badger3k

Thanks again - I was hoping you had more information since it isn't something I encountered before. I was also trying to point out some problems with just looking at the numbers of "registered" martyrs - we'd have to use that as a starting point and evaluate all those claims first (in terms of actual evidence, likelihood, etc). Even then, weren't the standards of sainthood a lot easier back then in the early days of the Church? Given the lack of scientific reasoning back then, it seems that the quality of "evidence" was lacking making it easy for someone (if they existed or not) to be declared a saint. We have to consider that as well when looking at these "martyrs", although it still boils down to whether they were actual martyrs of not. Just tossing ideas out into the air for consideration.

Huon

badger3K, you could have a look at :

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II
Volume I. Eusebius: Church History from A.D. 1-324, Life of Constantine the Great, Oration in Praise of Constantine

There are translations, dated end 19th c., which can be copied freely. copy-paste doesn't work with the .pdf version.

BTW, I never felt any offence ! :wave:

Newton's Cat

The letters between Pliny and Trajan cannot be trusted as a record of the existence of Christianity at such an early date. The religion they were concerned about was not, in my opinion, Christianity - someone doctored the letters at a later date. One has to look further into the 2nd century to find the starting-point of Christ worship, c. 140 or so.

badger3k

Thanks and I'm glad. :thumbs:

Huon

I think that it is not a very good idea to isolate the anti-christian persecutions from the rest of the Roman history. It certainly fits the wishes of religious preachers, but it is also a biased vision of the problems which the emperors had to tackle.

The persecutions have been usually described as :

1 - Persecution of Nero (54-68)
2 - Persecution of Domitian (81-96)
3 - Persecution of Trajan (98-117)
4 - Persecution of Marcus Aurelius (161-180)
5 - Persecution of Severus (200-11)
6 - Persecution of Maximinus Thrax (235-238)
7 - Persecution of Decius (249-251)
8 - Persecution of Valerian (257-261)
9 - Persecution of Aurelian (270-275)
10 - Persecution of Diocletian (284-305)

The Catholic Encyclopedia, curiously enough, does not mention separately these ten "classical" persecutions, but packs them into one block, and adds many other paragraphs :

Roman Persecutions (52-312)
Under Julian the Apostate (361-63)
In Persia (339-628)
Among the Wisigoths (from 370 to Reccared)
Among the Ostrogoths
Among the Lombards
Among the Vandals

This presentation has an advantage. It lets the Christian reader believe naïvely that the Roman Empire was always and everywhere a persecutor of the Christians. But this tricky presentation has also a drawback. It reminds the careful reader that a state was a politico-religious entity, at that time. Attacking the official religion was attacking the state. (We have in the present times examples of politico-religious states in the muslim world.)

I have a General History of the Roman Empire (in French, date 1974). It is divided in three books:

1 - The Early Roman Empire (27 BC – 161 CE), from Augustus to Antoninus Pius.
2 - The crisis of the Empire (161- 284), from Marcus Aurelius to Carinus.
3 - The Late Roman Empire (284 –395) from Diocletian to Theodosius I.

This division is useful.

In the first period, the Early Roman Empire is solid, more or less unified, and not too big. The army is disciplined, except in a short period (68-70) following the suicide of Nero. The Roman religion is the religion of the Empire. The Christians are unable to influence the general situation.

During the second period, Crisis, the emperors try to maintain a unified empire, despite the many populations it includes, and their discrepancies. The empire becomes a military dictature. Big regions live under the command of a group of legions. The emperor is proclaimed as the result of a compromise or a clash between military groups. The frontiers are always fragile. The religious situation evolves from one state religion to an anarchic situation, in which christianism becomes an important group of sects, and other oriental religions are also important.

During the Late Roman Empire, the partition of the Empire is formally accomplished with the tetrarchy. From now on, each region has its own history. The imperial religion is no more a unifying factor. The Christian hierarchy has shown their ability to control the Christian populations. After Diocletian, they have won the religious power.

mindovermyth

Overcomer wrote: "Atheist China is one of the worst places for persecution of Christians."

You are still living in the cold war and seriously need to update yourself my friend. It is perfectly alright, OK and legal to be a christian in China nowadays. You can actually even become a Communist Party member while being Christian (and remember that party membership is very exclusive, less than 1 in 1,000 citizens in general are granted membership). If you want more info on christianity in China, I will be happy to educate you. Your statement is completely FALSE.

badger3k

Aren't there still some specific groups that are persecuted though? I note here, while it is mostly old, there are some recent additions that distinguish "registered" groups from unregistered ones (http://www.religioustolerance.org/rt_china.htm). What changes have been made?

Johnny Skeptic

A martyr is someone who is given the opportunity to recant his religious beliefs but refuses to do so. There is no evidence that the majority of Christians who were persecuted and/or killed over the centuries were given the opportunity to recant their beliefs and refused to do so. Therefore, the term "martyr" has been grossly misused for many centuries.

In an article here at the Secular Web, Joseph McCabe says "Even the most orthodox reader will recognize the force of the modern criticism of martyr-legends when so retrograde a work as the 'Catholic Encyclopedia' is compelled to admit it. Usually its writers deny the most certain facts of science or history with an ease that must command the envy of a politician."

andrewcriddle

In the first few centuries people became commemorated as saints almost entirely because they were killed for their faith or regarded as having been so killed.

After the end of organised persecution in the Roman Empire people were commemorated as saints primarily as confessors (people thought to have lived holy lives) rather than as martyrs.

Most people nowadays who become added to the list of Saints in the Roman Catholic church are confessors rather than martyrs although a substantial fraction are martyrs.

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

Yes indeed. A martyr is someone who has a chance to recant his religious beliefs and refuses to do so. Regarding the total number of Christians that were persecuted and/or killed over the centuries, in many if not most cases we don't know whether or not they were given a chance to recant their beliefs.