Would They Die for a Lie?

[Drich]

-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.

-And that is not a 'gae' copout to avoid that which you can not defend?

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!

So what makes you think anyone Pliny questioned was who they said they were? After all We do not get to decide who is and who is not Christian that is a Christ alone decision. We only decide to follow Christ or not to accept the atonement offered or not. Christ judges our life to see if we genuinely did what we professed to do. In the end time and time again it is proven that our words mean far less than our deeds.

---

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.

---

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 word If that is what you are missing the word if in context... Yes they are not to be sought out... IF they are denounced meaning someone rats them out, someone accuses them they must be sought out and put on trial and IF they deny christ.. meaning if they claim not to be christian... they live... and IF they do claim to be christian they die.

Meaning all non christians live all christians die

Thik of the witch trials.. The government did not actively seek people out but relied on neighbors to rat out offenders and suspected practitioners. are you saying witch were not persecuted? Think of nazi's at the beginning of thier rule. when they first called the jews from their homes to register the state did not go door to door checking jewish men's smeckles.. they ran a propaganda campaign telling people how bad they were and waited for their neighbors to turn them in.. Are you saying the nazis did not persecute the Jews?

Again what if the church did not activly seek out gay people but had sermon after sermon about how to save gay people or how they needed to be 'cleansed, and when caught and verfied to be gay the church gave gays 3 chances to repent of their sins/being gay, IF they do they live, and they refuse the church executes them. would you not then consider the church persecuting gay people?

Specifically in the example where the church is executing gays following the same model the romans used.. Why would any honest atheist say yes indeed the church is persecuting gays if they did this and further needed to be stopped by force.. and yet you can not even admit to persecution of any kind?

Again if the were found to be christian the died. if they denied the religion they lived.

---

The special sauce.

gae bologna sauce

---

In those days there wasn't the politics/religion distinction there is now. They were too closely intertwined to be separated.

Hence the problem. A movement that declared Jesus as king (Christ) was already in big trouble with the Romans; it would have been taken as another in the series of minor rebellions. A movement that declared the Temple on its way out would have got you in big trouble with the Jewish authorities. A movement which said that being Jewish didn't get you to be one of the People of God any more got you in big trouble with the ordinary Jewish people. A movement which said that people should abandon the city deities got you in big trouble with the Greek cities.

What did 'big trouble' look like? Read the NT.

Agreed that the persecution didn't officially come close to Nazi-Jew, but it happened, and much of it would have been local incidents by local thugs that never made official records.

For an impartial summary of the official evidence, the BBC is, as always, excellent:

Here

That's pretty much all bullshit.  From the records the church didn't burn for contradicting it's own mythology we know the Romans were very reluctant to kill the couple of hundred or so martyrs killed before Diocletian (yes, before he came to the throne there were very few christians killed by the state.  The idea of martyrdom is a lie instilled by the church to big up itself and it's sense of worth).  In fact they didn't even demand the renunciation of christianity in most of the cases, just simply that the idiot, in addition to their christian religion, sacrifice at the temple to the then reigning Emperor as a show of loyalty.  They didn't even have to make a pretence at believing, just simply make the sacrifice, bow their heads during the invocations and leave.

I've done as much at rcc funerals (other than sacrificing bulls or goats, the rcc is only into human sacrifice), without ever being accused of being a catholic.

---

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

Actually the pogrom under Nero almost definitely didn't involve christians, because there were no christians back then.  What later became christianity was still a sub cult within judaism, not yet a separate faith.  

Secondly there's no evidence that there actually was a widespread pogrom under Nero, yes some people were scapegoated for causing the fire (and quite possibly these were jews) but the reported widespread violence was almost as much anti-Nero propoganda like the "fiddling when Rome burned" (in fact Nero acted quite quickly and decisively to try and stop the fire) spread in the century after his reign by sycophants to later emperors (who wanted the Julio-Claudian dynasty down down).

Thirdly, as I mentioned above, any religious persecution in c65CE would have been against the jews not christians.  Remember this is the point where Iudea is about to boil over into the first revolt, jewish terrorist groups are active throughout the Roman near east and there is much bad blood between Rome and the jewish communities.  If a group as a scapegoat were needed the quite small and powerless, but very visible, Roman jewish population was perfect.  Christians as good as didn't exist at the time.

And finally, we can discount any accounts of persecutions of christians as forgeries.  The only account which can even come within a generation of being contemporary was Tacitus' and we know that the oldest surviving manuscript we have changed all mention of "chrestus" and "chrestians" to "christus" and "christians".  All subsequent editions derive from that manuscript.

references please

As I have 1st and 2nd century non christian/secular historical references to nero burning christians. in addition to having them executed in the coliseum. I have and can provide again links where it was recorded where he crucified several hundred men women and children then covered them in oil and lite them on fire to light his garden party one night. When ever i see a claim like yours it is always tied to some douche bag commentary who's only saving grace is that he is someone in some anti god university. meanwhile I have the actual works of known secular first and second century historians who words have always been considered solid except when it comes to persecuting christians for some anti god collage professor reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero%27s_Torches

Cassius Dio, Suetonius  Tacitus.Fabius Rusticus, Marcus Cluvius Rufus , 

Here are 6 some eye witnesses other professional historians of that time period all point to nero's rage and viterol against christians. putting the to death and burning rome and blaming the christians for it to turn public opinion so that the public would actively seek out the 'traditions.' just like germany and the jews.

what do you have to support your claim? some anti god douche's thoughts? you guys are robots. you can't even think for yourselves any more. in that if information is presented a certain way you do not question it. you can not recognise primary source material and you do not know what or how primary source material trump the bull shite commentaries you all always quote and think are the final word. 

look at it this way. what is more reliable a blog or vlog on what someone saw on the news on 911 an event that happened before they were born/too young to remember, or would an account of someone who was one floor under the crash site of the north tower who saw the plane come and felt the impact got burn by the fuel fire and narrowly escaped... 

Your source like the vlog on 9-11 is a tertiary source. it is the compiled personal thoughts and or opinions of some rando person. a secondary source would be likt that of a 9-12-01 New York times news paper. but say the guy who was in north tower who saw the plane hit was kissed by the flames and narrowly escaped.. concerning those events this guy is a primary source. His word trumps the paper if the two conflict concerning his detailed events and most cetainly trumps the vlogger.

The list of 6 men 2 are historians secondary sources 4 are eye witnesses. all 6 say basically the same thing. nero burn rome turn romans loose on christians they rounded them up in camps till they could stage mass executions/nazi style. This is vetted history sport it has been vetted history since these men wrote these events down 2000 years ago.

what does it say about your vlog tertiary source and yourself who wants to change history because you do not like a religion? what kind of person does this what kind of fake morality will allow this? for what reason?