(July 11, 2015 at 9:30 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Pliny is a terrible reference, he should have known all about the christians, if we're to believe their stories - and yet he doesn't...further, he doesn't act in the manner that we are led to believe (again by christians) the roman state would act confronted with their christianity. If you want Pliny, you'll have to abandon parts of your jesus story. Be my guest. The reliability of Pliny is directly proportionate to the unreliability of christian sources. Fiddle with that slider and tell me when you find a comfy balance?
Pliny the Younger was the Roman governor of the province of Bithynia-Pontus in Asia Minor (now Turkey). In that province, a law had been passed that made it illegal for people to gather in social groups. The purpose was to prevent political gatherings that might lead to uprisings. However, this had created an unexpected problem: the law applied to every group, including fire brigades. As a result of the prohibition, fires were breaking out and villages were burning. Pliny wrote to the Emperor Trajan about the problem.
In the course of that letter, Pliny also mentions another group that was gathering illegally - the Christians. Pliny's description of them is brief, but it is unmistakable evidence that Christianity had spread to Asia Minor by the early second century and that its presence was known to the Roman officials.
Why do you believe Pliny should have known "all about the Christians"?
Regardless, in Pliny, we have indisputable proof of the presence of the followers of Jesus from a hostile witness.
