Persecution of Christians by Rome

Originally posted by twhitehead
You will notice that I never claimed they disagreed. I will note however that there are subtle differences in the retelling.

Also note that the whole passage has been translated differently by others:
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/christians.htm

[b]Most certainly Mr. Foxe's information essentially echoes the annals of the example from Tacitus you submit.
I agree. That doesn't mean it actually happened.[/b]

The passages essentially agree as I think you admit.

One was told by someone unsympathetic to the Christian cause and even evidently hostile to it - Tacitus. The other passages is written by someone sympathetic to the plight of Christian martyrs.

The details Foxe mentions that I do not see in Tacitus is probably extra research Foxe did on Roman executions which he could have obtained elsewhere.

His backround biographical sketch indicated he had a reputation for astute academic scholarship. If you want to imagine perpetual conspiracy theory that you are being lied to, that's your problem.

Why are atheists always seem to be running from history?

Baffling.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Tacitus was not an evangelical Christian concocting heart warming stories about Christians' persecution. His account is clearly of a man unsympathetic to the "cult" nuisance to the empire.

Read it again.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Excuse me.
How about your own being "upset" to call historically accepted records as some how "Christianity's Most Cherished Moments" ? A little tad of your own annoyance there, no ?

The very title of your recommended article - "Demythologizing Christianity's Most Cherished Moment: Nero and the Christians" looks to me like you and the author are the ones upset with generally accepted ancient history.

Why?
And why would it be assumed that the persecution of Christians would be "Most Cherished" anyway? What is impressive to us is that persecution was not able to destroy the faith.

We don't "cherish" the suffering itself for its own sake.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Right. Then what was this 'car' in the quoted passage?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Right. Then what was this 'car' in the quoted passage?

I would suppose it is a chariot.

Originally posted by whodey
Why are atheists always seem to be running from history?

Baffling.

Better to run from it that to try and re-write it.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

At least you're discussing now rather than just -

link - http:// too-lazy-go-off-and-talk-to-this-writer

Let's suppose that I offered a link to _Mein Kampf_ by Hitler.
Would Sonship then conclude that I must be a Nazi?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, but if all you had was just a link I might conclude you were a troll.

Hey, after six years of atheists, anti-theists, and infidel skeptics I'm a little defensive. Most posters responding to me are coming either with flowers or a switchblade. I have to be ready for both.

Okay, a little more about the persecution of Christians by Rome.

For 300 plus after the Christian church started, she was in danger or under persecution from the Roman Empire. The end of that period was that the gospel prevailed rather than Rome. That is if you count Rome having decided to embrace the Christian faith as a kind of victory of Christianity.

That is another argument in itself.

Anyway, the more Rome persecuted Christians the more the faith in Christ grew. They said that the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the saints.

It is my opinion that some modern day people look at weakened and degraded Christianity today with much reduced spiritual power and think "Why would anybody persecute this ? "

But in some countries persecution is severe of Christians. And in the first 300 years of church history, it meant something to Rome to stamp out a "cult" that had another God beside the state of Rome. The worship of the Roman Emperor was really a statement to the citizens of that empire that the State was a supreme being of sorts.

This thread started from my thread on Romans 13. Paul taught the Christians to have high regard for human government. But he did not teach them to worship it as a god. Because the Christians did not they were held in suspicion, often could not get jobs, and were intermittently persecuted, even unto death sometimes.

With Augustus ( in 27 BC ) more and more power began to be concentrated in the Roman Empire in one man. Gradually this one man began to be venerated as a god.

This was a way to hold the empire together. Rome tolerated local and tribal customs to a extent. They found doing so kept down revolts. But gradually the making of the emperor into a god became a method to concentrate unity and power.

So emperor worship begin to come up along side of the worship of other conquered people's deities. Somewhat of an exception was made for the Jews.

The Jews were not required to offer sacrifices to the emperor.
But any other religion that did not recognize that along side of it the emperor of Rome was to be worshiped was disignated Religio Illicita.

Lawful religions - Religio Licita were faiths that permitted worship of the Roman emperor right along side of whatever other person might be held in veneration.

Why the Jewish religion was a permitted exception to this rule I would speak to latter.