Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

Rather, since it was YOU who withdrew from the debates on PAS and the Mathericks, not me, I am more than willing to take up where we left off if that is what you want. You certainly cannot get away with claiming that you are willing to participate in threads that YOU vacated without replying to my posts.

Originally Posted by Champion

You are correct on one point. I did withdraw from the PAS debate prematurely. However, I did not withdraw from the Mathericks discussion prematurely my post (#390) went unanswered by you and Sabine. I think that is the source of my confusion. In the Mathericks thread you and Sabine focused your attention on the late comers, Aaron SF, Stinger, and Revroswell. That did not occur in the PAS thread and I was wrong to claim so.

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

My last reply to you in the thread on PAS was my post #211. You did not reply to that post, and you did not reply to anyone else's post after your post #210, which was a reply that you made to Sabine.

Originally Posted by Champion

You are correct. Which brings me back to my proposal, do you want to revive that discussion or not?

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

But that does not say anything about the number of Christians who were persecuted. [in response to the excerpt from the Lowell Lectures]

Originally Posted by Champion

At best historians can only give estimates. When the late Mr. Ferrero said "A large number" we can only assume he meant a large number. I think it's fair to say that when Mr. Ferrero said that a large number of Christians were executed it supports the contention that a large number of Christians were executed. If he felt that the number of Christians executed had been exaggerated over the years he would have surely mentioned it in his book.

Originally Posted by Champion

the christians were declared responsible for the fire; a great number were taken into custody, sentenced to death, executed in different ways, during the the festivals that Nero offered to the people to appease them. P.134

[Guglielmo Ferrero "The Lowell Lectures"]

Originally Posted by Rodney Stark and Marta Sordi ('The Rise of Christianity')[/quote

Indeed, commenting on Tacitus’s claim that Nero had murdered “an immense multitude" of Christians, Marta Sordi wrote that “a few hundred victims would justify the use of this term, given the horror of what happened." (1986:31). The truth is that the Roman government seems to have cared very little about the "Christian menace." There was surprisingly little effort to persecute Christians, and when a wave of persecution did occur, usually only bishops and other prominent figures were singled out. Thus for rank-and-file Christians the threat of persecution was so slight as to have counted for little among the potential sacrifices imposed on them.

Originally Posted by Microsoft Encarta 2002 Encyclopedia

In July 64, two-thirds of Rome burned while Nero was at Antium. In ancient times he was charged with being the incendiary, but most modern scholars doubt the truth of that accusation. According to some accounts (now considered spurious), he laid the blame on the Christians (few at that time) and persecuted them.

Originally Posted by Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition

[Nero] became infamous for his personal debaucheries and extravagances and, on doubtful evidence, for his burning of Rome and persecutions of Christians.

Originally Posted by Dr. Jonathan Roth, San Jose State University

Tacitus frequently uses.......hyperbole. A good example is in his description of various emperors killing members of the Senatorial opposition. He implies that large numbers are involved, but when one counts up the numbers, they are only a few dozen at most. All ancient writers use exaggeration and hyperbole.

We seldom have a source other than Tacitus, so it is difficult to check his statements.

.......remember that history was considered literature and meant for entertainment. Tacitus is always thinking about making his stories more interesting and readable."

Originally Posted by Professor Darrell Doughty

Tacitus' Account of Nero's Persecution of Christians. Annals 15.44.2-8

This passage is often cited by Christian scholars as an early witness by a Roman historian to the presence of the Christian movement, as evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus, and as evidence for persecution of Christians by the Romans. It is a text, therefore, that requires careful and critical examination.

On July, 19th, 64 CE, a fire started in Rome and burned for nine days, finally destroying or damaging almost three-quarters of the city, including numerous public buildings. Rumors spread that the fire had been planned by Nero. And according to Tacitus, to put an end to such rumors, Nero blaimed the disastor on the Christians.

ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos. et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit quos per flagitia invisos vulgus christianos appellabat. Auctor nominis eius christus. Tyberio imperitante per procuratorem pontium pilatum supplicio adfectus erat. repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat. non modo per iudaeam originem eius mali. sed per urbem etiam quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque .,. Igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur. deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens. haud proinde in crimine incendii. quam odio humani generis coniuncti sunt .,.

"Therefore, to put an end to the rumor Nero created a diversion and subjected to the most extra-ordinary tortures those hated for their abominations by the common people called Christians. The originator of this name (was) Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontinus Pilate. Repressed for the time being, the deadly superstition broke out again not only in Judea, the original source of the evil, but also in the city (Rome), where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and become popular. So an arrest was made of all who confessed; then on the basis of their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race." (Tacitus, Annales, 15, 44)

Tacitus continues:

"Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames. These served to illuminate the night when daylight failed. Nero had thrown open the gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or drove about in a chariot. Hence, even for crimnals who deserved extreme and examplary punishment there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but glut one man's cruelty, that they were being punished."

Paul Keresztes, "Rome and the Christian Church, I. From Nero to Sereri," ANRW 2.23.1, 247-315; L. H. Canfield, The Early Persecutions of the Christians (New York, 1913); H. Fuchs, "Tacitus über die Christen," VC 4 (1950), 65-93; E.T. Klette, Die Christenkatastrophe unter Nero nach ihrem Quellen inbes nach Tac. Ann. XV, 44 von neuem untersucht (Tübingen, 1907); Charles Saumagne, "Tacite et Saint Paul," Revue historique 232 (1964), 67-110; "Les incendiaires de Rome et les lois pémales des romains," Revue historique 227 (1962), 337-360.

THE TEXT IS FULL OF DIFFICULTIES [emphasis mine], and there are not a few textual variations in the mss tradition (e.g., "Christianos" or "Chrestianos" or even "Christianus"? - "Christus" or "Chrestos"?) -- which at least reflects the fact that this text has been worked over.

It is not even clear what Tacitus means to say - e.g., whether he implies that the charge of setting the fires brought against Christians was false; whether some Christians were arrested because they set fires and others because of their general "hatred for humankind"; what those persons arrested "confessed" to--arson or Christianity? -- or whether they were executed by crucifixion or immolation, or some one way and some in another.

But the real question concerns the historical reliability of this information -- i.e., whether we have to do here with a later Christian insertion. When I consider a question such as this, the first question to ask is whether it conceivable or perhaps even probable that later Christians might have modified ancient historical sources; and the answer to this question certainly must be yes!

Originally Posted by users.drew.edu

Darrell Doughty grew up in Oakland, California. He received his B.S. in Engineering Physics from U.C. Berkeley (1958), his M.Div. from San Francisco Theological Seminary (1962), and his D.Theol. in New Testament from the University of Göttingen, Germany (1965). He taught in Drew University's Theological and Graduate Schools from 1969 to 2003. His teaching and research in the field of New Testament and Early Christianity focusses on Christian origins, the Pauline writings, the history of Pauline Christianity, second century Christianity, the rise of normative Christianity, Higher Criticism and the New Testament, and the history of research in these areas. He is a member of the Society of Biblical Literature and a participant in the Paul Seminar of the Westar Institute . He was director of the Institute for Higher Critical Studies at Drew University and associate editor of the Journal of Higher criticism. He now resides in Portland, Maine.

Courses Taught

Introduction to the New Testament
The Pauline Writings
The Acts of the Apostles
Interpreting the New Testament in the Church
Unity and Diversity in the Pauline Writings
Paul in the Second Century
The Apocryphal Acts
Problems and Issues in Second Century Christianity
Heterodoxy and Orthodoxy in Early Christianity

Selected Publications

"The Priority of Charis," New Testament Studies, 19 (1973), 163-180.

"The Presence and Future of Salvation in Corinth," Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 66 (1975), 61-90.

"Citizens of Heaven: Philippians 3:2-21," New Testament Studies, 41 (1995), 102-122.

"Pauline Paradigms and Pauline Authenticity," Journal of Higher Criticism, 1 (1994), 95-128.

"Searching for the Historical Paul," Westar Institute Seminar Papers (Spring, 1996), 113-122.

"Luke's Story of Paul in Corinth: Fictional History in Acts 18," Journal of Higher Criticism, 4/1 (Spring 1997), 3-54.

"Reflections on 1 Thessalonians as a Deutero-Pauline Writing," Westar Institute Seminar Papers (Spring 1999), 29-52.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

According to H. B. Workman, the average Christian was not much affected by the persecutions. It was Christian “extremists” that attracted the attention of angry Pagans. “Earthly institutions should not be judged by their averages, but by the ideals of their leaders”, Workman adds. Persecution of Christians only became significant, curiously enough, in the 3rd and 4th centuries, on the eve of the Christian triumph.[2]

The Roman persecutions were generally sporadic, localized, and dependent on the political climate and disposition of each emperor. Moreover, imperial decrees against Christians were often directed against church property, the Scriptures, or clergy only. It has been estimated that more Christians have been martyred in the last 50 years than in the church's first 300 years.[3]

Reasons for persecution

The Roman Empire was generally quite tolerant in its treatment of other religions. The imperial policy was generally one of incorporation - the local gods of a newly conquered area were simply added to the Roman pantheon and often given Roman names. Even the Jews, with their one god, were generally tolerated.

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

How many Christians is "a lot more Christians"? (in response to John Bishop)

Originally Posted by Champion

I can't give you exact numbers, nobody can. I can say that Mr. Bishop's book doesn't say that a few Christians were executed on false pretenses.

Originally Posted by Champion

Nero Fabricates a charge which he knows to be untrue. To his astonishment, the charge is openly admitted by the people against whom it was fabricated. This is to good to be true so he convicts a lot more Christians P.81 (John Bishop 'Nero')

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

But that does not say anything about how many Christians were persecuted (in response to J. Jahn Ph.D.)

Originally Posted by Champion

Clearly Mr. Jahn contends that a widespread persecution extending beyond Rome itself that "continued long enough to bring satiety to a populace pretty well accustomed to public butcherings" can be considered to be a large scale massacre of a scope the Christians like to contend.

Originally Posted by Champion

Besides, why should we assume that the persecutions did not spread beyond the bounds of Rome?[...]There was not only time enough to allow a change in the mode of prosecution, but the massacre continued long enough to bring satiety to a populace pretty well accustomed to public butcherings. P.14

his [Nero's] action must have served as a precedent in other parts of the empire. P.15

(J. Jahn Ph.D "A Critical Study of the Sources of the History of the Emperor Nero" Facsimile edition)

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

There is no evidence at all for the claim often made that under the emperor Domitian (reigned 81-96 CE) Christianity became a religio illicita; in fact, it would be strange if Domitian could have made such a ruling since the term did not yet exist and as noted, was not used officially. From the evidence it is far from clear that Domitian was even aware of Christianity as a group distinct from Judaism, much less persecuted its adherents.[6] J.E.A. Crake observes that "It cannot be said that there is a very clear picture of Domitian's attitude toward Christians. Christian writers have picked him out as hostile, but they seem a little uncertain why he merited this distinction."[7]

The evidence against Domitian derives largely from Eusebius, who preserves in his Ecclesiastical History what purports to be a portion of a work by Melito of Sardis, who died ca. 180 and who was supposed to have been bishop of that city. Only fragments of his work remain and most of it comes to us (as with so many other early Christian writings) by way of Eusebius. This document, entitled Petition to Antoninus, refers to persecutions by Domitian: "Of all the emperors, the only ones ever persuaded by malicious advisers to misrepresent our doctrine were Nero and Domitian, who were the source of the unreasonable custom of laying false information against the Christians" (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.26). But as T.D. Barnes notes “All other authors who depict Domitian as a persecutor derive their information directly or indirectly from Melito. This dependence nullifies their testimony. For Melito himself had no precise evidence: he employed (or invented) the story of persecution by Domitian to justify his argument that only bad emperors condemned Christians.”[8] Even W.H.C. Frend, who says that "Domitian was not a man to tolerate religious deviations", cannot summon up much enthusiasm for a Domitianic persecution, concluding that "the persecution of Domitian does not appear to have amounted to very much."[9]

As Crake concludes, "As most scholars recently have argued, there was no law, either existing section of criminal law, or special legislation directed against the Christians, under which Christians were prosecuted in the first two centuries" and that "there is little evidence to support the notion of Domitian as a prosecutor of Christians"[10] and T.D. Barnes agrees, going on to observe that "It would be a mistake to assume that there was a single Roman policy towards foreign cults which was unambiguous and unchanging - or even that Roman law provided unequivocal guidance on the subject."[11]

It is therefore incorrect to speak of any official Roman designation of a religion being religio licita as such a designation implies an official policy that cannot be shown to have existed. The Roman government did not interfere with the ancestral customs and traditions of the various ethnic groups under its rule if they did not pose a threat to the state; and if Judaism was tolerated it was because in general, all religions (as indistinguishable from culture and ethnicity) were tolerated. Rutgers argues that "Roman magistrates treated the Jews the way they did not because they were consciously tolerant, but simply because they had no reason to hinder the free exercise of Jewish religious practices."[12] There was, in effect, no rational basis for an edict declaring Judaism to be religio licita or for Christianity to be designated as a religio illicita; it would have been unnecessary in a world where while frowned upon, superstition (superstitio) which is how many Romans saw Judaism and Christianity, was not illegal.[13]--StevenBTodd (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Originally Posted by classicalvalues.com

One thing which caught my attention was the realization that there is absolutely no relationship whatsoever between cruelty and paganism or between cruelty and persecution of Christians. First, I noticed that the Pagan Roman emperors were no more and no less cruel than the Christian ones. On close examination, there are both bad and good emperors, but the cruelty of the former was by no means always directed against the Christians. Some of the cruelest emperors -- in particular Commodus and Caracalla -- not only failed utterly to persecute Christians, but even liked them! This was a real shock to me, as I blithely bought the standard line (or, maybe, standard assumption) that no Roman tyrant or madman could hold his head up without at minimum, massive lion-feeding spectacles or some such popular entertainment involving Christians.

The dread Caligula is not known to have persecuted a single Christian, although in fairness to the man it is quite possible that he never even heard of them. Emperor Nero is credited with horrific massacres of early Christians, but even this appears questionable, if not doubtful. Gibbon points out that Christians and Jews were indistinguishable from each other to Romans at the time, and while Nero did attempt to scapegoat an early sect for setting the great fire which destroyed Rome, they appear not to have been Christians, but rather Jewish Zealots.

This confusion was created by later Roman writers (chiefly Tacitus, the court historian of Hadrian) who decided that those persecuted by Nero must have been Christians, because by the time of Tacitus Christians were considered troublemakers. Gibbon makes an excellent case for the Zealots as Nero's scapegoats. I think he is right, too. The Christians were simply not established enough in Rome by Nero's time for many people to have even heard of them. The Zealots were fanatics who engaged in direct warfare against the Romans, and who were present and making trouble in Rome, so they would have been a natural group for a desperate Nero to single out for blame. Remember, he did not have time or the personal inclination to worry about starting up propaganda against a new sect; he wanted immediate relief from suspicion himself. Selecting a known, dangerous group would make far more sense than going after peaceful Christians who were small in number, and whose obscure movement was in its earliest infancy.

Even more startling is reading that some of the "best" emperors were some of the most anti-Christian. The ones who liked order and justice -- like Marcus Aurelius -- were adamant about the need to extirpate Christianity, and went to great lengths to carry out persecutions. To their mind, persecution of Christians was the honorable and patriotic thing to do.

We come to tolerance. The worst thing you can do to an intolerant person -- especially one who thinks he is better than you -- is to offer him tolerance. They cannot stand it. I am not sure what the reasons are; perhaps they feel condescended to. But the Romans were between a rock and a hard place in dealing with both the Jews and the Christians. It is interesting that Judaism had always a strong appeal to certain elements in Rome, and no doubt this was well known to Jewish thinkers of the time. Gibbon notes that one of the biggest problems was the closed nature of the Jewish religion, which made it quite difficult to join.

Originally Posted by christianchronicler.com

Antonius Pius continues Hadrian's policies. That is, no one seeks Christians and accusations must be proven. Still, Christianity is illegal, so Rome punishes members of the sect when they are discovered. As long as things run smoothly Rome took little action.

An interesting event in Alexandria illustrates this beautifully. During Pius' reign, Alexandrian Jews openly persecuted Christians. Pius first tries to stop this action but since the Jews have political clout he allows it to continue. Christians are dispensable--they are illegal and unpopular so let them face the music. But Rome did not instigate the search or the persecution!

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

But that does not say anything about the number of Christians who were persecuted. (*In response to Bernard Henderson)

Originally Posted by Champion

Mr. Henderson, unlike many of your sources, argued that Nero's persecution extended beyond Rome. An empire wide persecution, "as under trajan later", can be considered to be larger than just a few isolated incidents as your sources have argued. His comparison to Trajan also suggests that Nero's persecution was fairly large.

Originally Posted by JohnnySkepic

But what is "large-scale"? (in response to Edward Champlin)

Originally Posted by Champion

Mr. Stark is a well respected historian whose opinions on how to interpret Tacitus are indeed worthy of notice. However, his expertise on interpretting Tacitus does not mean that he has expertise on interpretting Mr. Champlin.

Originally Posted by Champion

This is a precious glimpse into the 'fatal charades' of the spectacle - its context is certainly Neronian, and the only concerted persecution of the Christians which involved large-scale, not to mention theatrical suffering - in the first century was that of Nero after the fire.(Edward Champlin Professor of Classics, Princeton University "Nero")

Originally Posted by Champion

As for your continued mention of the Pope and Cardinal, would you mind condensing your quotations of their writings to where they say that the number of Christians executed under Nero were exaggerated? It seems to me, from what I can glean from the quotations you posted, that they were referring to the silly stories of Saints raising the dead, flying, and stopping bullets Matrix style.

Originally Posted by Joseph McCabe

According to the Catholic writers, and even the official liturgy of their Church, the Roman community of the first three centuries was so decked and perfumed with saints and martyrs that it must have had a divine spirit in it. Now the far greater part, the overwhelmingly greater part, of the Acts of the Martyrs and Lives of the Saints on which this claim is based are impudent forgeries, perpetrated by Roman Christians from the fourth to the eighth century in order to give a divine halo to the very humble, and very human, history of their Church.

This is not merely a contention of "heretics and unbelievers." It is not even a new discovery. The legends of the martyrs are so gross that Catholic historians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries frequently denounced them. Cardinal Baronius and Father Pagi repeatedly rejected them. The learned and pious Tillemont, in the fifth volume of his Mémoires, slays hundreds of them. Pope Benedict XIV, of the eighteenth century, a scholar who by some mischance was made a Pope, was so ashamed of the extent to which these forgeries permeate the official ritual of his Church that he entered upon a great reform; but the cardinals and monks obstructed his work, and the literature of the Church still teems with legends from these tainted sources. In fact, many of these forgeries were already notorious in the year 494, when Pope Gelasius timidly and haltingly condemned them.

These forgeries are so gross that one needs very little historical knowledge in order to detect them. Large numbers of Roman martyrs are, like the Pope Callistus whom I have mentioned, put in the reign of the friendly Emperor Alexander Severus, who certainly persecuted none. One of these Roman forgers, of the sixth Of seventh century. is bold enough to claim five thousand martyrs for Rome alone under the gentle Alexander Severus! Other large numbers of Roman martyrs are put in the reign of the Emperor Maximin; and Dr. Garres has shown that there were hardly any put to death in the whole Empire, least of all at Rome, under Maximin. [3] The semi-official catalogue of the Popes makes saints and martyrs of no less than thirteen of the Popes of the third century, when there were scarcely more than three or four.

No one questions that the Roman Church had a certain number of martyrs in the days of the genuine persecutions, but nine-tenths of the pretty stories which are popular in Catholic literature — the stories of St. Agnes and St. Cecilia, of St. Lucia and St. Catherine, of St. Lawrence and St. George and St. Sebastian, and so on — are pious romances. Even when the martyrdom may be genuine, the Catholic story of it is generally a late and unbridled fiction.

A short account of the havoc which modern scholars have made of the Acts of the Martyrs is given by a Catholic professor, Albert Ehrhard, of the Vienna University, and will cause any inquiring Catholic to shudder. [4] Dr. Ehrhard mentions a French work, L'Amphithèâtre Flavien, by Father Delehaye, a Jesuit, and calls it "an important contribution to the criticism of the Roman acts of the martyrs." It is a "criticism" of such a nature that it dissolves into fiction all the touching pictures (down to Mr. G. B. Shaw's Androcles and the Lion) of the "martyrs of the Coliseum." It proves that no Christians were ever martyred in the Amphitheatre (Coliseum). The English translation of Father Delehaye's Legends of the Saints (1907) gives an appalling account of these Roman forgeries. Another scholar has, Professor Ehrhard admits (p. 555), shown that "a whole class" of these saints and martyrs are actually pagan myths which have been converted into Christian martyrs. The whole literature which this Catholic professor surveys is one mighty massacre of saints and martyrs, very few surviving the ordeal. These fictions are often leniently called "pious fancies" and "works of edification." Modern charity covers too many ancient sins. These things were intended to deceive; they have deceived countless millions for fourteen centuries, and in the hands of priests they deceive millions to-day.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Some Christian sources admit that the numbers of claimed Christian martyrs have been exaggerated. Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...h/PandC-1.html

Originally Posted by Champion

I read through what you posted and I did find your sources to be quite interesting.

Originally Posted by Champion

Also, which Catholic Encyclopedia did you cite in your previous posts. There are many many catholic encyclopedias.

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

The people who were most responsible for reasonably proving their case were the first Christians who claimed that large numbers of Christians were persecuted.

Originally Posted by Champion

Which Christians are you referring to, the Christian writings of say Clement of Rome who says "a vast multitude" were persecuted, or are you referring to the Christian writings of later centuries who liked to make up cool stories about the Saints.

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

If they used Tacitus as a source, it was up to them to reasonably prove how many Christians Tacitus meant by "a vast multitude." Lots of comtemporary scholars have a variety of good reasons for rejecting the use of those words to make a case that Nero killed thousands of Christians.

Originally Posted by Champion

Who is they, the early Christians of the first and second century or the Christians of the 3rd + century?

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

In "The Rise of Christianity," Rodney Stark says:

Moreover, the fruits of this faith were not limited to the realm of the spirit. Christianity offered much to the flesh as well. It was not simply the promise of salvation that motivated Christians, but the fact that they were greatly rewarded here and now for belonging. Thus while membership was expensive, it was, in fact, a bargain. That is, because the church asked much of its members, it was thereby possessed of the resources to ‘give’ much. For example, because Christians were expected to aid the less fortunate, many of them received such aid, and all could feel greater security against bad times. Because they were asked to nurse the sick and dying, many of them received such nursing. Because they were asked to love others, they in turn were loved. And if Christians were required to observe a far more restrictive moral code than that observed by pagans, Christians – especially women – enjoyed a far more secure family life.

The dynamics of stigma and sacrifice have the following direct and formal consequences (Iannaccone 1992). First: "By demanding higher levels of stigma and sacrifice, religious groups induce higher average levels of member commitment and participation." Second: "By demanding higher levels of stigma and sacrifice, religious groups are able to generate greater material, social, and religious benefits for their members."

Originally Posted by Christians

I don't know if I trust this source. I was under the impression that Christianity wasn't "expensive".

Originally Posted by Champion

It seems a little unfair to discount all contemporary evidence for Christian persecution that comes from Christian sources. While a little exaggeration is to be expected, wouldn't they know most about the extent of the killings. Discounting the large amount of evidence because it comes from the supposed victims themselves doesn't seem like the best way to examine this issue.

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

Well, if there are only a few sources, Christians should not use them to make a case that large numbers of Christians were persecuted.

Originally Posted by Champion

It isn't unfair of Christians to make such a case. Tacitus supports them in it. They shouldn't be sure of their case though. You shouldn't be sure of yours either.

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

But that does not say anything about large numbers of Christians. (response to suetonius quote)

Originally Posted by Champion

Suetonius refers to them as a "class of men" suggesting a group of some size.

Originally Posted by Champion

He also knows something of who they are.

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

Message to Champion: Why are you helping fundamentalist Christians defend one of their sacred cows? Are you aware that many fundamentalist Christians believe that large numbers of persecuted Christians gives great credibility to Christians, and that some non-Christians become fundamentalist Christians because of that issue?

Originally Posted by Champion

I do not have the time to participate in an email exchange, a thread on PAS, a thread on Human Nature, a thread on the Mathericks, and a thread on Nero. I can't help but respect your commitment to this forum, but some of us simply can't shell out that kind of time with any consistency. Let's stick to a single resurrection please.

I will respond to your other posts in this thread later.