Christianity

[History_Buff]

I was just wondering, do you think Christianity would have done nearly as well if they weren't made such a big deal of by thier persecutions?

 

[Archbob]

Probably not in my opinion. It swept like wildfire after Constantine came to the throne.

 

[allhailIndia]

I believe that the Roman Persecution actually helped Christianity because the people, at least the plebians saw them as heroes, the way the bravely faced up to lions, etc. and then they had all the corrupt senators, fat patricians and decadent youth and, well they naturally turned to Christianity

 

[Kryten]

When Edward Gibbon wrote 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' back in the 1780's he included several long chapters about how the Roman persecutions were wildly exaggerated by the early Christian church. After all, martyrs make good press and you can't have martyrs without a persecution.

This was an incredibly brave thing to do in the 18th century when the Church was far more powerful than it is today, and leads me to believe that he must have got his facts right or he would have been severely flamed (er....perhaps even literally!).

 

[allhailIndia]

Originally posted by Kryten
When Edward Gibbon wrote 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' back in the 1780's he included several long chapters about how the Roman persecutions were wildly exaggerated by the early Christian church. After all, martyrs make good press and you can't have martyrs without a persecution.

This was an incredibly brave thing to do in the 18th century when the Church was far more powerful than it is today, and leads me to believe that he must have got his facts right or he would have been severely flamed (er....perhaps even literally!).

Actually the Roman Catholic Church was quite powerless even in the 18th Century and it was almost "cool" to be an atheist!!

 

[Nahuixtelotzin]

The church at the end of the 18th century wasn't that cruel anymore (although there still were quite a few witch-burnings) but it definitely had more power than today. Tolerance was a key-attitude for many in the "Age of reason" and empiricism wasn't something doubious or persecuted anymore, but I can't think of any important thinker who declared himself to be an atheist back then

 

[Kryten]

You are of course right; he wouldn't have been burnt. BUT, the church was still an important part of the government back then and had considerable power in the House of Lords, so Edward Gibbon was risking his reputation if his facts were wrong (look at all the trouble Charles Darwin had one hundred years later!).

 

[Nahuixtelotzin]

Right, Darwin faced severe opposition but one should not forget that his theory was incompatible with the very heart of Christianity, while studies about early christian communities can't directly conflict with the bible.

 

[Kryten]

True. But saying that the early Christain church was....er....not telling the whole truth about the persecutions also raises questions about the status many of the early martyrs (Gibbon was also dismissive of the miracles claimed by the early church). As you say, while this does not directly conflict with the bible, it does start to undermine the history of the Catholic Church. And if people start to disbelieve the truths of the early Christians, what else would they start to question? I'm sure that this same line of reasoning was going through the minds of the Church authorities and leaders of 1780's, and if they could have ridiculed or disproved Gibbon they would have, thats the risk he took. The fact that they didn't or couldn't implies that his historical facts were basically true, and that most of the Roman persecution was greatly exaggerated.

 

[Nahuixtelotzin]

Well, I'm not so sure. Powerful elites generally are very good at ridiculing if they want, even if the other one has by far the better arguments. I'm pretty sure that there actually were people who critizized Gibbon's ideas, but obviously most people in the religious elite were not shortminded enough to do so

 

[allhailIndia]

I find it hard to believe that the Christians could easily fool so many people into believing false persecutions especially since most of the punishments were held in public.

 

[mcdh]

Originally posted by allhailIndia
I find it hard to believe that the Christians could easily fool so many people into believing false persecutions especially since most of the punishments were held in public.

that's the power of religion.

 

[Crimson Sunrise]

Some historical and biblical accounts don't quite match up, for instance some of the references to Jesus' burial.

Although some exaggeration is inevitable, it is true that Christians were persecuted. The religion gained in popularity as threats to stability, both internal and external, mounted. It seemed to provide the common Roman solace from the violence and chaos of the world around him, until it reached the point where Constantine converted. The rest, as they say, is history.

 

[Octavian X]

In my opinion, the Roman persecutions helped Christianity. My thought is that Romans who wittnessed the extraordianry amount of faith they had in this single God, so much faith that they were willing to die for it, were impressed and joined it. As I see it, there is no other way it could have survived 300 years of that.