Would They Die for a Lie?

[The Grand Nudger]

-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?

[Drich]

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

ah, no.  the wiki page represents the collective knowledge of popular culture. as majority rules on wiki. wi·ki
/ˈwikē/
noun

1. a website that allows collaborative editing of its content and structure by its users.
   

Meaning if enough people think this for this page it makes this true...

What you do not understand or pretending not to understand is I have an IMPERIAL ORDER FROM THAT TIME this is not a biblical reference this is not something I made up it is a letter most ignore or know nothing about. but it is a vetted documented peice or rare 1st century Roman History. This is a regional governor asking the emperor of Rome at the time was it ok to kill admited christians including women and children. The Emperor Himself not scholars not wiki not some pop cultur belief of what happened 2000 years ago.. do you understand the man in chage of the whole of rome 2000 years ago wrote a letter sealed and made an offical ruling it was ok to kill any admitted christian. Again this contradicts your wiki page i know. but the verified words of this governor and the emperor of rome verify the torture and murder of christs by the state for not worshiping the emporer as they do their God.

here is a translated version of the letter this time read it!!!

Pliny, Letters 10.96-97
Pliny to the Emperor Trajan
It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.
Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.
Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.
They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.
I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.
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.

---

In this specific case there is no doubt the primary source material trumps the conjecture of the wiki page, as it is a direct source that contradicts the wiki page conclusions.

That said There is no speculation in the 1st century letter from pliny the younger to the emperor.

He/Governor Pliny directly asks is it ok to kill Christians in the way he does Eg( people who are directly caught or will not deny the faith/including women.) This by itself proves persecution of the 1st century church, as these acts alone perpetrated on any other group of people would indeed be identified as persecution.
believe in Christ=death deny the faith/christ=life. These people were being killed for their expressed belief in the faith. 
what's more??  

The emperor response in the affirmative in that it is ok to kill admitted christians but not if they deny the faith.

The same exact thing happened in 19th century japan. there was even a movie about it called "silence" where admitted Christ only were killed. It is hard to imagine what these admitted christian.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0490215/

This movie was sold to us as being an example of members of the christian faith being persecuted. So why then why wouldn't a 1st century decree carried out in a similar fashion not be considered to be persecution.

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

[Drich]

-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)

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.

 (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!!

[The Grand Nudger]

-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.

[GUBU]

Drich,

What your own quotes prove is that the Empire persecuted some early Christians for political reasons and not for their religious beliefs.

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.

[Jehanne]

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.

---

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 Grand Nudger]

The special sauce.

[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?

[The Grand Nudger]

One can hear the palpable sigh as they're given the option to escape death by mere formality..three times.

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!

[Drich]

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.