(December 18, 2018 at 9:53 am)Jehanne Wrote: 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.

Quote: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.

(December 18, 2018 at 4:23 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(December 18, 2018 at 1:25 pm)Vicki Q Wrote: 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.

---

(December 18, 2018 at 10:37 am)Drich Wrote: 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

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.)

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