The persecution that never was

[Nihilist Virus]

In my estimation, the general Christian narrative is that Christians suffered extreme persecution in the early days of the church. Professing Christianity was a capital offense, so it is said. Rome was doing everything in its power to stamp out Christianity.

And yet Rome allowed Paul, one of their own citizens, to write letters to Christian churches from a prison cell. They allowed him to direct, chastise, and set everything in order. I've never gotten a sensible explanation for this, other than the admission that Paul was never imprisoned. He was, however, under house arrest for some time. And there is no evidence whatsoever that he was executed.

Then there's Josephus. He was a Jew who defected to Rome after a military defeat. He took a Roman family name and wrote history for Rome. He lived at around the peak of this alleged persecution, and yet his account of Jesus is very flattering. If Rome was trying to stamp out Christianity, why allow one of your historians to speak so kindly about the central figure of Christianity?

I am aware that Peter was executed, but there is no documented reason. There is no documented case of any alleged eyewitness of the resurrection being given a chance to recant the gospel and go free or else face execution. The "Why die for a lie?" argument is, itself, a lie because it is completely fabricated.

I believe that the Catholic church has always had an unhealthy fascination with suffering. If you have not suffered, you cannot be a saint. This is why every single disciple is said to have faced execution. Similarly, the Buddha was never overweight, and yet he is depicted that way. Why? Because, at the time, obesity was a sign of prosperity. They thought that by depicting the Buddha as prosperous, they would be flattering him. The church has thought that by depicting the apostles as being martyred, they are flattering them with the highest honor. But the reality is that the persecution is a gross exaggeration, and, in many cases, a complete fiction.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

A number of errors here:

We know that there was an early persecution of Christians such as James the Just, as we have an independant source for it in the writings of Josephus. Josephus' account differs a bit from the Christian one, so it being an independant verification is not in doubt.

As to Josephus' account of Jesus, we can see that the hand of redactor has been at work. Most historians acknowledge that a legitimate reference to Jesus' crucifixion was written here, for he later refers to James as Jesus' brother and based on first century stylistic usages, however probably not the flattering account we read today. It does not fit the tenor of the rest of his work and a more neutral or negative account likely stood here originally. Early references to this passage in other writers like Eusebius seem to confirm this, as they do not report such effusive praise. Thus the criticism why the quisling Josephus was allowed to write such is moot.

Paul was a Roman citizen. It was part of the advantages of being a Roman citizen of being allowed certain liberties in prison, such as writing and sending letters via wellwishers. We see this with Piso, Clodius, Milo, Ovid etc. In fact, it would be weird for Paul to have been denied this standard perk of Roman citizenship and the fact that he called upon the Emperor and bears the Roman name Paullus, clearly shows his citizenship is legitimate. (For no, God did not make 'Saul of Tarsus' Paul at Damascus, but it is probably derived from a consul that granted citizenship to his family. I made a thread on it a while ago, if you are interested). This is also why tradition has him beheaded, as again this was the lot of Roman citizens convicted of treason, a kindness instead of brutalities like crucifixion. This is an element that would not have been well-known after citizenship became widely extended, culminating in Caracalla extended citizenship to the entire empire, so is supporting evidence for an early account of Paulline martyrdom.

As to the Roman persecution: Suetonius reports the expulsion of the followers of 'Chrestus' under Claudius and Tacitus the persecution of them as a scapegoat for the Great Fire of Rome. Thus two Roman historians confirm a low-level persecution before Nero and the Neronian Persecution respectively.
Coupled with an early history of veneration of martyrs, also Peter, in the Vatican catacombs from the reign of Vespasian, or at the latest Domitian, based on numismatic evidence and we have fairly conclusively shown a Neronian persecution both historically and archeaologically.

As to other disciples: The martyrdom accounts of Thomas reports figures like Gondophares, sometimes becoming Caspar or Gasparus, that Thomas dealt with. This is the actual name of a number of Indo-Parthian kings of the first century. However, they are obscure and there is no reason why this element would appear in later accounts that are fictional, for it would be meaningless at that stage. The writers of these accounts were aware of historical minutiae and it makes no sense for them to make such references if they were faking their accounts, for no one would know these kings when they were writing, anymore. It took western archeaology to bring them to light once more.
While this does not confirm the martyrdom of Thomas, it does mean there is some truth to the account as presented and coupled with an early tradition of martyrdom, makes this plausible at least.

Then we have the Acts account of James the Apostle's execution. Even if you disagree with the traditional Christian dating of this book, by secular dating it still falls in the late first to early 2nd century AD.

Thus we have Paul, Peter, James the Apostle, James the brother of the Lord and Thomas for whom we have a fairly good argument for early martyrdoms. We also have independant verification of Christian persecution from Roman sources. Even if barring the others Apostles, it can be shown plausible here.

Also, Church tradition said John was not martyred, so your characterisation of them all being martyred to show honour, can be shown flawed. For John was an evangelist and an important link for Apostolic succession for Polycarp and such, so it makes little sense then to not extend the honour to him also.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

It is quite silly to try and argue from a lack of documentation here anyway. For what our accounts report is plausible, as the Romans did ask for recantations and such later - such as in Pliny's letters to Trajan. Their later behaviour supports their earlier behaviour being similar.

In Peter's case, I don't think a recantation would have made a difference as that persecution was as a punishment for Arson. Christian tradition however does not report an offered recantation for freedom here at all. It depicts Peter fleeing Rome and essentially a vision telling him to return and support his flock, even if this ends in Martyrdom.
This is the origin of the phrase Quo Vadis? Maybe you know of the old movie, perhaps?

We have few sources for a period 2000 years ago. For wars and the fall of Rome and the march of decay has intervened. Historical events like Caesar crossing the Rubicon, or Cicero's hands being nailed to the Rostra, has less corroborating evidence than much early Church history. History has to be reconstructed based on plausibility and corroboration, for else we would hardly have any history at all. Such 'hard evidence' as desired by many atheists, is simply unreasonable, when history functions by supposition and historical-critical methodology. By such reasoning we should be denying the existence of Pyrrhus or Leonidas or Parmendides.
It is odd to expect many accounts of a minor Jewish sect from a backwater of the Empire. Do we find many 19th century English accounts of a spesific subsect of witchdoctor, from one of their African colonies? It is simply ludicrous. If we want to know what happened to them then, you ask their descendants; who had an interest in recording their doings, as the colonial authority certainly is not going to. If this plausibly fits the time period otherwise, with a few incidental corroborations here and there, then there is no real reason to disbelieve at least the gist thereof.

 

[Motherofkittens]

In my estimation, the general Christian narrative is that Christians suffered extreme persecution in the early days of the church. Professing Christianity was a capital offense, so it is said. Rome was doing everything in its power to stamp out Christianity.

And yet Rome allowed Paul, one of their own citizens, to write letters to Christian churches from a prison cell. They allowed him to direct, chastise, and set everything in order. I've never gotten a sensible explanation for this, other than the admission that Paul was never imprisoned. He was, however, under house arrest for some time. And there is no evidence whatsoever that he was executed.

Then there's Josephus. He was a Jew who defected to Rome after a military defeat. He took a Roman family name and wrote history for Rome. He lived at around the peak of this alleged persecution, and yet his account of Jesus is very flattering. If Rome was trying to stamp out Christianity, why allow one of your historians to speak so kindly about the central figure of Christianity?

I am aware that Peter was executed, but there is no documented reason. There is no documented case of any alleged eyewitness of the resurrection being given a chance to recant the gospel and go free or else face execution. The "Why die for a lie?" argument is, itself, a lie because it is completely fabricated.

I believe that the Catholic church has always had an unhealthy fascination with suffering. If you have not suffered, you cannot be a saint. This is why every single disciple is said to have faced execution. Similarly, the Buddha was never overweight, and yet he is depicted that way. Why? Because, at the time, obesity was a sign of prosperity. They thought that by depicting the Buddha as prosperous, they would be flattering him. The church has thought that by depicting the apostles as being martyred, they are flattering them with the highest honor. But the reality is that the persecution is a gross exaggeration, and, in many cases, a complete fiction.

You know the narrative that Christians were put to the lions and such things? That actually rarely happened. Christian persecution in Rome is highly exaggerated and is now mostly mythical.

I read a good book about it can't remember the name. I already didn't believe but it was still shocking to me because I had it drilled in my head and I still thought it was fact.

Christian persecution by other Christians was a lot worse.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

As to Josephus' account of Jesus, we can see that the hand of redactor has been at work. Most historians acknowledge that a legitimate reference to Jesus' crucifixion was written here, for he later refers to James as Jesus' brother and based on first century stylistic usages, however probably not the flattering account we read today.

So basically you are saying that of the small amount of Josephus' writings on Jesus, some is a forgery and some is legitimate? How can you trust a source if it has been corrupted? As far as I can tell, you rely on historian consensus to make this determination. Meanwhile you presumably disregard the consensus on everything else they have to say about Christianity in this time period. Cherry picking at its finest.

...Or do you accept, for starters, that half the New Testament epistles are written by impersonators and that the gospels were anonymous? Because that is certainly the consensus.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You know the narrative that Christians were put to the lions and such things? That actually rarely happened. Christian persecution in Rome is highly exaggerated and is now mostly mythical.

I read a good book about it can't remember the name. I already didn't believe but it was still shocking to me because I had it drilled in my head and I still thought it was fact.

To throw someone to the Lions was a known Roman style of execution. It was called Damnatio ad Bestias and was a form of the wider Roman entertainment of Beastiarium or fighting with wild animals. This was practiced from about the 2nd century BC to the third century and is mentioned by Lucretius, Cicero, Apuleius, Seneca, etc. I don't know where you got your sources, but it was quite common. The practice of executing Christians in this manner was much rarer though, than the traditional accounts suggest, in all likelihood.

Regardless, Tacitus specifically mentions Christians being so executed in the Annals, book XV, during the Neronian persecution. Tertullian also states that whenever a calamity befell an area, than Christians were thrown to the lions; likely an exaggeration for effect, but still suggests it was not uncommon in the second century AD when he wrote. There is also a text called the Passion of St. Perpetua which may be an eyewitness account of such an execution.

Christian persecution by other Christians was a lot worse.

Agreed. Rome persecuted Christians at a low level. There were about 7 spasm of Christian persecution, mainly local affairs, and largely interspersed with long periods where they were left alone. The only real attempt at eradication was under Diocletian, the Great Persecution, but even here it was half-hearted in the West and only Galerius really followed through. Hence Christianity could successfully expand.

The question of this thread was however on the persecution of the Apostles, for which we have some good evidence; most notably for the Neronian one.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

So basically you are saying that of the small amount of Josephus' writings on Jesus, some is a forgery and some is legitimate? How can you trust a source if it has been corrupted? As far as I can tell, you rely on historian consensus to make this determination. Meanwhile you presumably disregard the consensus on everything else they have to say about Christianity in this time period. Cherry picking at its finest.

Historical Criticism suggests a legitimate reference to Jesus' Crucifixion, yes, and our modern text is somewhat corrupted. There are texts with accounts that are likely closer to the original however.
This is not 'cherry picking' at all though, but historical consensus for all that I wrote. In general I don't disregard historical consensus, but investigate their sources and decide whether or not I agree. I purposefully did not post more dubious evidence here, as I know it would be dismissed out of hand, so all of this is broadly accurate.
The only people who doubt any of the things I wrote here are the lunatic fringe of Christ mythicists, who have long ago become laughing stocks in the historical community. A good example being Carrier, who is unaffiliated with a university and reduced to being an internet blogger and travelling speaker, a dancing bear essentially, instead of a respected academic.

...Or do you accept, for starters, that half the New Testament epistles are written by impersonators and that the gospels were anonymous? Because that is certainly the consensus.

How is any of this relevant to the topic of the thread at all? This thread is about the existence of the Apostolic persecution, which is quite plausible by both historical and archaeological means.

As to who wrote the gospels and if the letters are pseudonymous, this is far too complicated a subject for me to address here without obfuscating the thread - which is obviously your intention. You can start a new thread on that, and I will gladly respond, but I am not going to run after a red herring that has no bearing on the validity of anything I have said in this thread.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

This is not 'cherry picking' at all though, but historical consensus for all that I wrote. In general I don't disregard historical consensus, but investigate their sources and decide whether or not I agree.

But that's what cherry picking is.

The only people who doubt any of the things I wrote here are the lunatic fringe of Christ mythicists, who have long ago become laughing stocks in the historical community. A good example being Carrier, who is unaffiliated with a university and reduced to being an internet blogger and travelling speaker, a dancing bear essentially, instead of a respected academic.


How is any of this relevant to the topic of the thread at all? This thread is about the existence of the Apostolic persecution, which is quite plausible by both historical and archaeological means.

As to who wrote the gospels and if the letters are pseudonymous, this is far too complicated a subject for me to address here without obfuscating the thread - which is obviously your intention. You can start a new thread on that, and I will gladly respond, but I am not going to run after a red herring that has no bearing on the validity of anything I have said in this thread.

So you dodge the question because you don't want to derail the thread, but you happily go out of your way to share your opinion about the Jesus mythicists.

I think we're finished here.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

But that's what cherry picking is.

According to the Oxford Dictionary of Idioms: Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

I have not ignored any cases or data that contradict what I have said, as historians are largely in agreement on these points. So no, not cherry picking at all in this thread. It does sound though as if you disapprove of me using my own reason and must simply take everything on authority or the say so of the majority? I am appalled.

So you dodge the question because you don't want to derail the thread, but you happily go out of your way to share your opinion about the Jesus mythicists.

Relevant, as they are the only ones who doubt this information and are a ridiculous minority that have largely been discredited.

I think we're finished here.

Okay, then. Good day, sir.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So basically you are saying that of the small amount of Josephus' writings on Jesus, some is a forgery and some is legitimate? How can you trust a source if it has been corrupted? As far as I can tell, you rely on historian consensus to make this determination. Meanwhile you presumably disregard the consensus on everything else they have to say about Christianity in this time period. Cherry picking at its finest.

...Or do you accept, for starters, that half the New Testament epistles are written by impersonators and that the gospels were anonymous? Because that is certainly the consensus.

I go with Steve Mason's claim that the tendency to regard Josephus as a high-level authority should be taken with a grain of salt, maybe three grains of salt...just as we do with all ancient history. And this applies to more that just those passages in Josephus for which Christians have claimed 'evidence of Christ.' It also applies to assumptions among scholars that we should necessarily concede to Josephus over and above Luke-Acts in all historical cases. These assumptions may or may not be cogent through and through. And all of this isn't about consensus anyway, but about quality of argument, as well as honesty in 'fessing up to our conjectures... on either side.

Reference

Mason, Steve. (2010). Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.

You know the narrative that Christians were put to the lions and such things? That actually rarely happened. Christian persecution in Rome is highly exaggerated and is now mostly mythical.

I read a good book about it can't remember the name. I already didn't believe but it was still shocking to me because I had it drilled in my head and I still thought it was fact.

Christian persecution by other Christians was a lot worse.

I've already dealt with some of this issue in another, similar thread that our friend, Nihilist Virus, started a few months back.

[LINK] A straight answer about Paul please (...this thread touches upon early Christian martrydom, wherein I wrote some relevant responses, specifically in posts #4, #21, and #32).

You might find some of it interesting, Motherofkittens. You might want to hear what Ryan Reeves (in post #21) has to say about these issues in comparison to that proposed by Candida Moss (in post #4).

The truth of the matter is that early Christian martyrdom is neither historically black or white for any person on either side of the issue.


Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You know the narrative that Christians were put to the lions and such things? That actually rarely happened. Christian persecution in Rome is highly exaggerated and is now mostly mythical.

I read a good book about it can't remember the name. I already didn't believe but it was still shocking to me because I had it drilled in my head and I still thought it was fact.

Sure. It's always good to be as educated as possible on these things, Motherofkittens.

Christian persecution by other Christians was a lot worse.

Which specific centuries are you referring to here? It does make a difference in the final historical analysis and as to what we mean in our statements and/or evaluations about the extent to which Christians "bonked" other Christians. We don't want to make blanket statements which may give the false impression that this applies to all times and all social circles with no need to differentiate between various factors. Right?

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Motherofkittens]

To throw someone to the Lions was a known Roman style of execution. It was called Damnatio ad Bestias and was a form of the wider Roman entertainment of Beastiarium or fighting with wild animals. This was practiced from about the 2nd century BC to the third century and is mentioned by Lucretius, Cicero, Apuleius, Seneca, etc. I don't know where you got your sources, but it was quite common. The practice of executing Christians in this manner was much rarer though, than the traditional accounts suggest, in all likelihood.

Regardless, Tacitus specifically mentions Christians being so executed in the Annals, book XV, during the Neronian persecution. Tertullian also states that whenever a calamity befell an area, than Christians were thrown to the lions; likely an exaggeration for effect, but still suggests it was not uncommon in the second century AD when he wrote. There is also a text called the Passion of St. Perpetua which may be an eyewitness account of such an execution.


Agreed. Rome persecuted Christians at a low level. There were about 7 spasm of Christian persecution, mainly local affairs, and largely interspersed with long periods where they were left alone. The only real attempt at eradication was under Diocletian, the Great Persecution, but even here it was half-hearted in the West and only Galerius really followed through. Hence Christianity could successfully expand.

The question of this thread was however on the persecution of the Apostles, for which we have some good evidence; most notably for the Neronian one.

I didn't say it didn't happen. There was and is Christian persecution. Including the Romans persecuting Christians. I don't know what you were told but I was taught that Christian persecution by the Romans was massive and continuous and it is a miracle any Christian survived . It wasn't like that. The Romans were a very violent people and everyone was subject to their violence.

Yes, I know this is about the apostles but I thought what i said was related. I don't know if the apostles were martyred or not. I never really looked into it except to think "were they given a chance to recant?"

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I didn't say it didn't happen. There was and is Christian persecution. Including the Romans persecuting Christians. I don't know what you were told but I was taught that Christian persecution by the Romans was massive and continuous and it is a miracle any Christian survived . It wasn't like that. The Romans were a very violent people and everyone was subject to their violence.

Yes, I know this is about the apostles but I thought what i said was related. I don't know if the apostles were martyred or not. I never really looked into it except to think "were they given a chance to recant?"

Madam, you need to look into Roman history perhaps. The Romans were violent it is true. They crucified all the inhabitants of Jerusalem until no wood was left over; they crucified the slaves in the Servile war all along the Via Appia; they annihilated Carthage and Numantia and Corinth, razing them to the ground, etc.
But the Roman times was largely a period of sustained peace. The Pax Romana. The Romans didn't much care about you, provided you pay your taxes and kept quiet. They fought wars on their borders, but this was usually to fend off invasions or perceived threats by Principate times. Some Emperors realised they were perhaps over-extended, like Hadrian.
Other than that, they crushed revolts. The Jews revolted multiple times against Rome: The First, Trajanic and Bar Kohba Revolts. This was fuelled by Jewish nationalism, the punishing Fiscus Judaicus brought in after the first one, and perhaps a Roman failure to understand their religious sensibilities as to images in Jerusalem.
Revolts were few and far between. Most people were quite content under the Caesars, which is why all the inhabitants of the Empire eventually came to consider themselves Roman.
This long peace was only broken by the occasional civil war. From Augustus in 31 BC to 69 AD, there was a broad peace through most of the Mediterranean. The year of the four Emperors was short and sharp, then peace again set in until 193 AD. From here Rome wobbled a bit, so Civil Wars were more frequent till her fall, but it is simply untrue to think Rome a brutal tyrant commiting violence to one and all. Her rule was amongst the most peaceful times in all European history.

On the Roman persecution of Christians, yes it was less than a lot of Christian tradition suggests. As I said, there were about 7 short periods of persecution, some only locally, with long periods in between up until the Great Persecution of Diocletian. Rome however did not accept Christianity as such, so likely there was some low-level persecution going on, perhaps on the Christians in Egypt scale of the last 50 years of the 20th century. We see slighting references to this in Pliny or later Pagan authors, because Rome did not understand Christianity, thinking it Polytheistic but not willing to sacrifice to the Genius of the Emperor or the Goddess Roma. They thought them inherently disloyal, so a Christian was at a distinct disadvantage and as Tertullian and others suggest, often prone to scapegoating.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

To add to what 2PhiloVoid and I have been saying about Josephus:

You should remember that there was none of this feigned affectation of 'objectivity' amongst ancient historians. They nakedly wrote to explain their viewpoint, glorify something or try and make a point.
Tacitus did not write on the Germans for interest's sake, but to juxtapose their culture to his own as a social commentary on Rome's failings.
Suetonius wrote a work that often tends to a tabloid piece, for entertainment, and to argue the folly of having Emperors.
Etc.

Now Josephus had been a Jewish leader that defected to Rome. He was a pragmatist. His histories are clearly written for a hellenistic Roman audience and acts as both an apology for the Jewish Revolt and for the Roman excesses in suppressing it. He wanted to educate the Romans on Jewish practice, to lessen their anti-Jewish sentiment after the revolt, to flatter Vespasian (a tough task with such a down to earth Emperor), etc. Writing on Christians or such was really the furthest from his mind and he had no intention of presenting things in a nuanced manner; he was out to support a spesific view - a narrative of well-meaning and pious Jews driven to revolt by Roman misunderstanding, who then bravely but mistakenly stood up to Rome, and the glorious Roman legions then triumphing and acting with a mix of magmanity and understandable ferocity. Nothing of this implies that he would be too objective, but we don't expect our first century historians to be overtly so. Each has its own little biases, that you need to take into account when reading them. This does not mean he doesn't give a lot of valuable information. I would even argue he is one of our best historians of the period, but everything he says has to be balanced by information from other sources; this however, holds true for modern historians and news reports as much as for ancient ones. Everyone has an implicit bias of some form.

 

[Ron Gurley]

OP: ...Q1 :..."The persecution (of Christ-Followers) that never was..."

A1: Historical FACTS, both Biblical and extra-Biblical, clearly points to the CONTRARY!

Let me switch the discussion (purty please!) to:
"The persecution (of Christ-Followers) NOW!.

Romans 8:35 (ALL NASB)
Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

Romans 12:14
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.

Matthew 5:10-12
“Blessed (happy!)are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
“Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.
Rejoice and be glad (happy!), for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Luke 11:49
For this reason also the wisdom of God said,
‘I will send to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and some they will persecute,

Luke 21:12
“But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and will persecute you, delivering you to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for My name’s sake.

Matthew 19:29
And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name’s sake, will receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal (spiritual) life.

Luke 6:22
Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man.

NOW!

Persecution News of Churches Persecuted & Christian Sufferings

Persecution of Christians - Wikipedia

100,000 Christians die every year because of their faith

 

[Nihilist Virus]

OP: ...Q1 :..."The persecution (of Christ-Followers) that never was..."

A1: Historical FACTS, both Biblical and extra-Biblical, clearly points to the CONTRARY!

Let me switch the discussion (purty please!) to:
"The persecution (of Christ-Followers) NOW!.

Romans 8:35 (ALL NASB)
Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

Romans 12:14
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.

Matthew 5:10-12
“Blessed (happy!)are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
“Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.
Rejoice and be glad (happy!), for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Luke 11:49
For this reason also the wisdom of God said,
‘I will send to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and some they will persecute,

Luke 21:12
“But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and will persecute you, delivering you to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for My name’s sake.

Matthew 19:29
And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name’s sake, will receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal (spiritual) life.

Luke 6:22
Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man.

You want to talk about modern persecution and so you cite the Bible?

NOW!

Uhh... you already said you were talking about now.

Persecution News of Churches Persecuted & Christian Sufferings

News flash: Christians are not singled out in Islamic nations. Or would Muslims be fond of an atheist preaching that there is no God? No, Christians aren't singled out; they're just more aggressive than other religions and they take their gospel to nations where freedom of religion doesn't exist.

Persecution of Christians - Wikipedia

100,000 Christians die every year because of their faith

Right, 100K martyrs a year according to the organization that has presumably been covering up worldwide child rape for nearly 2000 years. Sorry, but the Catholic Church kinda has a credibility issue at the moment. Oh and they have an unhealthy obsession with suffering anyway, so their reports about martyrdom would already be suspect.

If you want to know about Christian persecution, talk to a gay man. He'll tell you all about how much Christians persecute him.

 

[StTruth]

In my estimation, the general Christian narrative is that Christians suffered extreme persecution in the early days of the church. Professing Christianity was a capital offense, so it is said. Rome was doing everything in its power to stamp out Christianity.

And yet Rome allowed Paul, one of their own citizens, to write letters to Christian churches from a prison cell. They allowed him to direct, chastise, and set everything in order. I've never gotten a sensible explanation for this, other than the admission that Paul was never imprisoned. He was, however, under house arrest for some time. And there is no evidence whatsoever that he was executed.

Then there's Josephus. He was a Jew who defected to Rome after a military defeat. He took a Roman family name and wrote history for Rome. He lived at around the peak of this alleged persecution, and yet his account of Jesus is very flattering. If Rome was trying to stamp out Christianity, why allow one of your historians to speak so kindly about the central figure of Christianity?

I am aware that Peter was executed, but there is no documented reason. There is no documented case of any alleged eyewitness of the resurrection being given a chance to recant the gospel and go free or else face execution. The "Why die for a lie?" argument is, itself, a lie because it is completely fabricated.

I believe that the Catholic church has always had an unhealthy fascination with suffering. If you have not suffered, you cannot be a saint. This is why every single disciple is said to have faced execution. Similarly, the Buddha was never overweight, and yet he is depicted that way. Why? Because, at the time, obesity was a sign of prosperity. They thought that by depicting the Buddha as prosperous, they would be flattering him. The church has thought that by depicting the apostles as being martyred, they are flattering them with the highest honor. But the reality is that the persecution is a gross exaggeration, and, in many cases, a complete fiction.

Hi Nihilist Virus,

There is a lot of truth in what you've written here. I've read scholars who say that a lot of the persecution stories are fabricated and romanticised. I've nothing further to add but to say that what you have written is quite correct and accurate.

Cheers,

St Truth