Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Huon · 02-27-2013, 01:48 AM

Here is an interesting quote :

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/origen.html

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

Quote:

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.

Origen is claiming (correctly IMHO) that only a tiny fraction of Christians have been martyred before 250.

spin · 02-27-2013, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

IIUC Candida Moss accepts (or did till very recently) that the Annals 15.44 passage is authentic although she has reservations about its historical accuracy. See Ancient Christian Martyrdom

Not all christians are rabid, Andrew. I'm only talking of those who've reacted to the proposition that it is an interpolation.

My point is that Dr Moss (unless she has drastically changed her views very recently) does seem to accept that in the ordinary meaning of the word Christians were persecuted by the Roman Empire.

Though my point is that suggesting the passage is bogus elicits responses such as:

Sounds almost identical in approach and justification to the people who deny that the holocaust happened.

I'd guess that Moss would be more circumspect. Wouldn't you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Her central concern seems to be about the problematic ways in which groups use claims of victimhood, (real, exaggerated or fictional), in their conflicts with other groups. I'm not sure that the figures for the number of dead Early Christians are genuinely relevant to what she is really trying to say.

I on the other hand look at the Neronian persecution as perversely wishful thinking based on a single source of dubious quality. Given the possibility that the Sulpicius Severus account could be the source of A.15.44, it would make the earliest evidence we have of the passage to be an eleventh century manuscript preserved by christians.

Cheerful Charlie · 02-27-2013, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Sounds almost identical in approach and justification to the people who deny that the holocaust happened.

And I don't think we know about those events through "cherished church tradition". Our sources of information are literary and documentary texts.

Oh, fear, dear, dear. except it is not. It has been long known overwrought and over emotional Christian myth making has in fact exaggerated the persecutions. examinations of historians such as Eusebius show that actually numbers of Christians so executed were not really that high, and many Christians purposefully courted martyrdom. Such as the Bishop of Carthage that smashed idols in a pagan temple and then waited to be martyred. Nothing she has written is either that new nor unknown.

It is all about setting records straight about what happened. Persecutions did happen and were often cruel and savage, but the drama queen nonsense from Christians over all of this has long been a feature of Christian mythology. Exaggeration is something that will always be subject to criticism. Invoking holocaust denial is not really a good idea.

Cheerful Charlie

Cheerful Charlie · 02-27-2013, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

From Catholic Encyclopedia :

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09746a.htm

Quote:

On two days is a group of ten thousand martyrs mentioned in the Roman Martyrology. On 18 March: "At Nicomedia ten thousand holy martyrs who were put to the sword for the confession of Christ", and on 22 June: "On Mount Ararat the martyrdom of ten thousand holy martyrs who were crucified." The first entry, found in an old Greek martyrology, translated by Cardinal Sirleto and published by H.Canisius, probably notes the veneration of a number of those who gave their lives for Christ at the beginning of the prosecution of Diocletian, in 303 (Acta SS., March, II, 616). That the number is not an exaggeration is evident from Eusebius ("Hist. Eccl.", VIII, vi), Lactantius ("De morte prosecut.", xv). The entry of 22 June is based upon a legend (Acta SS., June, V, 151) said to have been translated from a Greek original (which cannot, however, be found) by Anastasius Bibliothecarius (who died in 886), and dedicated to Peter, Bishop of Sabina (? d. 1221).
(...)

The martyrs are not given by anyone before Petrus de Natalibus, Bishop of Equilio in 1371. The Greeks do not mention them in Menæa, Menologium, or Horologium, nor do the Copts or Armenians. Surius omitted them in the first and second edition of his "Vitâ Sanctorum". Henschenius the Bollandist intended to put the group among the Prâtermissi. Papebroeck admitted it to the body of the work only on the authority of Radulph de Rivo (Bibl. Patrum, XXVI, Lyons, 1677, 298) and classifies the Acts as apocryphal, while Baronius takes up their defence (Annales Eccl., ad an. 108, n.2). The veneration of the Ten Thousand Martyrs is found in Denmark, Sweden, Poland, France, Spain, and Portugal. Relics are claimed by the church of St. Vitus in Prague, by Vienne, Scutari in Sicily, Cuenca in Spain, Lisbon and Coimbra in Portugal.

Check out St Ursula and her 10,000 martyred maidens.in Wikipedia. Some of the bones of these 'martyrs' are not even human, they were from mastiffs, large dogs.
Just because something can be found in some old books and was not questioned of old, does not mean it is true or not massively exaggerated over time, which seems the be the case of the 10,000 martyrs and Ursula.

Cheerful Charlie

andrewcriddle · 02-27-2013, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

It's not that Christians were never targeted at all, but that when it happened, it was local and sporadic. There were no wide, sweeping campaigns. It was an occasional pogrom here and there, not a sustained, broad based crusade.

Another canard is that they could have saved themselves by renouncing Christianity. They weren't disliked for their theology, but for their politics.They were seen as unpatriotic because they wouldn't honor the state shrines and wouldn't fight for their country.

In almost all cases Christians could have saved themselves by renouncing Christianity and offering sacrifice to the Emperor and the pagan Gods. In many cases sacrifice to the Gods was enough with no explicit rejection of Christianity required. In some cases it was enough to bribe an official to put your name on the list of those who had sacrificed. No real sacrifice was necessary in such cases.

The ease of escape from trouble is one of the reasons that a persecution when it ebbed away left the church to deal with the problem of large quantities of Christians who had escaped penalty by conforming to the state's demands.

Andrew Criddle

PhilosopherJay · 02-27-2013, 09:34 PM

Hi Sheshbazzar,

This is a good point. The Chrestians were persecuted and martyred.

I'm wondering if the Passion of Jesus narrative could have been a foundation myth to explain the group's proclivity for martyrdom.

Imagine a daughter asking her father, "Daddy, why do we Chrestians go so cheerfully to our deaths?"
"Well, daughter, there was once a God sent a messiah to help the Jews, but they were scared and turned him over to the Romans, but he did not mind dying..."

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

And then there is the little problem of how many of these alleged early 'Christians' were actually non-Christian "Chrestian" political rebels that knew nothing at all of any Jewish Jesus crucified for their sins.

There may have been one hell of a lot of ideological and religious differences between these Chrestians and the latter Christians.

Chili · 02-28-2013, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

And then there is the little problem of how many of these alleged early 'Christians' were actually non-Christian "Chrestian" political rebels that knew nothing at all of any Jewish Jezus crucified for their sins.

There may have been one hell of a lot of ideological and religious differences between these Chrestians and the latter Christians.

Yes but only a Christian would believe that somebody else died for their sins . . . and will die for that to prove this right, and I suppose the Chrestians only put their faith to the test and granted him/them that favor. And do you see anything wrong with that?

They have been doing that for 2000 years and are still the same. But now they are big and have a democratic vote . . . wherein they stand united in their ideal, and will bomb the wrong coutry time and time again.

Chili · 02-28-2013, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

It's not that Christians were never targeted at all, but that when it happened, it was local and sporadic. There were no wide, sweeping campaigns. It was an occasional pogrom here and there, not a sustained, broad based crusade.

Another canard is that they could have saved themselves by renouncing Christianity. They weren't disliked for their theology, but for their politics.They were seen as unpatriotic because they wouldn't honor the state shrines and wouldn't fight for their country.

In almost all cases Christians could have saved themselves by renouncing Christianity and offering sacrifice to the Emperor and the pagan Gods. In many cases sacrifice to the Gods was enough with no explicit rejection of Christianity required. In some cases it was enough to bribe an official to put your name on the list of those who had sacrificed. No real sacrifice was necessary in such cases.

The ease of escape from trouble is one of the reasons that a persecution when it ebbed away left the church to deal with the problem of large quantities of Christians who had escaped penalty by conforming to the state's demands.

Andrew Criddle

The argument still exists that Christians are wrong [around the word] except in the mind of a Christian himself.

If you take pagan to mean philosophical the Christians are wrong because the philosophic mind sure is not theirs, and if that is the mind of Christ they denounce themself with every second word wherein they defend the idol that they see.

And I suppose 'bribery' here is like milking sheep without getting your hands dirty or having to taste the burned sacrifices that they make.

cornbread_r2 · 03-01-2013, 12:38 AM

Here's an article by Joseph McCabe dealing with the exaggerations of the Christian martyrology. The relevant bits are about 3/4s of the way through the article.

lonerider · 03-02-2013, 06:37 AM

All gladiators were slave's and all slaves by definition are and were persecuted, no matter what they believed.
But it does make sense as a marketing ploy to show a story of adversity. People will back the under dog over the rich.

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

03-01-2013, 12:38 AM	#69
cornbread_r2 Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: West Virginia, USA Posts: 166	Here's an article by Joseph McCabe dealing with the exaggerations of the Christian martyrology. The relevant bits are about 3/4s of the way through the article.

03-02-2013, 06:37 AM	#70
lonerider Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Melbourne Posts: 772	All gladiators were slave's and all slaves by definition are and were persecuted, no matter what they believed. But it does make sense as a marketing ploy to show a story of adversity. People will back the under dog over the rich.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.