Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 02-23-2008, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fortuna

Quote:

The crime of which Christians were found guilty was the nomen, not the behaviour of the Christians. Non licet esse vos! -- you aren't allowed to exist! was the jeer, recorded in Tertullian's Apologeticum. See the Acts of the martyrs of Scilli, the Martyrdom of Polycarp and again Tertullian for this.

I'm not so sure about that. In the Pliny Trajan correspondence, Pliny expresses his reasons for concern about the Christians in his provence of Bythnia..............

Quote:

For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented,

So, it would seems that Piny was concerned because the traditional temples began to become deserted and that the "established religious rites" were not being performed.

I'm glad that you referred to this letter. But I don't read it quite this way.

Certainly these were reasons why Pliny was concerned. This is an official letter to the emperor, remember. He has to be clear why he feels that he needs to do something.

But I don't see these as the reasons why the Christians were persecuted in the first place; merely the reasons why some kind of action was now needed, because they were so widespread. (I hope that I have expressed the distinction that I see clearly).

Quote:

Also, I might point out that some sort of persecution must have been going on just prior to the Nicean Council. I think this must be so because so many of the statement that came out from Nicea seeed to be concerned with it ;

Acording to the Catholic encyclopedia, canons 10-14 seem to have something to do with that persecution and talk about those Christians who probably recanted during that persecution ;

I'm getting the sense that recanting, or denying that one had been a Christians during times of persecution was much much more common and much more frequent than those who chose martyrdom.

It certainly occurred, and it did cause problems for the Fathers. But few in this forum are likely to have to deal with the problems caused by refusal to conform to the demands of the authorities.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874 · 02-23-2008, 08:34 AM

Again, the word "Christians" did not inherently mean "followers of Jesus". In the 1st and 2nd century, based on Justin Matryr, Irenaeus and Tertullian, "Christian" beliefs or doctines were extremely diverse.

The "CHRIST" could be of any varied form. The "CHRIST" could be a phantom but god, he could be god and man, a man only and god entered him through the Holy Ghost. And in addition, the CHRIST could be the son of some other of the multiple gods believed to be greater than the god of the Jews.

There was also the concept or the ideology of the CHRIST, that is people who believed they were actually CHRIST, anointed of God, the anointed one, the Messiah. Even the authors of NT claimed many shall come and claim to be CHRIST.

So, even if the Pliny letters are authentic, we have no idea whatsoever who these "Christians" were. The Pliny letters do not in any way confirm that Jesus of Nazareth lived or was crucified, the letters, if authentic, merely confirm that there were people called "Christians".

And if we take into account the words of the authors of gMatthew, gMark and gLuke when they wrote that many shall call themselves CHRIST and deceive many, we now see the MASSIVE PROBLEM.

The word "CHRISTIAN" means "follower of CHRIST", but who is CHRIST, have we all been deceived?

Which CHRIST did Tacitus', Suetonius' and Pliny's "Christians" follow? Which "Christians" were persecuted by Nero, expelled by Claudius and executed by Pliny the younger?

Matthew 24.5

Quote:

[b]For many shall come in my name, saying I AM CHRIST, AND SHALL DECEIVE MANY.

How many deceived Christians and Christs were persecuted by the Romans?

schilling.klaus · 02-23-2008, 08:36 AM

The scribbles falsely assigned to Trajan and Plinius about Christians are late fraudulent forgery, thus it's hilarious to use them for arguments about early persecutions.

Klaus Schilling

Minimalist · 02-23-2008, 08:56 AM

Klaus, I've told you before that you can't even convince me that Pliny is a forgery.

There is simply no way in hell that a "Christian" forger, one...makes Trajan look like Oliver Wendell Holmes, and two, would ever write something which says (at the end) that rather than maintain their faith the Christians questioned by Pliny renounced Christ and swore to the emperor. If you write a forgery it is to advance your arguments....not destroy them. Had Pliny said that this prisoners willingly went to their deaths praising Jesus you might have a point. As it stands, it undercuts the whole 'martyr myth' that later christians were so assiduously trying to create.

If you can't convince a guy like me, who thinks the bible is bullshit from the word "go" what chance do you have with "believers?"

Roger Pearse · 02-23-2008, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, the word "Christians" did not inherently mean "followers of Jesus".

Can you document the use of the term for any other group?

Quote:

In the 1st and 2nd century, based on Justin Matryr, Irenaeus and Tertullian, "Christian" beliefs or doctines were extremely diverse.

These writers do not think so, however. They write against heretics on the contrary principle.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Clivedurdle · 02-23-2008, 10:28 AM

What is the earliest copy of Pliny that we have? The descriptions sound far more appropriate for the third or fourth century, maybe around Constantine or Julian?

Would the forgery question be resolved by asking is it a real document where the name of the Emperor and officer were changed to well known ones a few centuries earlier?

The letter discusses significant effects on trade and temple uses - that sounds much later - for example in Britain third century Roman remains on the Isle of Wight are classic pagan with any xian links - the four gospels - only asserted.

Xianity only had significant effects much later.

aa5874 · 02-23-2008, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, the word "Christians" did not inherently mean "followers of Jesus".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Can you document the use of the term for any other group?

Justin Martyr's First Apology 7

Quote:

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.

Justin Martyr's First Apology 26

Quote:

... There was a Samiritan, Simon, a native of Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Caesar, and in your city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic.....He was considered a god, and as a god was honoured by you with a statue... And almost all the Samaritans, and even a few even of other nations, worship him....

....And a man, Meander, also a Samaritan, of the town of Capparetaea, a disciple of Simon.....He persuaded those who adhered to him that they should never die, and 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, teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator........All who take their opinions from these men are, as we before said, called Christians, just as also those who do not agree with the philosphers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them....

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

Roger Pearse · 02-23-2008, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, the word "Christians" did not inherently mean "followers of Jesus".

Can you document the use of the term for any other group?

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.

Quote:

Justin Martyr's First Apology 26... There was a Samiritan, Simon, a native of Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Caesar, and in your city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic.....And a man, Meander, also a Samaritan, of the town of Capparetaea, a disciple of Simon.....And... Marcion, ........All who take their opinions from these men are, as we before said, called Christians, just as also those who do not agree with the philosphers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them....

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

Roger Pearse · 02-23-2008, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

What is the earliest copy of Pliny that we have?

For book 10, 15th century, printed from a now mostly destroyed 6th century manuscript from Saint-Victor. (This is a typical classical text transmission, by the way).

Quote:

The descriptions sound far more appropriate for the third or fourth century, maybe around Constantine or Julian?

Tertullian quotes a large chunk of the letter.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Clivedurdle · 02-23-2008, 12:33 PM

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.

Now how does anyone know which definition is being used in any particular context?

And can we please not use the late fourth century propaganda term pagan about the true gods? It is the equivalent of the n word and language biases thinking!

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

02-23-2008, 08:36 AM	#33
schilling.klaus Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Germany Posts: 267	The scribbles falsely assigned to Trajan and Plinius about Christians are late fraudulent forgery, thus it's hilarious to use them for arguments about early persecutions. Klaus Schilling

02-23-2008, 08:56 AM	#34
Minimalist Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,808	Klaus, I've told you before that you can't even convince me that Pliny is a forgery. There is simply no way in hell that a "Christian" forger, one...makes Trajan look like Oliver Wendell Holmes, and two, would ever write something which says (at the end) that rather than maintain their faith the Christians questioned by Pliny renounced Christ and swore to the emperor. If you write a forgery it is to advance your arguments....not destroy them. Had Pliny said that this prisoners willingly went to their deaths praising Jesus you might have a point. As it stands, it undercuts the whole 'martyr myth' that later christians were so assiduously trying to create. If you can't convince a guy like me, who thinks the bible is bullshit from the word "go" what chance do you have with "believers?"

02-23-2008, 10:28 AM	#36
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	What is the earliest copy of Pliny that we have? The descriptions sound far more appropriate for the third or fourth century, maybe around Constantine or Julian? Would the forgery question be resolved by asking is it a real document where the name of the Emperor and officer were changed to well known ones a few centuries earlier? The letter discusses significant effects on trade and temple uses - that sounds much later - for example in Britain third century Roman remains on the Isle of Wight are classic pagan with any xian links - the four gospels - only asserted. Xianity only had significant effects much later.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.