-or, for that matter, be told not to seek them out for the same.  

Pliny is one of the few sources we have for early christianity...and as such christers need it...but it argues against the establishment legend contained in magic book and christian folklore from start to finish.

From the officials ignorance of christianity a full 70 years after the alleged events, to the nature of christian leadership... (deaconesses?).... to the tolerance shown by the roman apparatus both within and without the proceedings.   One can hear the palpable sigh as they're given the option to escape death by mere formality..three times. It goes so far as to provide a resounding counterargument to christian apologetics, specifically in regards to the notion of why, if christian myth weren't true, did no one say so at the time? "Excessive and depraved superstition", anyone?

(December 19, 2018 at 12:58 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: -or, for that matter, be told not to seek them out for the same.  

Pliny is one of the few sources we have for early christianity...and as such christers need it...but it argues against the establishment legend contained in magic book and christian folklore from start to finish.

what a typically 'gae' statement. just a complete jab with no supporting quotations or examples. like we are to simply take your word that pliny's letter contradicts the Gospel account. When in fact it was not 6 weeks ago you yourself were claiming there were no 1st century accounts of Chrisisdom, outside the bible. then I introduced this letter to you so you would stop pretending there was nothing in recorded history that pointed to the existence of Christ before the 3rd century. (as witnessed by your snarky note: "As christers need this letter.") yet here we are just a month or so later and you are commenting as if you are now the leading authority on this letter?!?! Bologna! I say nothing in pliny's letter contradicts any portion of the gospels nor any of the epistles. (the whole of the NT/Magic book)

Quote:From the officials ignorance of christianity a full 70 years after the alleged events, to the nature of christian leadership...

Ah, no. Pliny's whole letter is to check in with Rome to assure himself that he is meeting the current expectation/treatment of Christians which points to a standing decree.
That's said in the bible the Christian falling out with rome did not happen till mid to late 60's AD to early 70s. (when they ordered the execution of the apostles which btw did happen in the mid to late 60's AD and even then the focus of rome was on Christian leadership and not the church.)

Once the first gen apostles were gone Rome found out the church was well established and remained, which prompted rome to up the anti in attacking known/openly not 'gae' members. If you take these two things into consideration Pliny's letter could have been at the very beginning or even towards the middle of this campaign. yes it was 70 years after chirst but again Rome did not have a problem with the church till towards the end of the century when this letter was written.

Quote: (deaconesses?).... to the tolerance shown by the roman apparatus both within and without the proceedings.   One can hear the palpable sigh as they're given the option to escape death by mere formality..three times.  It goes so far as to provide a resounding counterargument to christian apologetics, specifically in regards to the notion of why, if christian myth weren't true, did no one say so at the time?  "Excessive and depraved superstition", anyone?

what a non-gay response...

What if the church gave openly gay people 3 chances to deny their life style and if by the third they did not recant or refute/confess their sin, the church executed the openly gay person. what if they like Rome went after women and children as well as the very old?

Would you then say the church is persecuting gay people? what if the church gave 3 chances to repent? That's Gae logic for you though isn't it.. when the church has been given three chances to deny Christ, and then executed it is ok. However put the church in a reversing role to his fellow gays.. then it becomes persecution!
Again calling bologna on your fake morality, and hypocritical logic!!

-and that's why it's pointless to have these discussions with a fundy loon.

Meanwhile, back in mere reality, the letter also disabuses us of the notion that folks were dying for their lies anyway. After scaring up some people who used to be christians, to figure out wtf this "christianity" shit was....pliny finds a bunch of randos who quit the cult. Those people tell him that it's a sort of weekly cookout where they promised not to be assholes.

Imagine if they'd stuck to that, lol.

(December 19, 2018 at 1:20 pm)Drich Wrote: Trajan to Pliny
You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.

This invalidates everything your wiki page says. Again tetery material verses primary source... Expert speculation about 2000 years ago verse a writen decree on the same subject from the time period in question. The verified written decree will always trump speculation 2000 years removed from said events.

---

(December 19, 2018 at 12:42 pm)Jehanne Wrote: 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??

READ THE F-ING LETTER!!!

HE is not asking permission He is asking is he being severe enough!!! His his methods to the standard of Rome. Dear Emperor I kill Christians for not worshiping you as you decree but I have never done this before am I doing it right here is what I am doing now... EMperor to govnor you are doing just fine. if they deny christ and worship me let them go if the persist in worshiping God.. kill them.

Retard... That is persecution. it is empire wide decree. Again granted 2nd century it got worse. but Rome was still murdering people for believing in Jesus

What am I missing?

The special sauce.

(December 19, 2018 at 12:58 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: One can hear the palpable sigh as they're given the option to escape death by mere formality..three times.

(December 20, 2018 at 10:20 am)Drich Wrote: In the real world if it was known that the state/pliny was known for executing Christians and you are new or on the fence would it not then be ok to allow him to think you did disavow the religion? Even if you didn't know this there is nothing in the bible that says you must affirm christ with a gun to your head... Look at what peter did (Denied Christ three times even cursed him on the third occasion) and he in some circles is seen as father of the church!

nice youm.. (a meme only you can see)

not all know this, and the very devout while knowing this still die as many are taught what jesus said in matt 10: 32 “If you stand before others and are willing to say you believe in me, then I will tell my Father in heaven that you belong to me. 33 But if you stand before others and say you do not believe in me, then I will tell my Father in heaven that you do not belong to me. means you can not ever deny the faith.