that history is full of lies, deceptions and inaccuracies. History is also full of unanswered questions.

If I hear someone on this board say it I'll tell them. I joined this discussion late so I'm kind of at a disadvantage as to who claimed what and when.

Persecution proves nothing about a religion but how genuinely its adherents believe it's truth. Personally, I don't care what "World Christians Trends" says, but if the amount of persecution a religion faces is a litmus test for which religion is the best then the Jews win hands down.

The fact that Universities with respected historians have taught it for over a hundred years while very well educated and respected historians, like the ones you referenced, have also disputed it for over a hundred years has got to show something about the nature of this debate.

I was under the impression that the men you quoted below were refering to the silly stories about saints taming lions, converting thousands, and stopping bullets with their hands.

I have many things to say about the above paragraph. First of all, what do you mean "win". This isn't a game, or a fight, or a war. This is a discussion. Second of all, your sources from "both sides of the aisle" intrigue me since you didn't mention which Catholic Encyclopedia you are referring to. All the "Catholic Encyclopedia's" I found said things profoundly different. Thirdly, I'm glad you're hesitant, that's all I wanted to accomplish. We just need to view the area in question as if it is grayer than some people like to believe it is. Lastly, in answer to your question, the Christians have ample evidence for incredibly violent persecutions committed by the emperors who followed Nero. So, we can be sure to hear plenty from Christians on persecution with or without Nero's involvement.

The Christians have the evidence. You have the many many well informed aspersions to cast. You are the one who must show that Tacitus is untrustworthy with regards to what he reported on Nero's actions after the great fire of Rome. You must prove the evidence to be untrustworthy.

If you insist on speaking on this topic as if it is a game then I think it is quite equitable to call this one a draw. You are right though, Christians should ease up on this one.

Which pope and which cardinal? You of all people should know that the title of 'Pope' or 'Cardinal' lends nothing to the credibility of the person in question.

Johnny Skeptic Post #2

I would have to lean toward the Christian view on this one. I am skeptical of the phantastical means by which the apostles died. But I think it's fair to say that they didn't die of natural causes. Admittedly, I haven't studied this issue very thoroughly, but I'd be interested in hearing what you think became of Paul?

I think that Christianity, if true [an elephant sized 'if'], grants ample motivation for its followers. The early Christians had everything to gain. They had a guaranteed ticket to the heavenly city.

Agreed.

Even the Apostle Paul wouldn't have been. I think he had a pithy quote on that subject somewhere.

I don't know if I trust this source. I was under the impression that Christianity wasn't "expensive". As a matter of fact, wasn't its early rise partially due to it being cheap and available to people of any class? I do agree that it called upon its followers to do charitable acts and the emphasis put on caring for the "widows and orphans" within the church must have been quite the hook. However, I'd be interested in seeing Mr. Starks sources for that statement on Christianity being "expensive".

aa5874

It has not been established what Christians Nero persecuted. It is unlikely that these Christians were followers of Jesus, since Jesus of Nazareth appears to have been fabricated after Nero died in 68 CE.

There may have been many versions of Christians, including the followers of Simon the magician whose followers, according to Justin Martyr, were called Christians.

.

It is therefore not imperative that Christians mean followers of Jesus of Nazareth.

spin

I note the optimism with which you use texts preserved by christians scribes, as though you can assume their reliability and the reliability of their dating.

You cite the christian content in Tacitus, when the passage itself is under question for its veracity as part of the text written by one of the best orators of his time. We've looked at the passage and found that it is a change in general topic uncharacteristic of Tacitus. It uses some very ugly Latin. It makes a bad mistake regarding Pilate's rank, when Tacitus has shown that he knew the situation in Palestine well. There are sundry other problems, but you feel free to cite it as though it's kosher.

Suetonius refers to matters of public order, when suddenly there is stuff about the execution of christians. Another really coherent bit of writing.

Citing 1 Clement begs a secure dating rather than the hopeful rubbish that has been used in the past, for without 1 Clement there is little in favor of the reputed Neronian persecution.

The state of assumptions about texts needs to be investigated before we blithely accept undated texts or interpolations.


spin

Johnny Skeptic

How expensive Christian membership was does not have anything whatsoever to do with how many Christians were persecuted.

I suggest that you buy a copy of the book and read it. It is highly acclaimed, and got lots of excellent reviews from the media and from a number of Bible scholar. Rodney Stark has a Ph.D. in sociology, has written over fifty books, and has been a college professor. Stark if is careful and consummate researcher. His bibliography in the book is very extensive. You ought to read the book before you criticize it.

I suggest that you try to contact Stark and ask him whatever you wish.

Johnny Skeptic

I suppose that you can't. Unless you do, I win. I posted a number of contemporary prestigious secular sources. How many contempoary prestigious secular sources did you post?

Regarding Nero's persecutions, first of all, since that issue is still under dispute, it is not useful to Christians. Second of all, even if Nero persecuted some Christians, no one knows how many to the nearest hundred, thousand, or ten thousand.

Although you basically claimed that how many Christians were persecuted does not make Christianity any more rational, many conservative Christians disagree with you. For instance, "World Christian Trends" is a large book that was written by two conservative Christians. The book makes a big deal out of persecutions, and it makes all kinds of questionable claims large numbers of Christians who were persecuted. The book basically says that the large numbers of Christians who were persecuted is the very best evidence that Christianity is the one true religion.

Rhutchin said:

Many conservative Christians feel the same way. Don't you know that?

Have you ever stated at the IIDB whether or not you are a Christian? If so, what did you say? If you refuse to answer my question, that will be adequate proof that you are a Christian. There would not be any reason for you to be evasive unless you are a Christian. If you are a skeptic, if you win this debate, what will you have accomplished that you believe will help skepticism? If you win this debate, you will have significantly helped to promote fundamentalist Christianity. Even if I believed that large numbers of Christians were persecuted, I would never consider helping fundamentalist Christians promote one their most important issues.

If you are not a fundie, you are a great asset to them. This is the third time that you and I have had a debate where you argued like the vast majority of fundies argue. It is interesting to note that you withdrew from the other two debates when you know that you were in trouble. If you would like to debate those issues some more, just let me know. I am sure that fundies would like for you to help them some more, assuming that you are not a fundie, which I do not assume.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that homosexuality is sinful or immoral?

Johnny Skeptic

No, I am completely right.

Good.

No it doesn't. Logically, he who asserts first must defend first. Some Christians first asserted centuries ago that large numbers of Christians were persecuted. It is not up to me to reasonably disprove those claims. It is up the Christians to reasonably prove those claims.

No they don't. You said "I just think that the fact that there is something of a consensus among both secular and Christian historians has got to count for something," but as far as I know, you posted only one single contempory source, who is Harold Mattingly, and you did not say whether he is a Christian or a skeptic. If you posted some other contemporary sources, I am not aware of it.

That is false. The evidence is on my side. Consider the following from my post #7:

http://users.drew.edu/ddoughty/Chris...s/tacitus.html

It is most embarrasing to you that some prominent Roman Catholic sources disgree with you, including a Pope and a Cardinal. You certainly cannot get away with claiming that they had anything to gain by exposing what they believed were lies. They valued their honesty and integrity more than they did promoting claims that would have helped build the Christian church. They wanted to build the Christian church with what they believed was truth, not with lies.

Consider the following:

Have you got it now? "The legends of the martyrs are so gross that Catholic historians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries frequently denounced them."

Further regarding your comment "I just think that the fact that there is something of a consensus among both secular and Christian historians has got to count for something," is that a deliberate lie about secular scholars being part of a consensus, or do have some evidence to back that up?