Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 02-23-2008, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Tertullian lived in the ancient city of Carthage in what is now Tunisia, sometime around 200AD. Very little is known about his life - that little comes either from writers two centuries later1, or from the scanty personal notes in his works2. Much of it has been asserted to be untrue anyway by some modern writers 3.

http://www.tertullian.org/readfirst.htm

aa5874 · 02-23-2008, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Justin Martyr's First Apology 7:

'And this we acknowledge, that as among the Greeks those who teach such theories as please themselves are called by the one name "Philosopher", though their doctrines be diverse, so also among the Barbarians this name on which accusations are accumulated is the common property of those who are and those who seem wise. For all are called Christians.'

The full text is online. It doesn't say what this brief quote seems to make it say.

Justin is rebutting the idea that Christians live immoral lives. He points out that people who claim the name of Christian but whom the church rejects are being lumped in with Christians, and the latter smeared by the actions of the heretics. But we are still dealing with people talking about Jesus here.

But there is no suggestion here that the term is used for anyone except the Christians, nor that the Christians teach various doctrines; only that the pagans lump heretics with Christians. The chapter makes clear that Justin rejects the idea of diversity.

Again, all this says is that the pagans tended to call the heretics Christians, and blame genuine Christians for the misdeeds of the heretics. It certainly doesn't say that there were anyone else but Christians meant by the name.

Quote:

"Christian" did not mean intrinsically "follower of Jesus of the NT.

Well, clearly it did. Nothing in this refers to anyone else.

Is it of any importance that pagans applied the name to anyone who claimed the name? All these groups were associated as Christian heretics, and I find it hard to believe that anyone reading Justin could imagine otherwise. It's very like misrepresentation of Justin.

Is this your own reading, or did you get it from elsewhere?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Your post is complete nonsense. You do not understand the OP. The OP deals with the persecution of Christians, Justin Martyr clearly wrote that followers of magicians and Marcion called themselves Christians or were being called Christians by others. Therefore it should be obvious that if Christians were indeed being persecuted that it could have been followers of the magicians or Marcion.

Roger Pearse · 02-23-2008, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

The full text is online. It doesn't say what this brief quote seems to make it say.

Justin is rebutting the idea that Christians live immoral lives. He points out that people who claim the name of Christian but whom the church rejects are being lumped in with Christians, and the latter smeared by the actions of the heretics. But we are still dealing with people talking about Jesus here.

But there is no suggestion here that the term is used for anyone except the Christians, nor that the Christians teach various doctrines; only that the pagans lump heretics with Christians. The chapter makes clear that Justin rejects the idea of diversity.

Again, all this says is that the pagans tended to call the heretics Christians, and blame genuine Christians for the misdeeds of the heretics. It certainly doesn't say that there were anyone else but Christians meant by the name.

Well, clearly it did. Nothing in this refers to anyone else.

Is it of any importance that pagans applied the name to anyone who claimed the name? All these groups were associated as Christian heretics, and I find it hard to believe that anyone reading Justin could imagine otherwise. It's very like misrepresentation of Justin.

Is this your own reading, or did you get it from elsewhere?

Your post is complete nonsense. You do not understand the OP. The OP deals with the persecution of Christians, Justin Martyr clearly wrote that followers of magicians and Marcion called themselves Christians or were being called Christians by others. Therefore it should be obvious that if Christians were indeed being persecuted that it could have been followers of the magicians or Marcion.

I'm afraid that I was addressing *your* comments, not the OP.

But can we now agree that the assertion that the term 'Christian' meant someone other than people who either followed Jesus or claimed that they did is not true? (I'm unclear why anyone needs it to be true, as some seem to).

Curiously something or someone seems to have interfered with my extensive ignore list. I'm seeing posters whom I haven't seen for years, and re-adding them as they appear.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 02-23-2008, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

Again, all this says is that the pagans tended to call the heretics Christians, and blame genuine Christians for the misdeeds of the heretics. It certainly doesn't say that there were anyone else but Christians meant by the name

Think carefully about what you have written there - you are showing there are two definitions in circulation - one a generic one, one an in group one - the joke "true Christian (tm)" is exactly about this.

I'm afraid that I see no need to alter what I wrote. You might want to consider whether your comments are well-founded.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874 · 02-23-2008, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Curiously something or someone seems to have interfered with my extensive ignore list. I'm seeing posters whom I haven't seen for years, and re-adding them as they appear.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Absolute nonsense. Your debating skills need to be improved instead of hiding on your ignore list.

mountainman · 02-23-2008, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

But can we now agree that the assertion that the term 'Christian' meant someone other than people who either followed Jesus or claimed that they did is not true? (I'm unclear why anyone needs it to be true, as some seem to).

Logically, the assertion that the term 'Christian' meant someone other than people who either
followed Jesus or claimed that they did, is in fact true due to exceptions. The classic exception case is this -- the huge problems associated with conflation of the Roman "chrestos" and the Roman "christos", and their two greek equivalents χρηστός and Χριστός (with an iota), respectively.

These two words sound exactly the same in the ancient greek. Are these people then the followers of "The Good" (chrestos), or are they followers of this (ascetic term) christos?

Thus the assertion is true. Others exist, who were not "christians" etc. Anyone known as "The Good" is often conflated as a christian, even today on WIKI. See P.Oxy 45. Conflation of these two terms is documented by many of the early church "fathers", in the time of Constantine.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Clivedurdle · 02-24-2008, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

There is a serious unacknowledged problem in this discussion of orders of magnitude, of looking through the wrong end of telescopes.

We have acknowledged a few hundred martyrs max over several centuries compared with a milleniums treatment of one quarter of the Roman population and a specific hit of 11,000 in one go!!

I was being sympathetic to the xians here - I was wrong - xianity destroyed a thousand year old civilisation, a pratise that has been repeated throughout the centuries in the Americas and Africa especially.

The Greeks had superb technology and mathematics - Archimedes had cracked infinity, the Pharisees were beginning to question slavery. How to make concrete was forgotten!

The xians destroyed a civilisation and built the dark ages. And we dare pretend the xians were persecuted? It is equivalent to saying the Nazis were persecuted at Nuremburg!:devil1:

More and more I see Islam as a direct result of xianity - a more Persian bi product, but both empire building or proselytising - what is this pretense of oh it is only spreading religion when both religions clearly want theocracies?

The Crusades and the modern issues with Islam are only reruns of the ancient battles between Rome and Persia. Why do we focus on a few witches and heretics in the Inquisition and miss the big picture?

Minimalist · 02-24-2008, 08:55 AM

Pliny to Trajan:

Quote:

Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

Trajan to Pliny:

Quote:

For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard.

and

Quote:

that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html

Sorry. Doesn't seem as if the Romans cared about religion. Pliny and Trajan are talking about the 'appearance' of treason among this group. Obviously, some "christians" had no problem sacrificing to the Roman gods...who at this point in history included the Emperor himself...which is why Trajan says that it is not possible to lay down a "general rule." Why not? General rules are easy. Christian = guilty...zero tolerance! We do it all the time here in the good ole USA.

Some christians, apparently, were more radical than others and the Romans tended to regard them as potentially treacherous.

Clivedurdle · 02-24-2008, 09:53 AM

Why would someone in Carthage have correspondence with an Emperor?:devil1:

Quote:

Tertullian quotes a large chunk of the letter.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman · 02-24-2008, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Some christians, apparently, were more radical than others and the Romans tended to regard them as potentially treacherous.

That is what the literature extant would have us conjecture.
The question is whether Pliny and Trajan have been interpolated
at some later date by unscrupulous people who sought mention
of the great and mighty and yet humble and loving NATION
of the soon-to-be-very-supremely-victorius "christians", who
thoughtfully preserved this data for our attention.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.