A straight answer about Paul please

[Nihilist Virus]

Were Christians heavily persecuted in Paul's day or is that exaggerated? Was Paul imprisoned or was he merely placed under house arrest?

The conservative view is that Rome imprisoned Paul and fiercely tried to stamp out Christianity. This view is important to Christians because it is believed that during this time the apostles were martyred, and in fact it is generally argued that the apostles were given the chance to recant and go free but yet declined.

If this is all true, why did the Romans allow Paul to write letters from prison and direct the churches? Why not confiscate his letters and/or send out fake epistles to the churches? The way the situation is described, Rome is made out to be utterly incompetent. Please lay out an explanation that is sensible and (preferably) supported by facts. Thanks.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Were Christians heavily persecuted in Paul's day or is that exaggerated? Was Paul imprisoned or was he merely placed under house arrest?

That depends on who we ask. If we ask this little lass from the Ivy Leagues, then the answer is no, Christians weren't persecuted all that much during the 1st century. [Two minute video] I guess we'll have to consider how much of the history she indeed "got right"...

The conservative view is that Rome imprisoned Paul and fiercely tried to stamp out Christianity. This view is important to Christians because it is believed that during this time the apostles were martyred, and in fact it is generally argued that the apostles were given the chance to recant and go free but yet declined.

If this is all true, why did the Romans allow Paul to write letters from prison and direct the churches? Why not confiscate his letters and/or send out fake epistles to the churches? The way the situation is described, Rome is made out to be utterly incompetent. Please lay out an explanation that is sensible and (preferably) supported by facts. Thanks.

Personally, I don't think Christianity was showing up too heavily on the Roman's social radar in Paul's day, at least not as some major, Jewish social force yet to be reckoned with (unlike in Palestine, where Jewish zealots were antagonizing Roman forces and many Jews got caught in the political crossfire.)

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Chesterton]

Were Christians heavily persecuted in Paul's day or is that exaggerated? Was Paul imprisoned or was he merely placed under house arrest?

The conservative view is that Rome imprisoned Paul and fiercely tried to stamp out Christianity. This view is important to Christians because it is believed that during this time the apostles were martyred, and in fact it is generally argued that the apostles were given the chance to recant and go free but yet declined.

If this is all true, why did the Romans allow Paul to write letters from prison and direct the churches? Why not confiscate his letters and/or send out fake epistles to the churches? The way the situation is described, Rome is made out to be utterly incompetent. Please lay out an explanation that is sensible and (preferably) supported by facts. Thanks.

I think the Romans first seriously opposed the new religion under Nero, after Paul's release. Both times he was arrested it was because of Jews, not because Rome itself cared so much what he was doing.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[Anguspure]

Were Christians heavily persecuted in Paul's day or is that exaggerated? Was Paul imprisoned or was he merely placed under house arrest?

The conservative view is that Rome imprisoned Paul and fiercely tried to stamp out Christianity. This view is important to Christians because it is believed that during this time the apostles were martyred, and in fact it is generally argued that the apostles were given the chance to recant and go free but yet declined.

If this is all true, why did the Romans allow Paul to write letters from prison and direct the churches? Why not confiscate his letters and/or send out fake epistles to the churches? The way the situation is described, Rome is made out to be utterly incompetent. Please lay out an explanation that is sensible and (preferably) supported by facts. Thanks.

From the horses mouth:

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. 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 "Chrestians" by the populace.

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.

Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

Tacitus - Livius

 

[Look Up]

Were Christians heavily persecuted in Paul's day or is that exaggerated? Was Paul imprisoned or was he merely placed under house arrest?

The conservative view is that Rome imprisoned Paul and fiercely tried to stamp out Christianity. This view is important to Christians because it is believed that during this time the apostles were martyred, and in fact it is generally argued that the apostles were given the chance to recant and go free but yet declined.

If this is all true, why did the Romans allow Paul to write letters from prison and direct the churches? Why not confiscate his letters and/or send out fake epistles to the churches? The way the situation is described, Rome is made out to be utterly incompetent. Please lay out an explanation that is sensible and (preferably) supported by facts. Thanks.

1) The claim (& para. context) that "it is generally argued that the apostles were given the chance to recant and go free but yet declined," whatever its source, appears to be a conflation of apostolic martyrdom (or persecution?) as recorded in the NT and later history; see for example Persecution in the Early Church: Did You Know? (Tacitus is included) regarding periodic Roman persecutions of Christians in the three centuries before Constantine.

2) For martyrdom accounts of all apostles save the exiled John (cf. Rev. 1:9), see esp. Eusebius's (4th cent.) Ecclesiastical History.

3) I agree with Chesterton above to the effect that the NT records mostly anti-Christian persecution fomented or instigated by (non-Christian) Jews rather than Romans (see the NT's Acts of the Apostles esp.--and of course Paul's correspondence with the church at Corinth for autobiographical notes); Nero's persecution of Paul and of Christians in Rome is not recorded in the NT, and chronologically would follow most of the NT record (notably the Pauline) save probably John's Apocalypse (and debatably perhaps one or other catholic epistle). Cf. 2 Tim. 4:6-8 & 2 Pet. 1:13-15 for anticipation of imminent author death.

Rome's treatment of Paul the prisoner in the record of the NT's Acts, if anything, is respectful (as also Paul's treatment of Rome generally, e.g. Rom. 13) despite hints of corruption by Felix and Pontius Pilate in Palestine. Paul is a Roman citizen, which meant something substantial in the way of civil rights at the time--cf. e.g., Acts 22 & 25. Roman jurisdiction is dragged into Paul's case at the end of Acts because of Jewish religious issues, not Roman law--or so Luke argues in Acts and Pauline theology substantiates (e.g., in his epistles Romans and Galatians).

4) Paul is imprisoned in Caesarea (west of Jerusalem and coastal) and put under house arrest in Rome (Acts 24 & 28:16, cf. Phil. 1:13). This of course is but a part of Paul's sufferings as a Christian (e.g., 2 Cor. 11, Acts 16)

5) Misc.: Also note that there is a difference between a provincial (or ad hoc local) and an empire-wide persecution. For most of the NT, Christianity very largely escapes the notice of official Rome, save perhaps in far-off Palestine (far off from Rome, that is)--Luke uses Rome in Acts to represent "the ends of the earth" which Jesus' gospel finally reached (cf. Acts 1:8, ch. 28, cf. thematically in Luke's gospel)--the ends of the earth from the vantage point of Jerusalem.

Gallio, then Roman proconsul of Achaia (southern Greece), dismisses Jewish accusations at Corinth as merely "about your own [Mosaic] law" (Acts 18); the anti-Christian riot at Ephesus is quelled by the town clerk as risking the wrath of Rome; an orderly court option is recommended instead (Acts 19--"there is no cause we can give [Rome] to justify this commotion," v. 40).

6) Recall that Paul, pre-conversion, had persecuted Christians (Acts 8-9, 1 Cor. 15:9, etc.)--probably almost entirely Jewish Christians, that is.

7) May I recommend reading the NT for yourself to answer your questions with greater clarity.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Were Christians heavily persecuted in Paul's day or is that exaggerated?

Depends on one's concept of 'heavily', really. Paul was attacked and physically beaten to the point he was left for dead at least twice. However, Paul's primary persecutors in this manner were those Jews who didn't like anyone changing the Jewish religion - which is how the 'leaders' of Judaism (and their goons) perceived things. These are referred to in the New Testament as 'the Jews', but that term didn't normally include every Jewish person in the area.

Was Paul imprisoned or was he merely placed under house arrest?

Both, depending on where he was located and the feeling of the local magistrate. And being under house arrest put a fairly large crimp in one's movements. It was not like our concept of 'released on one's own recognizance'. From statements made and research into the judicial practices of the day, often a person under house arrest would be chained (handcuffed, more or less) to a guard, all the time. Paul did preach to them and claims to have won some converts. (No official tally noted.)

The conservative view is that Rome imprisoned Paul and fiercely tried to stamp out Christianity.

Again, what does one deem 'fiercely'. They were not as free as Christians in the U. S., pre-ACLU lawsuit intimidation days. On the other hand, the Roman Empire was pretty willing to allow citizens to observe any religion they wanted, as long as the religious participants weren't 'treasonous' or problematic.

This view is important to Christians because it is believed that during this time the apostles were martyred...

I've never heard anyone drum on the 'importance' of persecution in this time period. Most of the martyrs were occasioned later. There were some martyrs in this period, but mostly by the Jewish 'leaders' who had income and prestige - power to loose. Stephen and Jude were both killed because they were vocal about the Resurrection of Jesus and that He is God. Which pretty well embarrassed the leaders, who opposed Jesus.

...and in fact it is generally argued that the apostles were given the chance to recant and go free but yet declined.

Yes. This was a Roman Empire action. Remember I mentioned 'treason' a bit earlier? Rome had a civil law which required every resident - citizen or otherwise - to, at certain periods, offer a pinch of incense on an 'official' site and speak the phrase "Caesar is Lord" in a more or less loyalty ceremony. (Other than that, one could worship dirt clods for all the Empire cared.) Many of the Christians would not repeat the required phrase. In the mind of the Christians, only God was "Lord"; Caesar was Caesar, but not in the place of God. This resulted in death for many.

If this is all true, why did the Romans allow Paul to write letters from prison and direct the churches?

Good question. The actual charges against Paul are somewhat nebulous. No where in the New Testament is listed the actual charges facing Paul.

The Jewish leaders were sore at Paul for preaching Jesus. Towards the end of Acts, a plot to assassinate Paul is recorded. (Never happened, but the assassins were commissioned.) Of course, the Roman Empire didn't have a specific law about offending the feelings of a local religious body. AND under Roman law, only the Roman government could impose the death penalty. So at least in one case - before Felix, the Roman governor - the Jewish leaders charged Paul was fomenting insurrection against Rome by teaching about this 'other God'.

After spending over a year in the custody of the local governor, Paul was remanded at his own request to Rome, to answer to the Emperor. Acts 26:30-32 sums up the local Roman perception of Paul as a villain. I presume Paul's reputation went with him. He really wasn't a political danger to Rome. Consequently, Paul had a good deal of leeway to write doctrinal messages.

Why not confiscate his letters and/or send out fake epistles to the churches?

Probably due to a lack of pressing need on the part of Rome. At that time, the Christian Church was not any sort of military power and the teachings Paul sent out - which I'm sure were at least inspected for treasonous or felonious content were devoid of threat to the Empire.

The way the situation is described, Rome is made out to be utterly incompetent.

Rome, at the time, was anything but incompetent. They probably didn't see a credible threat; and they were right in that.

It wasn't until later - Nero, actually - the Christians became the whipping boy of the Empire. Up to the time of Nero, the Christians were suspect for that 'loyalty' phrase. Nero blamed them for insurrection and the burning of Rome and thus began the wholesale murders.

Nero took over about A. D. 54, roughly twenty-five to thirty years after Christ's Resurrection. Nero is generally credited with Paul's death (traditionally in A. D. 67), although there are no official records.

Please lay out an explanation that is sensible...

Hopefully

...and (preferably) supported by facts. Thanks.

There's the rub. Most of what we know about Paul is inferred from the New Testament. I say 'inferred' as nowhere does Paul write down all his inner thoughts leading to his actions. Nor is much else written about Paul other than some church elder writings based mostly on tradition; or oral memory accounts, if you prefer.

 

[Anguspure]

called "Chrestians" by the populace.

Interesting thing about this titbit is that "Chrestian" is actually a derogatory name that is a play on the term "Christ(ian)". The term has the equivalence of "do gooder" in the modern vernacular.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Christian apologetics are vacuous if Christ's resurrection becomes solely a faith issue and not a proposition supported by reason or evidence.

It seems that the general consensus here is that the persecution of early Christians was insignificant and that many specifics are unknown. This casts doubt on the "Why die for a lie?" argument. Said argument was already deficient in facts and only supported by Catholic tradition.

Given that it is not reasonable to believe that the disciples wilfully died for their testimony, I consider their testimony, presuming it even exists, to carry little weight. I therefore see little to nothing to support the weight of the fantastic claim that a man rose from the dead. As Paul said, Christianity is worthless without the resurrection.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

There is a distinct misapprehension at play in this entire argument. Historical evidence does not require as much hard evidence as scientific evidence nor is it reasonable to expect it.

For instance: How do we know Pompey was killed by Ptolemy XIII? Because Roman historians tell us so. Obviously they are biased and we have no other sources, but it is reasonable to think this and the unanimous verdict of contemporary historians interested in the matter. Therefore no one doubts it.

Similarly we know Roman officials could execute troublesome locals when and if required. We see this in Tacitus's Annals and Agricola, Caesar's Gallic Wars or Josephus when he reports Pilate himself doing so to suppress other revolts. Thus to have local Roman magistrates putting to death non-citizen locals for fomenting trouble amongst the religious establishment is highly reasonable, as we have examples of exactly this occuring, for instance in Pliny's letters to Trajan. Likewise subject peoples could execute their own if it didn't interfere with the Pax Romana and they weren't citizens, such as the Jewish right to stone their brethren for blasphemy. So the earlier deaths of some apostles within the empire fit the historic mileau and are supported by early Christian writings.

A general persecution ensued with Nero, confirmed by both Roman and Christian sources, so to doubt the deaths of Paul and Peter during this persecution is unsound historically. We have this persecution firmly proven as historical with an early record of their deaths and cult in Rome, making this highly plausible.

Based on the historical-critical method, the deaths of the Apostles for their faith is highly plausible and should thus be accepted as historical events, if fancifully retold. History generally agrees Peter and Paul died in Rome under Nero or Andrew in Greece, James in Judaea etc. as it fits the historical narrative.

So the absence of a general persecution before Nero is largely irrelevant and a specious argument to dismiss fairly plausible martyrdoms. We see similar religious figures executed like Mani or even men like Socrates for similar offences, but this is conveniently forgotten when the Apostles' martyrdoms are at play. Thus if you want to argue that the Apostles dying for their faith is a partial proof of the Resurrection, then the former is highly likely and there is no historically valid reason to doubt at least the broad outline of most of the accounts.

That being said, there are more and less likely accounts. Peter, Paul, Thomas and James are very secure, while Simon, Thaddeus, Matthew etc. are less so. Andrew being in Greece is more plausible than the tradition of Scythia as another example. Regardless, if you would discount their testimony based on doubt of their martyrdoms, then you are on very shaky historical grounds indeed, at about Ancient Astronaut or Aryan Master Race levels.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Do you think history, outside of Scripture, shows there lived a man called
John the Baptist?

We actually do. Flavius Josephus wrote of his death in the Antiquities, he is mentioned in the Talmud and amongst the writings of the Mandaeans (a non-Christian religion with a gnostic cosmology that revere him and reject Christianity and Islam).

 

[Chesterton]

It seems that the general consensus here is that the persecution of early Christians was insignificant and that many specifics are unknown.

No, no. You asked a specific question about why Paul was allowed to communicate from a Roman prison. We didn't say persecution was insignificant, we said Roman persecution began after his release.

And another point that might not have been mentioned - in at least one of the prison letters he writes words to the effect of "can't wait to see you soon". This indicates he was going to be released, which would indicate he was not regarded as some maximum security criminal who represented a threat to Roman society at that time.

Of course there's also the fact that it's mentioned he was allowed to have visitors, so alternatively, it's possible he snuck the letters out.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

In addition, remember Paul was a Roman citizen. Citizens were treated with kid gloves as far as possible. Often we see Romans being allowed to go into exile to escape capital sentences like Ovid or Numidicus or Agrippa Postumus. We see arrested individuals like Clodius or Milo still writing and controlling their groups from imprisonment in late republican times.

Many writers wrote long letters and poems extolling their case while technically under guard such as Cicero or Calpurnius Piso.

It is not unreasonable to see someone writing from prison. It happens all the time throughout history. Good recent examples are Hitler writing from his cell in the early 1920s or Mandela writing from Robben Island or Solzhinytsen in the USSR. Even when under guard, under harsh regimes, we still see this occuring as my latter examples indicate. A Roman citizen being extended this courtesy is so highly plausible to be almost a certainty.

 

[Look Up]

It seems that the general consensus here is that the persecution of early Christians was insignificant and that many specifics are unknown.

While you are of course free to believe what you want, in my opinion, the above does not reasonably or fairly characterize the "general consensus" of the posts on this thread as I read them, and certainly does not reasonably characterize my above post or the sources I cite there or the NT. Your characterization does seem reasonably to characterize the Candida Moss video that 2PhiloVoid uses, but for reasons including those that appear on this thread, I think Moss's characterization dismissive of evidence to the contrary--not that all early Christians had it as bad as, say, Paul. Within the NT for example, the churches at Thessolinica and Smyrna appear to have had it worse (and rather badly) than at Corinth.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Christian apologetics are vacuous if Christ's resurrection becomes solely a faith issue and not a proposition supported by reason or evidence.

What you are saying is, "If I don't recognize the evidence for Christ's resurrection, then all of it is false."

You may reject all you want, Nihilist, and it is still true. What is vacuous is your pretense about 'wanting to hear' anything. As many other deophobes, you get some sort of entertainment about denying God. If that floats your boat, knock yourself out.

There are those who deny and refuse to accept any evidence for the size and construction of the Universe, too. They get the same entertainment from ignoring any form of scientific information.

Deophobes and science deniers are in the same school of thought. Probably at opposite ends of the room, but the same enclosure.

 

[cloudyday2]

Were Christians heavily persecuted in Paul's day or is that exaggerated? Was Paul imprisoned or was he merely placed under house arrest?

The conservative view is that Rome imprisoned Paul and fiercely tried to stamp out Christianity. This view is important to Christians because it is believed that during this time the apostles were martyred, and in fact it is generally argued that the apostles were given the chance to recant and go free but yet declined.

If this is all true, why did the Romans allow Paul to write letters from prison and direct the churches? Why not confiscate his letters and/or send out fake epistles to the churches? The way the situation is described, Rome is made out to be utterly incompetent. Please lay out an explanation that is sensible and (preferably) supported by facts. Thanks.

On the question of whether it was plausible that Paul was able to write letters while imprisoned prior to his martyrdom, I have a few thoughts.

(1) St. Ignatius supposedly wrote letters on his way to being martyred.

(2) Many of the letters of Paul were probably forgeries written in later decades. Did the undisputed letters of Paul mention that he was writing while imprisoned?

(3) Even the suspected forgery letters might provide evidence that the tradition of Paul's imprisonment and martyrdom existed early in Christianity. That might make the tradition more credible.

(4) Do any of the church fathers mention these traditions of martyrdom in their letters?

(5) Persecution of Christians might have required a sizeable concentration of Christians such as existed in Rome. In the early stages, Christians in cities might have been persecuted while Christians in smaller communities were ignored.