(July 29, 2014 at 2:32 pm)Natachan Wrote: Where are the execution records?

There are two records I know of, and Min can correct me if I say anything wrong:

1. The Neronian Persecution
According to second century accounts, Seutonius I believe, Rome burned under Nero and Nero needed a scapegoat. He allegedly blamed the Christians and a melodramatic description of their persecution follows. Even taking these tales at face value, I am skeptical that they are evidence of anything. The fire was in 64 CE, a good generation or two after the alleged resurrection and well removed from the place. It's unlikely any witnesses to the resurrection would have been there at all. Such Christians would have been converts.

Additionally, there would have been no opportunity to deconvert. This would have been a pogrom. Christians would have been rounded up and executed. There was no reason to think the Christians would have either seen it coming nor had any opportunity to disassociate from the religion, since Nero would have needed to make them publicly suffer for the crime of arson.

2. The Letters of Pliny
Pliny details his inquiries into some captured Christians, discussing their rituals at the time. Under the lash, they were willing to curse Christ and renounce their faith. Interestingly, Pliny writes about the Christians as if he has no freaking clue who they are or what to do with them. Did he not know they burned Rome some 50 years prior? It would be like 40 years from now a U.S. official not knowing what Islam was.

That's all I know of.

Frankly, I find it likely the tales of persecution to be exaggerated. Rome never persecuted a religion unless it directly threatened their authority. Christianity preached a message of "render unto Caesar" and their kingdom was in another, higher world. This would have been the kind of religion Rome would have encouraged (and finally they did).

Quote:Paul taught that circumcision and dietary laws (and other things) do not pass on to the gentile Christians.

Marketing, Steve. Recall that the Greco-Romans considered circumcision a barbaric custom. Couldn't sell that idea outside of Judaea so they dropped it.

And no one seems to have heard of any "Paul" prior to the late 2d century. Just another little anomaly for jesus freaks to ignore.

(July 29, 2014 at 1:41 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Historical "facts" are not immune to science. If you say that a nation lolligagged in the desert for years, for example....science could help you establish that. No ones asking anyone to reproduce history, you're being asked to present evidence that we would expect to see - if- your narrative of "history" were accurate.

-If- you want to keep using the word "probable"...you're going to have to do some math. Please, for the class - show your work-.

The rise of christianity was not unique, and you've already been given an example of a faith that has done "what christianity did" even better than christianity...even if we accept obvious christian propaganda as fact.



Fail....fail, and fail. Understand?

Oh, you mean your comment about Mormonism as a comparison to Christianity. You had to wait over 1800 years to find a comparison to my point that the early church did something unique regarding acceptance and growth (nations, races and cultures). Then you bring up an individual that used Christianity as a base to launch a religion with a rather disorganized theological framework.

Well, if this is a contest, I would have to give it to the early Christians. Their environment was much more hostile, there was more of them--making it more difficult to get the con just right, they were able to create a more structured religion based upon their myth than Joseph Smith did with his, they made it much more complicated by having their myth walk among the living, teaching, etc., they reached more people groups more quickly (and not in a controlled environment)--and did so without trains, steamships, printing presses, etc. although, the early church fathers seemed to miss the boat on when they did not build in polygamy--which would have served to increase their numbers exponentially rather than organically.

Quote:Their environment was much more hostile

You really need to read this:

http://interbook.us/?c=15&p=8510


You've been blinded by your own bullshit.

(July 29, 2014 at 3:00 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Paul taught that circumcision and dietary laws (and other things) do not pass on to the gentile Christians.

Marketing, Steve. Recall that the Greco-Romans considered circumcision a barbaric custom. Couldn't sell that idea outside of Judaea so they dropped it.

And no one seems to have heard of any "Paul" prior to the late 2d century. Just another little anomaly for jesus freaks to ignore.

More probable is that since circumcision was a sign of the conenant between God and Israel, early church fathers saw no logical need to extend the practive to Christians (who were not Jews). Making this even more probable is that the Jewish dietary laws (and other requirements) were not ported over to Christianity either which would not be quite the marketing headache that circumcision was.

Are you suggesting that Paul is a myth as well? I think you would be nearly alone in that.

Sources outside the New Testament that mention Paul include:
Clement of Rome's epistle to the Corinthians (late 1st/early 2nd century);
Ignatius of Antioch's letter To the Romans (early 2nd century);
Polycarp's letter to the Philippians (early 2nd century);
The 2nd-century document Martyrdom of Polycarp.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Ap...le_sources

(July 29, 2014 at 2:50 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(July 29, 2014 at 2:32 pm)Natachan Wrote: Where are the execution records?

There are two records I know of, and Min can correct me if I say anything wrong:

1. The Neronian Persecution
According to second century accounts, Seutonius I believe, Rome burned under Nero and Nero needed a scapegoat. He allegedly blamed the Christians and a melodramatic description of their persecution follows. Even taking these tales at face value, I am skeptical that they are evidence of anything. The fire was in 64 CE, a good generation or two after the alleged resurrection and well removed from the place. It's unlikely any witnesses to the resurrection would have been there at all. Such Christians would have been converts.

Additionally, there would have been no opportunity to deconvert. This would have been a pogrom. Christians would have been rounded up and executed. There was no reason to think the Christians would have either seen it coming nor had any opportunity to disassociate from the religion, since Nero would have needed to make them publicly suffer for the crime of arson.

2. The Letters of Pliny
Pliny details his inquiries into some captured Christians, discussing their rituals at the time. Under the lash, they were willing to curse Christ and renounce their faith. Interestingly, Pliny writes about the Christians as if he has no freaking clue who they are or what to do with them. Did he not know they burned Rome some 50 years prior? It would be like 40 years from now a U.S. official not knowing what Islam was.

That's all I know of.

Frankly, I find it likely the tales of persecution to be exaggerated. Rome never persecuted a religion unless it directly threatened their authority. Christianity preached a message of "render unto Caesar" and their kingdom was in another, higher world. This would have been the kind of religion Rome would have encouraged (and finally they did).

I didn't know any of this. Thanks.
34-ish years seems (to me) to be an awfully short period - in those days - for any idea to proliferate in such a way that it would be threatening to the Romans in their capital.

(July 29, 2014 at 3:01 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Their environment was much more hostile

You really need to read this:

http://interbook.us/?c=15&p=8510


You've been blinded by your own bullshit.

Oh, that's rich. The genius con men that created Christianity also embellished accounts of martyrdom as a tool for evangelism. The foresight!! Yet, they would do away with circumsicion for marketing reasons.

Even if the numbers were grossly embellished, that does not move the needle comparing the 1st-3rd centuries' environment to Utah in the US in the late 1800s, where "Only for approximately ten out of the first three hundred years of the church's history were Christians executed due to orders from a Roman emperor" and the rest of the time was up to the provicial governors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution...man_Empire

(July 29, 2014 at 3:33 pm)Bibliofagus Wrote: 34-ish years seems (to me) to be an awfully short period - in those days - for any idea to proliferate in such a way that it would be threatening to the Romans in their capital.

Assuming we offer any credence to the story, and there's a lot there that doesn't add up, it might have been a small cult that could have easily been targeted.

Remember that dictators like to pick small minorities to scapegoat. The smaller the better. If Christianity had a tiny following in Rome and the religion could be tied back to the rebellious Jews that had been so troublesome for Rome, they'd make the perfect targets.

(July 29, 2014 at 3:35 pm)SteveII Wrote: Oh, that's rich. The genius con men that created Christianity also embellished accounts of martyrdom as a tool for evangelism. The foresight!!

I don't think they were looking that far ahead. They simply underestimated the gullibility of human beings.

(July 29, 2014 at 3:37 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(July 29, 2014 at 3:33 pm)Bibliofagus Wrote: 34-ish years seems (to me) to be an awfully short period - in those days - for any idea to proliferate in such a way that it would be threatening to the Romans in their capital.

Assuming we offer any credence to the story, and there's a lot there that doesn't add up, it might have been a small cult that could have easily been targeted.

Remember that dictators like to pick small minorities to scapegoat. The smaller the better. If Christianity had a tiny following in Rome and the religion could be tied back to the rebellious Jews that had been so troublesome for Rome, they'd make the perfect targets.

Agreed and understood.

The thing that amazed me was the 34 year period. When I posted I considered adding that it would be just as likely that at that point only rumors of the new sects were around in Rome. I'd say no meaningful christian communities were likely to be even near Athens at that point. Let alone near Rome.
And Nero could have well gotten away with snatching up some other people and just claim they were christians.

But I don't know nearly enough about the subject to make any such claims. Is this anywhere near accurate?