4 ms·

The myth of persecution was always central to the doctrine, but the sheer volume of wholesale fabrication that evidently had to be cooked up in support of it ea

The myth of persecution was always central to the doctrine, but the sheer volume of wholesale fabrication that evidently had to be cooked up in support of it easily demonstrates its falsehood.

Natsu 3y ago
That's nonsense. Plenty of persecution is well-documented. Nero had Christians torn apart by dogs (though not in the Coliseum), there was the torture and persecution of the martyrs of Lyon, Diocletian enacted his “Great Persecution” in 303, etc.
- kragen 3y ago
  yeah but none of those had happened yet at the time that this story is nominally set in that said, if a dude is going around knocking over tables in the temple, proclaiming himself the king of israel (and in most versions also the sole begotten son of god himself), telling people influential religious authorities have everything backwards, supposedly raising the dead, telling rich people to give away all their possessions to the poor instead of giving their children an inheritance, etc., there's guaranteed to be a fair bit of persecution directed his way
  - Natsu 3y ago
    > yeah but none of those had happened yet at the time that this story is nominally set in The gospels were written later, by disciples. Of course they would showcase the messages from Jesus that were most relevant to the people then. This doesn't require any backwards causation, or even distorting any messages, they just have to showcase the sayings that are most relevant there & then when they're writing them down. And persecution happened quite early, Paul himself admits to doing it in his former life, so there are stories already in the Gospel, not to mention Paul's entire appeal to Caesar.
    - kragen 3y ago
      agreed
    - angiosperm 3y ago
      The gospels were not, in fact, written by disciples. They were all written well after any disciples would have died. But we know how they were written. Whoever wrote "Mark" made up things for his Jesus to say based on Paul's opinions, cribbing plot elements liberally from the Septuagint and from Homer. "Matthew" cribbed from Mark and made up whatever he liked. Luke cribbed from Mark and Matthew, and made up more stuff. John did a full-on rewrite cribbing from Mark, Matthew, and Luke for theme and plot. If there was a living, breathing Jesus, we have no hint of anything he said while he lived. Certainly Paul writing in the 50s and the authors of 1 Clement writing in the 60s never heard of any Jesus having said anything they found meaningful enough to mention. Paul is very clear that every single thing he knew about Jesus came from ancient scripture and visions, period. 1 Peter also offers no hint that he ever met a live Jesus. None of the early 2nd & 3rd century Christian writers, Ignatius, Justin, Origen, etc. had ever heard of Nero slaughtering Christians. Pliny the Younger, who had a personal copy of his uncle Pliny's detailed history of Nero's reign, and spent his life in the justice system, also had no clue about anybody executing Christians for anything but illegal assembly. So the best evidence says that the early Roman persecutions were forged later.
      - Natsu 3y ago
        > They were all written well after any disciples would have died. Depends on who you count as "disciples" (e.g. only the 12) and what exact form you count as the "Gospels," but it's true that the books we have today are built on earlier sources. The more skeptical accounts of the dating seem to assume that the first fragment we have is the original document, never mind if it's a Coptic translation found far afield. One might be forgiven for thinking that some accounts of the dating all but assume that the scribes ran off to translate their works into every language and made it to Egypt in a week or two, as if scribes were easy and cheap. > If there was a living, breathing Jesus, we have no hint of anything he said while he lived. Yet the gospels agree on this to the point where it's hypothesized that there's a sayings source and we have so many copies of books that show rather little variation. This is one of the things where people always try to have it both ways, any variation in the story is presented as invention, any commonality in the story is presented as copying a single source. So a lot of accounts with minor variation are pushed one way or the other to serve whatever argument is being made at the time, rather than being seen as imperfect people trying to keep an accurate account. > Paul is very clear that every single thing he knew about Jesus came from ancient scripture and visions, period. I see that you're ignoring Paul meeting with Peter & co. at the Council at Jerusalem, which is attested in both Acts & Galatians. One might think they compared notes when discussing what rules Gentile converts had to keep, given that they ended up with something like a variation on the Noahide laws. You'll say he didn't meet Jesus, other than the Damascus road, but c'mon, he was studying under Gamaliel, it's not like he wouldn't have been completely out of the loop about things going on in Jerusalem. > None of the early 2nd & 3rd century Christian writers, Ignatius, Justin, Origen, etc. had ever heard of Nero slaughtering Christians. This is a really odd argument to make, given that they didn't personally live through those particular persecutions. And if we did point to something, it'd be easily dismissed because you just can't trust Christian sources... Meanwhile, you blithely ignore Tacitus' account, which is especially odd given that he was not a Christian and is writing about things that happened during his own life. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Annals_(Tacitus)/Book_15 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Annals_(Tacitus)/Book_15 > Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. And Pliny the Younger is another odd citation, you forget to mention that he does reference Jesus as a historical person (contrary to your "if" there was a Jesus). And you really can't think of any reason he might want to downplay things that made Nero look bad? Nothing at all? > His guardian and preceptor in charge of his education was Lucius Verginius Rufus,[7] famed for quelling a revolt against Nero in 68 AD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Younger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Younger > So the best evidence says that the early Roman persecutions were forged later. People who are doing history to learn about the past do not just skip over things like Tacitus' account.

The myth of persecution was always central to the doctrine, but the sheer volume of wholesale fabrication that evidently had to be cooked up in support of it easily demonstrates its falsehood.

Natsu 3y ago

That's nonsense. Plenty of persecution is well-documented. Nero had Christians torn apart by dogs (though not in the Coliseum), there was the torture and persecution of the martyrs of Lyon, Diocletian enacted his “Great Persecution” in 303, etc.

kragen 3y ago
yeah but none of those had happened yet at the time that this story is nominally set in that said, if a dude is going around knocking over tables in the temple, proclaiming himself the king of israel (and in most versions also the sole begotten son of god himself), telling people influential religious authorities have everything backwards, supposedly raising the dead, telling rich people to give away all their possessions to the poor instead of giving their children an inheritance, etc., there's guaranteed to be a fair bit of persecution directed his way
- Natsu 3y ago
  > yeah but none of those had happened yet at the time that this story is nominally set in The gospels were written later, by disciples. Of course they would showcase the messages from Jesus that were most relevant to the people then. This doesn't require any backwards causation, or even distorting any messages, they just have to showcase the sayings that are most relevant there & then when they're writing them down. And persecution happened quite early, Paul himself admits to doing it in his former life, so there are stories already in the Gospel, not to mention Paul's entire appeal to Caesar.
  - kragen 3y ago
    agreed
  - angiosperm 3y ago
    The gospels were not, in fact, written by disciples. They were all written well after any disciples would have died. But we know how they were written. Whoever wrote "Mark" made up things for his Jesus to say based on Paul's opinions, cribbing plot elements liberally from the Septuagint and from Homer. "Matthew" cribbed from Mark and made up whatever he liked. Luke cribbed from Mark and Matthew, and made up more stuff. John did a full-on rewrite cribbing from Mark, Matthew, and Luke for theme and plot. If there was a living, breathing Jesus, we have no hint of anything he said while he lived. Certainly Paul writing in the 50s and the authors of 1 Clement writing in the 60s never heard of any Jesus having said anything they found meaningful enough to mention. Paul is very clear that every single thing he knew about Jesus came from ancient scripture and visions, period. 1 Peter also offers no hint that he ever met a live Jesus. None of the early 2nd & 3rd century Christian writers, Ignatius, Justin, Origen, etc. had ever heard of Nero slaughtering Christians. Pliny the Younger, who had a personal copy of his uncle Pliny's detailed history of Nero's reign, and spent his life in the justice system, also had no clue about anybody executing Christians for anything but illegal assembly. So the best evidence says that the early Roman persecutions were forged later.
    - Natsu 3y ago
      > They were all written well after any disciples would have died. Depends on who you count as "disciples" (e.g. only the 12) and what exact form you count as the "Gospels," but it's true that the books we have today are built on earlier sources. The more skeptical accounts of the dating seem to assume that the first fragment we have is the original document, never mind if it's a Coptic translation found far afield. One might be forgiven for thinking that some accounts of the dating all but assume that the scribes ran off to translate their works into every language and made it to Egypt in a week or two, as if scribes were easy and cheap. > If there was a living, breathing Jesus, we have no hint of anything he said while he lived. Yet the gospels agree on this to the point where it's hypothesized that there's a sayings source and we have so many copies of books that show rather little variation. This is one of the things where people always try to have it both ways, any variation in the story is presented as invention, any commonality in the story is presented as copying a single source. So a lot of accounts with minor variation are pushed one way or the other to serve whatever argument is being made at the time, rather than being seen as imperfect people trying to keep an accurate account. > Paul is very clear that every single thing he knew about Jesus came from ancient scripture and visions, period. I see that you're ignoring Paul meeting with Peter & co. at the Council at Jerusalem, which is attested in both Acts & Galatians. One might think they compared notes when discussing what rules Gentile converts had to keep, given that they ended up with something like a variation on the Noahide laws. You'll say he didn't meet Jesus, other than the Damascus road, but c'mon, he was studying under Gamaliel, it's not like he wouldn't have been completely out of the loop about things going on in Jerusalem. > None of the early 2nd & 3rd century Christian writers, Ignatius, Justin, Origen, etc. had ever heard of Nero slaughtering Christians. This is a really odd argument to make, given that they didn't personally live through those particular persecutions. And if we did point to something, it'd be easily dismissed because you just can't trust Christian sources... Meanwhile, you blithely ignore Tacitus' account, which is especially odd given that he was not a Christian and is writing about things that happened during his own life. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Annals_(Tacitus)/Book_15 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Annals_(Tacitus)/Book_15 > Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. And Pliny the Younger is another odd citation, you forget to mention that he does reference Jesus as a historical person (contrary to your "if" there was a Jesus). And you really can't think of any reason he might want to downplay things that made Nero look bad? Nothing at all? > His guardian and preceptor in charge of his education was Lucius Verginius Rufus,[7] famed for quelling a revolt against Nero in 68 AD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Younger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Younger > So the best evidence says that the early Roman persecutions were forged later. People who are doing history to learn about the past do not just skip over things like Tacitus' account.