lpetrich

How much of that had happened? I get the impression that it was half-hearted and off-and-on, and not as ruthless as it might have been.

Is that impression correct? I ask that because the early Xians seemed to have survived well enough to spread their religion; they often escaped being persecuted.

Also, a favorite Xian apologetic is that the early Xians had died for their belief in Jesus Christ. However, my understanding is that the Roman authorities' objection to the early Xians was that they refused to worship the official gods of the Empire -- and that they did not care very much about the early Xians' worshipping a crucified sophist (Lucian's description of Jesus Christ).

The authorities were generally tolerant, as indicated by their toleration of the more zealous male worshippers of Cybele and Attis, who would castrate themselves in honor of their deities. They may have felt that men who degrade themselves in that fashion aren't worth picking on. And such men were viewed as degrading themselves by various Roman writers.

So they might have thought that worshipping a crucified sophist is like castrating oneself, though they drew the line at refusing to worship the official gods.

Amaleq13

The letters between Pliny and Trajan (c.111-113CE) suggest that, while being a Christian was a crime, there was less a direct attempt to search them out as there was a reliance on others to rat them out (IIRC, anonymous reports were not to be taken). If you were accused of being a Christian, you were given an opportunity (actually three opportunities from Pliny) to prove you were not by worshipping the emperor or invoking the names of the gods or by cursing Christ. Only after failing to recant given three chances were you executed.

Incidently, Pliny mentions that he dealt with some alleged Christians who denied the charge and asserted they had abandoned the faith from three to twenty-five years earlier.

Huon

SPARTACUS, c.109 - 71 BCE. Thracian Gladiator.
There are historical reports of his existence, and of the threat he inspired to the Romans. After his defeat, 6000 men were crucified along the Via Appia as a warning to other slaves.

The Christians did not inspire threat to many persons. Their persecutions did not amount to 6000 persons, in my opinion. It seems that the persecutions existed, that they were local, limited in time, and very dependent on the will of the local authorities to enforce the law.

Benedictine monks, in France, in the 18th c., have gathered many informations about the first martyrs. They wanted to enforce the respect of these martyrs, and simultaneously the respect of the Church. But they were obliged to acknowledge that most of those "informations" were not very old, that many of these saints had made miracles on the same pattern, sometimes copied word for word, and that all that literature was to be read with many precautions...

Equinox

I’ve learned a bit about this from some recorded university lectures and some reading here and there. Some main things I've learned that aren't the same as the common exaggerations we hear:

• In most places and times, Christianity per se wasn’t illegal, what was illegal was refusing to worship the state gods. Like refusing to recite the pledge of allegiance, this was seen as a political act, and that’s why it was problematic. :notworthy

• This is why someone accused of being a Christian could simply burn some incense to the state gods and go free – it wasn’t so much that they weren’t supposed to be Christian, but rather that they weren’t supposed to be treasonous.

• Christian persecutions most often were local and sporadic, not empire-wide and constant. The first really empire wide, state-sponsored persecution wasn’t until around 250, under the emperor Decius. “Lynch mob� persecutions – where a bunch of locals attacked Christians because the Christians had convinced someone in their family to ostracize themselves were typical.

• On the other hand, many Christians did suffer martyrdom. This was consistent with their honest expectation that they would go to heaven after death, and that death was just a temporary suffering, and a guarantee to avoid Hell. Myself, I can’t help but think of the 72 virgins when I think of this. :huh:

• Major, empire-wide persecutions did occur around 250 CE and around 310 CE. That one around 310 CE was ended when the Roman Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, and suddenly being Christian went from being an oppressed minority to being a politically astute move. The numbers of Christian converts skyrocketed. :angel:

I highly recommend these recorded lectures as a start to learn about how Christianity got going. Of course, one should always compare information from various sources and keep learning, but these are a good start. Compared to actually taking this university class, they are cheap at $35:

http://www.teach12.com/ttc/assets/co...tions/6577.asp

A little learning, looking at the original evidence (such as the Roman letters or the diary of perpetua) help clear up the situation a lot.

Have a good day-

-Equinox

Huon

Licinius was emperor from 308 to september 324. Constantine beat him at Chrysopolis, and had him killed in 325. The first Council of Nicaea was held in 325.

Here are three interesting canons (decisions) of Nicaea.

Canon 10. Lapsi who have been ordained knowingly or surreptitiously must be excluded as soon as their irregularity is known.

If any have been promoted to ordination through the ignorance of their promoters or even with their connivance, this fact does not prejudice the church's canon; for once discovered they are to be deposed.

Canon 11. Penance to be imposed on apostates of the persecution of Licinius.

Concerning those who have transgressed without necessity or without the confiscation of their property or without danger or anything of this nature, as happened under the tyranny of Licinius, this holy synod decrees that, though they do not deserve leniency, nevertheless they should be treated mercifully. Those therefore among the faithful who genuinely repent shall spend three years among the hearers, for seven years they shall be prostrators, and for two years they shall take part with the people in the prayers, though not in the offering.

Canon 12. Penance to be imposed on soldiers who upheld Licinius in his war on the Christians.

Those who have been called by grace, have given evidence of first fervour and have cast off their [military] belts, and afterwards have run back like dogs to their own vomit, so that some have even paid money and recovered their military status by bribes — such persons shall spend ten years as prostrators after a period of three years as hearers. In every case, however, their disposition and the nature of their penitence should be examined. For those who through their fear and tears and perseverance and good works give evidence of their conversion by deeds and not by outward show, when they have completed their appointed term as hearers, may properly take part in the prayers, and the bishop is competent to decide even more favourably in their regard. But those who have taken the matter lightly, and have thought that the outward form of entering the church is all that is required for their conversion, must complete their term to the full.

These 3 canons show that the Christians were not all candidates to martyrdom, far from it. Under the pressure of Emperor Licinius, many Xians accepted to obey the local power, and wait for better times. They were the "lapsi", "fallen". Some of them became ordained ! Some christian soldiers were in the troops of Licinius, and "took the matter lightly", as says canon 12.

Overcomer

The problem Rome had with the early Christians is this: All the people, no matter what other gods they worshipped, were supposed to worship the ruling emperor. Those who didn't were considered insurrectionists who threatened the unity of the empire and whose loyalty to it was questionable.

For example, to refuse to burn incense before an image of the emperor was an act of treason. Christians would worship no one except the one true God. Therefore, according to the rules of the land, their acts were seditious and their treason had to be punished.

Also bear in mind that Rome didn't think of the Christians as being anything but a Jewish sect. Indeed, a lot of the Jewish Christians didn't consider themselves anything but Jewish. The difference between them was the fact that they accepted Christ as the Messiah and other Jews didn't.

The Jews, with their nationalistic bent and their desire to see the Romans overthrown, had always represented a threat to the Romans. Therefore, they saw the Christians, this Jewish sect, as just one more example of the Jews' desire to get rid of Roman rule.

Don't fall into the trap of denying Christian martyrdom the way some deny the Holocaust. It was real and it continues today. Currently, some 200 million Christians suffer abuse, imprisonment and even death just because they're Christians (See Their Blood Cries Out by Paul Marshall and Lela Gilbert).

Atheist China is one of the worst places for persecution of Christians. In the Sudan, they douse Christians with gasoline and set them on fire, making human torches of them. Many Christians in some Middle Eastern and Asian countries are put in jail for daring to talk out loud about Jesus to a non-Christian.

William Barclay wrote an excellent book about the disciples in which he presented the historical truth as well as the legends that surround the death of each of them. I can't think of the title off-hand. I think it's called "The Master's Men" or something like that. But anyone wishing to read it should be able to find it using Barclay's name.

One of the oldest books outlining persecution of Christians is Foxe's Book of Martyrs. It can be found on-line here:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/martyrs/

I think it's difficult to assess how widespread the persecution was in terms of numbers because there wasn't anybody keeping an account. Certainly Rome wasn't interested in recording statistics on how many Christians they put to death each year.

As for Christians using the fact that they were heavily persecuted as an apologetics tool, I have this to say:

Some people, attempting to discredit the Bible, insist that Christ was not crucified and the disciples knew it but wouldn't admit it. The thing is, when someone says to you, admit you're lying or die, most people would admit that they were lying and NOT die for a lie. So if the disciples were lying about having seen the resurrected Christ, they probably wouldn't have allowed themselves to be killed.

Other people say that Muslims die for their beliefs as they're willing to sacrifice themelves in a suicide bombing. What makes that different from Christian martyrdom?

Quite simply, they kill other people as well as themselves. The Koran teaches that the only sure way to get into Paradise is through martyrdom, that is, killing infidels for the cause of Islam.

Christians martyrs don't go out and kill people on purpose to get into heaven. They don't insist that anybody die with them. They know that salvation is by faith and faith alone, not by deeds and no one can earn his or her way into heaven. And no one can earn his way into heaven by murdering somebody.

Again, don't forget the fact that anybody can call himself a Christian, but that doesn't mean that he was. True Christians, that is, those in a relationship with God in the person of Jesus Christ through the infilling of the Holy Spirit would not deny him. Nominal Christians, that is, people bearing the label but who are NOT in a relationship with Jesus Christ would willingly change their beliefs since their beliefs were NOT grounded in a the living Christ.

Here's a link to just one of many sites on the topic of persecution of Christians around the world:

http://www.persecution.org/newsite/index.php

And here's a timeline re: persecution of Christians in the early church:

http://ctlibrary.com/3732

Huon

Here is an interesting quote :

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen163.html

Origen. Contra Celsus. BOOK III. CHAP. VIII.

But with regard to the Christians, because they were taught not to avenge themselves upon their enemies (and have thus observed laws of a mild and philanthropic character); and because they would not, although able, have made war even if they had received authority to do so,--they have obtained this reward from God, that He has always warred in their behalf, and on certain occasions has restrained those who rose up against them and desired to destroy them. For in order to remind others, that by seeing a few engaged in a struggle for their religion, they also might be better fitted to despise death, some, on special occasions, and these individuals who can be easily numbered, have endured death for the sake of Christianity,--God not permitting the whole nation to be exterminated, but desiring that it should continue, and that the whole world should be filled with this salutary and religious doctrine.

Equinox

Overcomer wrote:

Any Christian apologist using this argument is displaying a massive lack of understanding about when the gospels were written and by whom. We don’t know if the disciples attested the resurrection of Jesus under threat of death or not. All we know is that well after the death of Jesus, groups believed he had been resurrected. We do have legends that some of the disciples were martyred much later (such as Peter), but the lack of details about their martyrdom (for instance, were they offered a chance of escape, or just killed because it was well known that they were spreading Christianity) renders even their cases useless for this discussion. The fact that the vast majority of the disciples are barely mentioned outside of the gospels certainly doesn’t bode well for the idea that they were convinced believers.

As someone who personally guesses that Jesus did in fact live, people who use “logic� like this are an embarrassment.

In fact, even if we DID have evidence that the disciples became committed followers who died for their faith (as I think we do for Paul, who wasn’t a disciple), then even that wouldn’t say too much. People get convinced of things all the time, and many studies have shown how malleable memory is if it is connected to something someone cares about. People dying over the belief that they would go to heaven and such is hardly noteworthy.

Sorry I got too aggressive, I’ve just heard that line too many times, and it sounds more and more silly each time.

andrewcriddle

I don't think Origen meant that there was some sort of (relatively short) official list of Christian martyrs. In context he is claiming (correctly) that only a tiny fraction of Christians have been martyred.

This would be quite compatible with say 5,000 Christians having been killed before the time of writing, (which is before the major persecutions of the mid 3rd and early 4th centuries).

Andrew Criddle

Toto

Overcomer: Have you heard of Godwin's law?

No one is denying that there was Christian martyrdom or that the Romans did persecute Christians; the only question is the extent of it, and you will find both Christians and atheists questioning the more unsupportable claims.

Holocaust denial is a different phenomenon. It denies the existence of recent history that is fully documented and provable, for its own political motives.

Please don't drag this thread off topic.