Would They Die for a Lie?

[Drich]

Drich,

No one in classical/Roman studies thinks like you do, or your Evangelical apologists.

Yes, the Empire did persecute some early Christians, but for political and not religious reasons; the Empire also persecute other groups for other reasons.  And, yes, thousands (not millions) of early Christians did die, but just many thousands also recanted and lived.

1Who gives a shite why the government rounded up and killed Christians. The point is they were killed because of their faith/what they believed. You can not argue this. We have a letter from a regional governor to the emperor of rome who wrote back sanctifying the governor's decision to kill admitted Christians. Your whole argument ends at this letter. Christian's died because of what they believed even if the motivation of the state was political.

As for the literalness of the Gospels, few modern scholars take those accounts of Pilate seriously.

There is more written about pilate in the bible than anywhere else. in fact he is a literal foot note meaning there is only one instance where pilate was identified as governor of judea in that time period. so if your precious "scholars" believe anything about pilate at all about his governor status and the time frame that belief whether you like it our not came from scripture in one form or fashion.

That said we have second century (late) early third century manuscripts that identify Christ as king of the jews or rather being assigned that title. So despite your scholarly objection and where Jesus was or was not by some rule or law itis record that Jesus died mockingly with this title.

[Vicki Q]

Vicky,

You need to read more modern New Testament criticism; here is a wonderful text:

A Brief Introduction to the New Testament 4th Edition

Dawn

Whilst not denying that perhaps I should read more New Testament criticism, I think I should point out that, seeing as how Bart Ehrman is my favourite non-Christian writer, I am familiar with his ideas on NT criticism. And the ideas of a number of others of varying persuasions (including Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier and their ilk).

I'm not entirely sure what your point was.

---

As far as what the Disciples themselves went through, we only have folklore from Christian sources.

Yes, and if we drop any idea for textual inspiration and treat the sources the same way as any other historical documents, it's a done deal historically. Whether it's the Gospel prophecies, the Gospel narratives, the letters of Paul to churches undergoing persecution, Paul's own personal accounts, the advice from the pseudepigrapha, or the martyrs of Revelation, there is a very, very consistent picture of what people were going through.

Indeed, with the multiplicity of sources and multiplicity of forms, it's an extremely fixed point to work from.

For the reasons I outlined earlier, this is absolutely what we would expect, given our knowledge of C1 Mediterranean society. Given there's nothing miraculous about being hit for half an hour by large men with big sticks, we can safely assume that it happened.

The later Christian persecution under Nero was a pogrom where they were blamed as arsonists for the fire that burned much of Rome. It's fair to say they didn't see that coming. The letter of Pliny also suggests persecution of second century Christians who did recant their faith under the lash. 

In modern times, examples abound of cultists and fanatics willing to die for their beliefs. Islam has produced plenty of examples and continues to do so. Fringe cults like the Heaven's Gate or the Jim Jones following produced tragic mass suicides, including their founders who ought to have known better. 

Why people are willing to die for crazy beliefs is a mystery to me but I can't deny that it happens. Fanaticism and persecution prove nothing.

Again, we need to distinguish here between what is believed and what is true. The disciples willingness to suffer and even die doesn't prove their belief in Jesus was true, but it is the strongest possible evidence that they did wholeheartedly have that belief.

[Jehanne]

Vicky,

You need to read more modern New Testament criticism; here is a wonderful text:

A Brief Introduction to the New Testament 4th Edition

Dawn

Whilst not denying that perhaps I should read more New Testament criticism, I think I should point out that, seeing as how Bart Ehrman is my favourite non-Christian writer, I am familiar with his ideas on NT criticism. And the ideas of a number of others of varying persuasions (including Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier and their ilk).

I'm not entirely sure what your point was.

---

I have no idea why you would refer to Dr. Carrier as being "ilk".  He is an independent scholar who has his opinions about things, but his academic credentials are foundational in the areas in which he does his research, even though his views are outside of mainstream scholarship.

By the way, the reference above is to an undergraduate textbook in New Testament criticism and not one of Dr. Ehrman's popular books.

---

Drich,

No one in classical/Roman studies thinks like you do, or your Evangelical apologists.

Yes, the Empire did persecute some early Christians, but for political and not religious reasons; the Empire also persecute other groups for other reasons.  And, yes, thousands (not millions) of early Christians did die, but just many thousands also recanted and lived.

1Who gives a shite why the government rounded up and killed Christians. The point is they were killed because of their faith/what they believed. You can not argue this. We have a letter from a regional governor to the emperor of rome who wrote back sanctifying the governor's decision to kill admitted Christians. Your whole argument ends at this letter. Christian's died because of what they believed even if the motivation of the state was political.

As for the literalness of the Gospels, few modern scholars take those accounts of Pilate seriously.

There is more written about pilate in the bible than anywhere else. in fact he is a literal foot note meaning there is only one instance where pilate was identified as governor of judea in that time period. so if your precious "scholars" believe anything about pilate at all about his governor status and the time frame that belief whether you like it our not came from scripture in one form or fashion.

That said we have second century (late) early third century manuscripts that identify Christ as king of the jews or rather being assigned that title. So despite your scholarly objection and where Jesus was or was not by some rule or law itis record that Jesus died mockingly with this title.

No, the early Christians were not killed because of their faith (if they were, they would have been murdered unconditionally); rather, some were executed because they placed allegiance to Jesus above that of Caesar, which put some of them at odds with the Empire.

[Amarok]

Whilst not denying that perhaps I should read more New Testament criticism, I think I should point out that, seeing as how Bart Ehrman is my favourite non-Christian writer, I am familiar with his ideas on NT criticism. And the ideas of a number of others of varying persuasions (including Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier and their ilk).

I'm not entirely sure what your point was.

---

I have no idea why you would refer to Dr. Carrier as being "ilk".  He is an independent scholar who has his opinions about things, but his academic credentials are foundational in the areas in which he does his research, even though his views are outside of mainstream scholarship.

By the way, the reference above is to an undergraduate textbook in New Testament criticism and not one of Dr. Ehrman's popular books.

---

1Who gives a shite why the government rounded up and killed Christians. The point is they were killed because of their faith/what they believed. You can not argue this. We have a letter from a regional governor to the emperor of rome who wrote back sanctifying the governor's decision to kill admitted Christians. Your whole argument ends at this letter. Christian's died because of what they believed even if the motivation of the state was political.

There is more written about pilate in the bible than anywhere else. in fact he is a literal foot note meaning there is only one instance where pilate was identified as governor of judea in that time period. so if your precious "scholars" believe anything about pilate at all about his governor status and the time frame that belief whether you like it our not came from scripture in one form or fashion.

That said we have second century (late) early third century manuscripts that identify Christ as king of the jews or rather being assigned that title. So despite your scholarly objection and where Jesus was or was not by some rule or law itis record that Jesus died mockingly with this title.

No, the early Christians were not killed because of their faith (if they were, they would have been murdered unconditionally); rather, some were executed because they placed allegiance to Jesus above that of Caesar, which put some of them at odds with the Empire.

And the fact Christians were considered trouble makers

[Jehanne]

And, of course, there is a Wikipedia article on this:

Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire occurred intermittently over a period of over two centuries between the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD under Nero Caesar and the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, in which the Roman Emperors Constantine the Great and Licinius legalised the Christian religion.
The persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire was carried out by the state and also by local authorities on a sporadic, ad hoc basis, often at the whims of local communities. Starting in 250 AD, empire-wide persecution took place as an indirect consequence of an edict by the emperor Decius. This edict was in force for eighteen months, during which time some Christians were killed while others apostatised to escape execution.
These persecutions heavily influenced the development of Christianity, shaping Christian theology and the structure of the Church. The effects of the persecutions included the writing of explanations and defenses of the Christian religion.

Wikipedia:  Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire

[Drich]

And, of course, there is a Wikipedia article on this:

Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire occurred intermittently over a period of over two centuries between the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD under Nero Caesar and the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, in which the Roman Emperors Constantine the Great and Licinius legalised the Christian religion.
The persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire was carried out by the state and also by local authorities on a sporadic, ad hoc basis, often at the whims of local communities. Starting in 250 AD, empire-wide persecution took place as an indirect consequence of an edict by the emperor Decius. This edict was in force for eighteen months, during which time some Christians were killed while others apostatised to escape execution.
These persecutions heavily influenced the development of Christianity, shaping Christian theology and the structure of the Church. The effects of the persecutions included the writing of explanations and defenses of the Christian religion.

Wikipedia:  Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire

This is known as a tetary source meaning it has gone through several 'digestion cycles' to be compiled as a commentary. tetary sources are the weakest form of argugment because they can contain alot of personal conjecture and unsupported fact.

A secondary source would be one of the source links at the bottom of the wiki page that are often cited to support the personal conjecture found in the wiki page.

In this case A primary source is a direct 1st century transcript or letter from two known and vetted high ranking officials pertaining to this specific subject.
Primary sources trump all other forms of source material as primary sources direct from the people and time period. there is no conjecture or speculation no conclusions need be drawn as two people in authority from that time are laying out the policy the wiki page is trying to figure out 2000 years after the fact. why look there when you have an actual letter from the time? (because it does not fit your preferred world view)

The letter in question shows Specific targeting of people who maintain their faith. This means the roman government per the emperor personal words to a regional governor gave imperial consent to hunt down all self admitted Christians. I don't think you understand what this means or how this changes the faith. It means no open door meeting/No church allowed as all the governor would have to do is have troops stand out side the church and round up everyone who showed up. Then Execute them. This means no evangelism as anyone caught preaching the gospel would be executed. This means out reach of any kind as all the government need do is feign need and arrest and execute anyone showing up in the name of God to provide relief. These are 3 foundational functions of the church.

Now did the hunt ramp up yes. In the second century they when from simply asking or trying to catch people in the act to an inquisition style of eradication.

Bottom line in the first century if you were Christian you died. if you were not or could demonstrate you had renounced the faith you would live. Christian=dead not christian = alive. 

Would you even be arguing this if it were gay people instead of Christian? If the governor asked if you were gay and you said yes they would execute you and if you said no the would let you live. None of you would argue this was not persecution of gay people, but when christians endure this it is not persecution some how

Been a hypocrite long? do you even care you display such a telling double standard? How do you justify this double standard or do you simply pretend it is not there?

---

I have no idea why you would refer to Dr. Carrier as being "ilk".  He is an independent scholar who has his opinions about things, but his academic credentials are foundational in the areas in which he does his research, even though his views are outside of mainstream scholarship.

By the way, the reference above is to an undergraduate textbook in New Testament criticism and not one of Dr. Ehrman's popular books.

---

No, the early Christians were not killed because of their faith (if they were, they would have been murdered unconditionally); rather, some were executed because they placed allegiance to Jesus above that of Caesar, which put some of them at odds with the Empire.

And the fact Christians were considered trouble makers

Indeed, they pissed off the jews who in 70AD revolted against rome because in part the jews were not allowed to 'handel the christians in the way they thought the word of God commanded. As a result Rome destroyed the jewish religion by burning all of the text, destroying the temple taking all the valuable holy relics and smashing everything else.. then in a final stroke/attempt to destroy judaism the murdered all of the sadducees (the ruling priest class) meaning all the higher ups. in effect because they had no one who could orally cite the OT they had no temple to make sacrifice in they had no alter to sacrifice on OT judaism ended. This is what they did to the jews. Now for inciting the jews a bounty was put on the heads of christians. As rome did not care about messiahs or sons of God. They only cared about the tributary paying taxes and doing so without making a fuss. or they were broken.

[Angrboda]

Secondary sources and primary sources often contain different information. You can't always simply say primary sources are preferred as if you were making an apples to apples comparison when in fact it often is not, but as in this case is an apples to oranges comparison. If a source is guilty of speculation, then document that fact. Implying that a secondary source is only speculating or is guilty of speculation simply because it is a secondary source is not a justified conclusion.

(And I'll also note that you go beyond what you can demonstrate with your primary source to engage in speculation of your own, in spite of having just chastised someone for quoting a source which you feel was engaged in speculation.)

[Jehanne]

Drich,

The Wiki article is representative of the consensus view among modern scholars. Yes, the Romans sometimes persecuted some Christians, namely, those who were causing the Empire problems and/or who, ostensibly, refused submission to it. They treated other religious and/or political groups the exact same way, though. In that sense, the early Christians (which were never a unified group to begin with) were hardly "special".

Dawn

[Drich]

Secondary sources and primary sources often contain different information.  You can't always simply say primary sources are preferred as if you were making an apples to apples comparison when in fact it often is not, but as in this case is an apples to oranges comparison.  If a source is guilty of speculation, then document that fact.  Implying that a secondary source is only speculating or is guilty of speculation simply because it is a secondary source is not a justified conclusion.

(And I'll also note that you go beyond what you can demonstrate with your primary source to engage in speculation of your own, in spite of having just chastised someone for quoting a source which you feel was engaged in speculation.)

In this specific case there is no doubt the primary source material trumps the conjecture of the wiki page, as it is a direct source that contradicts the wiki page conclusions.

That said There is no speculation in the 1st century letter from pliny the younger to the emperor.

He/Governor Pliny directly asks is it ok to kill Christians in the way he does Eg( people who are directly caught or will not deny the faith/including women.) This by itself proves persecution of the 1st century church, as these acts alone perpetrated on any other group of people would indeed be identified as persecution.
believe in Christ=death deny the faith/christ=life. These people were being killed for their expressed belief in the faith. 
what's more??  

The emperor response in the affirmative in that it is ok to kill admitted christians but not if they deny the faith.

The same exact thing happened in 19th century japan. there was even a movie about it called "silence" where admitted Christ only were killed. It is hard to imagine what these admitted christian.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0490215/

This movie was sold to us as being an example of members of the christian faith being persecuted. So why then why wouldn't a 1st century decree carried out in a similar fashion not be considered to be persecution.

[Jehanne]

Secondary sources and primary sources often contain different information.  You can't always simply say primary sources are preferred as if you were making an apples to apples comparison when in fact it often is not, but as in this case is an apples to oranges comparison.  If a source is guilty of speculation, then document that fact.  Implying that a secondary source is only speculating or is guilty of speculation simply because it is a secondary source is not a justified conclusion.

(And I'll also note that you go beyond what you can demonstrate with your primary source to engage in speculation of your own, in spite of having just chastised someone for quoting a source which you feel was engaged in speculation.)

In this specific case there is no doubt the primary source material trumps the conjecture of the wiki page, as it is a direct source that contradicts the wiki page conclusions.

That said There is no speculation in the 1st century letter from pliny the younger to the emperor.

He/Governor Pliny directly asks is it ok to kill Christians in the way he does Eg( people who are directly caught or will not deny the faith/including women.) This by itself proves persecution of the 1st century church, as these acts alone perpetrated on any other group of people would indeed be identified as persecution.
believe in Christ=death deny the faith/christ=life. These people were being killed for their expressed belief in the faith. 
what's more??  

The emperor response in the affirmative in that it is ok to kill admitted christians but not if they deny the faith.

The same exact thing happened in 19th century japan. there was even a movie about it called "silence" where admitted Christ only were killed. It is hard to imagine what these admitted christian.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0490215/

This movie was sold to us as being an example of members of the christian faith being persecuted. So why then why wouldn't a 1st century decree carried out in a similar fashion not be considered to be persecution.

You like to cherry-pick your "primary" sources.  If persecution of the early Christians was as widespread as you claim, why would Pliny need to "ask" for permission to do so??