Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 08-25-2009, 05:15 PM

Quote:

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations.

For those knowledgeable of second century Rome, was this a universal edict and if so, how long did it last?

Vinnie

Vinnie · 08-25-2009, 05:25 PM

http://users.drew.edu/ddoughty/chris.../plinynot.html

GakuseiDon · 08-25-2009, 06:56 PM

The edict -- or something similar -- seems to be still in place in Justin Martyr's time:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html

He starts by petitioning the Emperor and the Senate "in behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them."

He gives the reasons for why Christians are persecuted:

By the mere application of a name, nothing is decided, either good or evil, apart from the actions implied in the name; and indeed, so far at least as one may judge from the name we are accused of, we are most excellent people...

In the first place [we furnish proof], because, though we say things similar to what the Greeks say, we only are hated on account of the name of Christ, and though we do no wrong, are put to death as sinners... And this is the sole accusation you bring against us, that we do not reverence the same gods as you do, nor offer to the dead libations and the savour of fat, and crowns for their statues, and sacrifices.

...

And, secondly, because we--who, out of every race of men, used to worship Bacchus the son of Semele, and Apollo the son of Latona (who in their loves with men did such things as it is shameful even to mention), and Proserpine and Venus (who were maddened with love of Adonis, and whose mysteries also you celebrate), or AEsculapius, or some one or other of those who are called gods--have now, through Jesus Christ, learned to despise these, though we be threatened with death for it, and have dedicated ourselves to the unbegotten and impossible God..

I guess that the name "Christian" was associated with rejecting the gods, and so Christians were automatically persecuted in that regard -- i.e. that the name "Christian" signified rejection of the Roman gods. I wonder if there were a general edict against rejecting the gods? Socrates was accused of something similar much earlier -- perhaps this was a general law within the societies of the time, so no actual edict needed to be given except to say that Christians were in violation of it?

Vinnie · 08-25-2009, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

The edict -- or something similar -- seems to be still in place in Justin Martyr's time:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html

He starts by petitioning the Emperor and the Senate "in behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them."

He gives the reasons for why Christians are persecuted:

By the mere application of a name, nothing is decided, either good or evil, apart from the actions implied in the name; and indeed, so far at least as one may judge from the name we are accused of, we are most excellent people...

In the first place [we furnish proof], because, though we say things similar to what the Greeks say, we only are hated on account of the name of Christ, and though we do no wrong, are put to death as sinners... And this is the sole accusation you bring against us, that we do not reverence the same gods as you do, nor offer to the dead libations and the savour of fat, and crowns for their statues, and sacrifices.

...

And, secondly, because we--who, out of every race of men, used to worship Bacchus the son of Semele, and Apollo the son of Latona (who in their loves with men did such things as it is shameful even to mention), and Proserpine and Venus (who were maddened with love of Adonis, and whose mysteries also you celebrate), or AEsculapius, or some one or other of those who are called gods--have now, through Jesus Christ, learned to despise these, though we be threatened with death for it, and have dedicated ourselves to the unbegotten and impossible God..

I guess that the name "Christian" was associated with rejecting the gods, and so Christians were automatically persecuted in that regard. I wonder if there were a general edict to that effect? Socrates was accused of something similar much earlier -- perhaps this was a general law within the societies of the time, so no actual edict needed to be given except to say that Christians were in violation of it?

I am guessing that, for one, from Pliny's Letters, Christians were upsetting the economy a bit by not offering sacrifices in the temples:

Quote:

It seems possible to check and reverse this direction at this point, for it is quite clear that the Temples of the Gods which have been empty for so long, now begin to be filled again, the sacred rites which had lapsed are now being performed and flesh for sacrificial rites is now sold again at the shops, although for a while nobody would buy it. So it seems reasonable to think that a great many people could be persuaded to reform, IF there were a legal procedure for Repentance.

The numbers were growing and maybe the area Pliny was in had a dense cluster of them. At an rate, I am still wondering specifically about the edict banning political associations.

I think Athenagoras might issue sentiments similar to Justin as well in his plea for Christians. I am wondering if meetings were allowed during Hadrian?

Vinine

aa5874 · 08-25-2009, 09:38 PM

The use of the word "Christians" by Pliny cannot be assumed to mean "Jesus believers" or people who believed in Jesus of the NT.

As explained by Justin Martyr even the followers f the magician Simon Magus ,during the time of Claudius, were called Christians.

It is very important to note that since the time of Claudius, as early as 41-54 CE there were people called Christians that had nothing whatsoever to with Jesus of the NT.

Based on Justin almost all of Samaria were Christians who followed the magician Simon Magus, the Holy God.

This is Justin Martyr writing about the Christians of Simon Magus in First Apology

Quote:

There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Caesar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him.

He was considered a god, and [as a god was honoured by you with a statue,

Quote:

which statue was erected on the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome:--

"Simoni Deo Sancto,"

"To Simon the holy God."

And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god; and a woman, Helena, who went about with him at that time, and had formerly been a prostitute, they say is the first idea generated by him.

And a man, Meander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetaea, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived many while he was in Antioch by his magical art.

He persuaded those who adhered to him that they should never die, and even now there are some living who hold this opinion of his. And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works.

All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians..

It is now clear that the mention of Christians by Pliny cannot be assumed to have any link with Jesus of the NT. And it would also appear that Christians were called atheists or Christian was a name given to people who did NOT believe in the Roman and Greek Gods.

Justin Martyr in First Apology 6

Quote:

Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity.

Now, if Christians of any belief contrary to the Roman Pagan beliuefs were called atheists, then it can easily be understood why Christians [atheists to the Romans] were always persecuted or banned.

Since the days of Tiberius, cults were abolished and followers banished.

This is Suetonius on Tiberius in the Twelve Caesars.

Quote:

He abolished foreign cults, especially the Egyptian and the Jewish rites, compelling all who were addicted to such superstitions to burn their religious vestments and all their paraphernalia.

Those of the Jews who were of military age he assigned to provinces of less healthy climate, ostensibly to serve in the army; the others of that same race or of similar beliefs he banished from the city, on pain of slavery for life if they did not obey.

He banished the astrologers as well, but pardoned such as begged for indulgence and promised to give up their art.

The Roman Emperors hated atheists [christians] or foreign cults until it all changed in the 4th century.

Vinnie · 08-26-2009, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The use of the word "Christians" by Pliny cannot be assumed to mean "Jesus believers" or people who believed in Jesus of the NT.

As explained by Justin Martyr even the followers f the magician Simon Magus ,during the time of Claudius, were called Christians.

It is very important to note that since the time of Claudius, as early as 41-54 CE there were people called Christians that had nothing whatsoever to with Jesus of the NT.

Based on Justin almost all of Samaria were Christians who followed the magician Simon Magus, the Holy God.

This is Justin Martyr writing about the Christians of Simon Magus in First Apology

Quote:

There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Caesar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him.

He was considered a god, and [as a god was honoured by you with a statue,

Quote:

which statue was erected on the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome:--

"Simoni Deo Sancto,"

"To Simon the holy God."

And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god; and a woman, Helena, who went about with him at that time, and had formerly been a prostitute, they say is the first idea generated by him.

And a man, Meander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetaea, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived many while he was in Antioch by his magical art.

He persuaded those who adhered to him that they should never die, and even now there are some living who hold this opinion of his. And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works.

All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians..

It is now clear that the mention of Christians by Pliny cannot be assumed to have any link with Jesus of the NT. And it would also appear that Christians were called atheists or Christian was a name given to people who did NOT believe in the Roman and Greek Gods.

Justin Martyr in First Apology 6

Now, if Christians of any belief contrary to the Roman Pagan beliuefs were called atheists, then it can easily be understood why Christians [atheists to the Romans] were always persecuted or banned.

Since the days of Tiberius, cults were abolished and followers banished.

This is Suetonius on Tiberius in the Twelve Caesars.

Quote:

He abolished foreign cults, especially the Egyptian and the Jewish rites, compelling all who were addicted to such superstitions to burn their religious vestments and all their paraphernalia.

Those of the Jews who were of military age he assigned to provinces of less healthy climate, ostensibly to serve in the army; the others of that same race or of similar beliefs he banished from the city, on pain of slavery for life if they did not obey.

He banished the astrologers as well, but pardoned such as begged for indulgence and promised to give up their art.

The Roman Emperors hated atheists [christians] or foreign cults until it all changed in the 4th century.

Do you have anything pertinent to add to the topic under consideration? If not, please take your hatred of Christianity to its own thread where it will be on topic and not derail an actual question.

Vinnie

youngalexander · 08-26-2009, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

The numbers were growing and maybe the area Pliny was in had a dense cluster of them.
Vinine

Well now Vinine, how dense a cluster do you propose in 113CE?

"Pliny's letter is problematic. We have already observed that the fact that we do not know where it was written or in what city the Christian problem surfaced is strange.

More problematic, however, is that, according to Pliny, there was a "great number" Christians, "of every age and class," not only "in the cities" [plural] "but in villages and rural districts as well" -- i.e., just about everywhere. This doesn't seem like a realistic scenario.

Another problem is that ..."

In another thread you have asked re 'life-expectancy' in early centuries. Perhaps you should begin to consolidate some of this data? In yet another you ask concerning graffiti in (not so) early christian sites.

What overall picture does it present?

DCHindley · 08-26-2009, 04:34 AM

Romans had a lot of trouble with private associations (social clubs, religious associations & social service organizations) during their civil war, and as a result, the emperors banned all but the most ancient ones, keeping a few associated with the Roman gods and state sponsored organizations. It targeted Rome and Italy, but was also applied in the provincial cities.

Effectively, the local governors only enforced the bans when it suited them politically, and a lot of burial societies, and clubs dedicated to local cults, continued to operate unmolested. However, if any of them got too rowdy or got into politics in any way, the hammer would come down.

The letters of Pliny also includes one in which Pliny asks Trajan if it would be OK to approve a petition to form a fire brigade in one town. The emperor said "no" on the reasoning that clubs like that, no matter how lofty the purpose, always become politically inclined over time.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Quote:

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations.

For those knowledgeable of second century Rome, was this a universal edict and if so, how long did it last?

Vinnie

aa5874 · 08-26-2009, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Do you have anything pertinent to add to the topic under consideration? If not, please take your hatred of Christianity to its own thread where it will be on topic and not derail an actual question.

Vinnie

It would appear that you did not read my post at all. I did not ever claim or write that I hated Christians . Where do you get such nonsense from?

Please read my post carefully.

It was the Romans that hated Christians and called them Atheists based on Justin Martyr.

Please look at First Apology 6 by Justin Martyr.

Quote:

Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity.

Firstly I have established, based on Justin Martyr, that the word Christian may have nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus of the NT.

And secondly, based on Suetonius, that Roman Emperors, since Tiberius, or as early as 14-37 CE, banned, and abolished foreign cults or banished people who did not believe in the Gods of the Romans.

Please read my post carefully before you make mis-leading statements.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Since the days of Tiberius, cults were abolished and followers banished.

This is Suetonius on Tiberius in the Twelve Caesars.

Quote:

He abolished foreign cults, especially the Egyptian and the Jewish rites, compelling all who were addicted to such superstitions to burn their religious vestments and all their paraphernalia.

Those of the Jews who were of military age he assigned to provinces of less healthy climate, ostensibly to serve in the army; the others of that same race or of similar beliefs he banished from the city, on pain of slavery for life if they did not obey.

He banished the astrologers as well, but pardoned such as begged for indulgence and promised to give up their art.

It would appear that foreign cults, christians or atheists, were constantly under the threat of serious persecution until the 4th century.

It should be noted that Pliny executed the Christians that did not re-cant before he wrote to Trajan for advice.

And, also, it should be noted that Trajan, according to the letter, did not ever castigate Pliny for having executed the Christians before he wrote for advice.

It would appear then that the execution or persecution of Christians was accepted as a norm whether or not public associations were banned.

bacht · 08-26-2009, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is very important to note that since the time of Claudius, as early as 41-54 CE there were people called Christians that had nothing whatsoever to with Jesus of the NT...

It is now clear that the mention of Christians by Pliny cannot be assumed to have any link with Jesus of the NT. And it would also appear that Christians were called atheists or Christian was a name given to people who did NOT believe in the Roman and Greek Gods...

Since the days of Tiberius, cults were abolished and followers banished...

The Roman Emperors hated atheists [christians] or foreign cults until it all changed in the 4th century.

Thanks aa

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-25-2009, 05:25 PM	#2
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	http://users.drew.edu/ddoughty/chris.../plinynot.html

08-25-2009, 06:56 PM	#3
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	The edict -- or something similar -- seems to be still in place in Justin Martyr's time: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html He starts by petitioning the Emperor and the Senate "in behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them." He gives the reasons for why Christians are persecuted: By the mere application of a name, nothing is decided, either good or evil, apart from the actions implied in the name; and indeed, so far at least as one may judge from the name we are accused of, we are most excellent people... In the first place [we furnish proof], because, though we say things similar to what the Greeks say, we only are hated on account of the name of Christ, and though we do no wrong, are put to death as sinners... And this is the sole accusation you bring against us, that we do not reverence the same gods as you do, nor offer to the dead libations and the savour of fat, and crowns for their statues, and sacrifices. ... And, secondly, because we--who, out of every race of men, used to worship Bacchus the son of Semele, and Apollo the son of Latona (who in their loves with men did such things as it is shameful even to mention), and Proserpine and Venus (who were maddened with love of Adonis, and whose mysteries also you celebrate), or AEsculapius, or some one or other of those who are called gods--have now, through Jesus Christ, learned to despise these, though we be threatened with death for it, and have dedicated ourselves to the unbegotten and impossible God.. I guess that the name "Christian" was associated with rejecting the gods, and so Christians were automatically persecuted in that regard -- i.e. that the name "Christian" signified rejection of the Roman gods. I wonder if there were a general edict against rejecting the gods? Socrates was accused of something similar much earlier -- perhaps this was a general law within the societies of the time, so no actual edict needed to be given except to say that Christians were in violation of it?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.