Did the Chruch of Rome select writings for the Bible?

[Zzyzx]

.
Did the Chruch of Rome select writings to be included in the Bible?

If so, might that indicate a bias toward writings that were acceptable to / in Rome and/or writings that were in accord with Roman practices and policies?

[2ndpillar]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Dear z,
The canon used by the majority of present day "Christian" churches was brought about in 367 AD by Athanasius, who was a scribe at the Council of Nicaea, convened by Constantine, and who argued for the Trinity abomination. The canon would be just as holy as the Roman church is holy, which would be a stretch under any circumstances.

Prior to the Council of Nicaea, Constantine had 50 bibles produced. There only remains evidence of one of the writings that it contained, and it is not included in the present canon. By the way, the Roman emperor Constantine, was the beast with two horns like a lamb, who was to deceive those who dwell on the earth.

[historia]

Your argument changes the subject completely, which is not what i said.

To be frank, it's hard to understand what, exactly, you are trying to say. You seem to be splitting hairs about what constitutes "political" or "religious" persecution.

Every historian knows that the pagan Romans allowed everybody to worship which god they wanted, because their empire was so wide with so many different cultures that it was not possible to have a single god for everyone

Sure, but every historian also knows that the Romans believed it was important that everyone participate in civic (pagan) religious celebrations and perform sacrifices to ensure the favor of the gods.

The Romans also considered some religious ideas -- like refusing to participate in those celebrations and denying the existence of said gods -- potentially dangerous. Christianity fell into this category.

Or, more precisely, Christians only died at the hands of Roman officials if they went against the law.

Wasn't that implied if we were discussing about roman persecution of Christians?

Not necessarily. "Roman persecution" could also refer to mob action against Christians, for which we also have evidence. So my note here was simply to clarify the scope of your comment.

Back then Christianity that survived to this day submitted to roman law, it followed all its precepts including the sacrifice to roman gods

If they were asked by law to sacrifice to pagan gods they obeyed that order.

So it's your assertion that no orthodox Christians were ever persecuted in the Roman empire for refusing to sacrifice to the Roman gods or the emperor?

Today that order is not in effect and yes today Christianity does not require you to worship pagan gods, and even condemns you to worship other false gods.
That does not matter to our argument though does it?

You seem to want to support your argument with the fallacy that; if the church of today says A today then it said A back then, which we both know it is not true.

You are assuming that just because the theology of today says A it means that Christians will act upon it and be persecuted, which is not true.

To the contrary, my argument is based on a dozen or so early Christian sources, as well as a couple of pagan Roman source, from the 2nd through 4th Century that provide first-hand accounts of these persecutions.

The Christian sources say explicitly that they were persecuted for refusing to worship the emperor/gods in violation of their belief that only God should be worshiped. The Roman sources provide corroborating evidence.

It's on that evidence, and that evidence alone, that I (and the Wikipedia article, the Jones documentary, and Richard Carrier) make the claim that Christians were persecuted for refusing to worship the gods.

It's true that Christians today also believe that you should only worship God, since they have inherited this belief from the early Christians (and ultimately from Judaism). But that is not the starting point in the argument.

Nowhere in the christian text does it say to disobey roman law, but yes we can agree that the Christianity of today could have been persecuted by the Romans if they acted upon their faith but that is besides the point.

The Bible and other early Christian sources are replete with references to the idea that only God should be worshiped. That, of course, is the reason why Christians today believe worshiping other gods or rulers is wrong. And that's why Christians in the 3rd and 4th Century believed that too.

So if you can agree that such a belief, if acted upon, could lead to persecution under Decius and Diocletian's edicts, and we have ample evidence from Christian and Roman sources saying orthodox Christians were persecuted for this reason, and we have Wikipedia articles summarizing historians and scholars saying this is why orthodox Christians were persecuted, I have to ask: Why are you continuing to deny this?

Are we discussing how many U-turns did the church do throughout history because there is quite a lot of them.

No, since we should decide historical questions based on the relevant historical evidence, rather than what people may or may not have done 1,500 years later.

The true believers are the ones that get persecuted and go extinct like you pointed out

"True believers" are certainly the ones who face persecution head-on when it comes. But there is no reason to assume true-believing orthodox Christians went "extinct" during these persecutions.

Roman persecution of orthodox Christians in the 3rd and 4th Century was sporadic, unevenly enforced, and limited in duration. Many escaped punishment altogether while some who suffered beatings and imprisonment also survived.

Christians are famous for not acting on their theology basically every single time because they accept they are sinners and do mistakes for their own personal interest. This fits well the church and their brainwashing guilt cycle to make the believer think he is unworthy and thus ask the priest for guidance.

This was the church of Rome main objective, to take away the control from the people and give it to the few church leaders which in turn give it to the state, the emperor by cutting deals with him.
How do you think that they get away with any crime they commit back then and today?

This kind of hyperbole makes your argument look desperate.

"Jones documentary and the Wikipedia article"
They are all assuming that Eusebius is not lying when he talks about christian persecution, they are just giving you a conclusion after that assumption, but both do mention how unreliable Eusebius is and thus you should take that assumption with a grain of salt.

First of all, historians take every historical source with a "grain of salt." Critically assessing sources and taking into account their biases is part and partial to good scholarship.

As I understand it, the scholarly consensus concerning Eusebius on this point is that he is likely exaggerating the numbers of Christians who were persecuted (he described "great multitudes" being imprisoned or killed). But I am not aware of any scholar who thinks Eusebius simply made-up the persecution out of whole cloth, in part because:

Second, the scholarly sources cited by the Wikipedia article are not reliant solely on Eusebius. There are a dozen or more primary sources that together tell us about Christian persecution in the 2nd through 4th centuries.

Why should I or anyone else reading this thread take your unsubstantiated opinions over the conclusions of these scholars?

Simply following a different religion was not a crime in and of itself in ancient Rome (as we've already established). But Christians, according to Carrier, were persecuted because of their beliefs -- in particular their rejection of the Roman gods.

Yes their beliefs brought them in trouble with pagan influential people but as carrier said, it was not a crime and the "persecuted" is referring to people who disagreed with the Christians not by the roman authorities.

I think you mean to say the "persecutors." Here is the full quote from Carrier again with a little added context:

[The Roman and Persian empires] conquered for greed and power, rarely for any declared religious reasons, and actually sought to integrate foreign religions into their civilization, rather than seeking to destroy them. People were generally not killed because they practiced a different religion. Indeed, the Christians were persecuted for denying that the popular gods existed — not for following a different religion.

Clearly he is talking about Roman authorities persecuting Christians because of their beliefs. Consider this especially in the light of your other comments:

When we say a group is persecuted by the Romans we mean the roman authorities, even you mentioned the edicts so don't make the u-turn now and change your claim to be persecution by any roman citizen outside of the law.

Except apparently when Richard Carrier says it, in which case it's now just "pagan influential people."

Again, why should we take your opinions over Carrier's?

When we say Romans we mean the roman authorities, it is implied. If you meant something else you are being dishonest, because when we generalize(Romans) everybody knows we are talking about the roman authorities in general.

This is evidence against your idea that Christianity was persecuted by the Romans but instead by believers of other faiths, you are basically assuming that believers of other faiths were all Romans and that there were no christian Romans, which is ridiculous.

What if I tell you that most Christians were Romans in ancient Rome.

You're rambling again based on incorrect assumptions about my argument.

The emperor niece(the first historical Catholic saint, Flavia Domatilla(also roman)), donated the catacombs to the christian community in Rome in the late first century.
= Christianity was a very rich and influential community(roman) around 90-100 AD, enough to make the royal family want their support in roman politics.

You don't donate land unless money is not enough in ancient Rome.

Unless you are providing a cemetery, in which case only land would be sufficient.

All the evidence points to a very powerful institution called Christianity in the late first century.

Putting aside the dubious claim that one example constitutes "all the evidence," let's see what the ancient Roman historian Cassius Dio (Hist 67.14) has to say about Flavia Domatilla:

And the same year Domitian slew, along with many others, Flavius Clemens the consul, although he was a cousin and had to wife Flavia Domitilla, who was also a relative of the emperor's. The charge brought against them both was that of atheism, a charge on which many others who drifted into Jewish ways were condemned. Some of these were put to death, and the rest were at least deprived of their property. Domitilla was merely banished to Pandateria.

It appears that the mere charge of believing in Judaism or Christianity could cause a member of the royal family to lose their property, be banished, or even be killed at the direction of the emperor. So much for Christianity being a "powerful institution."

[Willum]

[Replying to historia]

There were atheists in those days. A lot of them, despite propaganda.
Atheists who were not persecuted or killed for not sacrificing or participating or worshiping.

I suspect these persecuted Christians did something wrong and then wrote it was about religion to gain sympathy.

But that was a long and beautiful argument.
Pesky reality!

[Tetragrammaton]

Your argument changes the subject completely, which is not what i said.

To be frank, it's hard to understand what, exactly, you are trying to say. You seem to be splitting hairs about what constitutes "political" or "religious" persecution.

You claimed that the religion was the reason for early Christianity persecution(killed), I disagreed since you provided no evidence to suggest that orthodox Christianity was persecuted(killed) at all.

Every historian knows that the pagan Romans allowed everybody to worship which god they wanted, because their empire was so wide with so many different cultures that it was not possible to have a single god for everyone

Sure, but every historian also knows that the Romans believed it was important that everyone participate in civic (pagan) religious celebrations and perform sacrifices to ensure the favor of the gods.

Yes but you skipped the part that this was only in effect for 6 months, not enough time to persecute anybody.
The edicts are not evidence of persecution, but evidence that IF the church of Rome acted on their faith and the edict lasted long enough it WOULD have been persecuted.
There is no evidence that the church of Rome acted upon their beliefs in any way if eusebius historical account is ignored as being unreliable.

The Romans also considered some religious ideas -- like refusing to participate in those celebrations and denying the existence of said gods -- potentially dangerous. Christianity fell into this category.

That is your misguided opinion, there is no evidence that pagan emperors viewed non pagan citizens as "potentially dangerous." in Rome.
There is evidence to suggest that most of them did not care at all as long as they followed roman law.

I can agree that some Christians in the roman empire COULD be seen as trouble but there is no evidence that suggest that the church of Rome(Orthodox) and the Christians that it controlled was "potentially dangerous."

Or, more precisely, Christians only died at the hands of Roman officials if they went against the law.

Wasn't that implied if we were discussing about roman persecution of Christians?

Not necessarily. "Roman persecution" could also refer to mob action against Christians, for which we also have evidence. So my note here was simply to clarify the scope of your comment.

My comment was in reply to what you said previously in post 41 which contradicts what you just said here.
In it you clearly say that it was roman authorities persecution that would kill Christians:

This persecution was directed at all Christians -- orthodox, Gnostics, or otherwise. But the Gnostics largely escaped persecution by giving in to Roman demands rather than facing martyrdom. Whereas orthodox Christians refused to give in and were killed for their faith.

You got this idea from easebius and not from other sources like you claimed.

If there are other valid sources for this claim please present it.

My argument was simple, there is no evidence for the church of Rome(orthodox) being persecuted at any period in pagan roman history if eusebius account is ignored.

Back then Christianity that survived to this day submitted to roman law, it followed all its precepts including the sacrifice to roman gods

If they were asked by law to sacrifice to pagan gods they obeyed that order.

So it's your assertion that no orthodox Christians were ever persecuted in the Roman empire for refusing to sacrifice to the Roman gods or the emperor?

The burden of proof is not on me but on you who asserted that: "This persecution was directed at all Christians...Whereas orthodox Christians refused to give in and were killed for their faith."

I say it again;
Where is the proof?(if eusebius account is not reliable)

The edict was in effect only for 6 months and there is no evidence apart from eusebius that anybody was even killed in rome because of it.

To the contrary, my argument is based on a dozen or so early Christian sources, as well as a couple of pagan Roman source, from the 2nd through 4th Century that provide first-hand accounts of these persecutions.

The Christian sources say explicitly that they were persecuted for refusing to worship the emperor/gods in violation of their belief that only God should be worshiped. The Roman sources provide corroborating evidence.

Please present them.

The Bible and other early Christian sources are replete with references to the idea that only God should be worshiped. That, of course, is the reason why Christians today believe worshiping other gods or rulers is wrong. And that's why Christians in the 3rd and 4th Century believed that too.

Present evidence that Orthodox Christianity(in Rome) acted on those beliefs during the 6 month edict or the Diocletianic edicts?

Up until now, the only evidence presented were that the roman authorities made laws that were against a particular christian belief, but not that the Orthodox Christians acted on those beliefs and were killed.

Once eusebius account is ignored as unreliable as most historians know it is, the 303 persecution could be seen as a persecution of Christians against the Gnostic Christians in Egypt/east twisted by eusebius for his advantage.

So if you can agree that such a belief, if acted upon, could lead to persecution under Decius and Diocletian's edicts, and we have ample evidence from Christian and Roman sources saying orthodox Christians were persecuted for this reason, and we have Wikipedia articles summarizing historians and scholars saying this is why orthodox Christians were persecuted, I have to ask: Why are you continuing to deny this?

we don't have evidence of orthodox Christians being persecuted.
btw Wikipedia is not a reliable source(just for your info)

Are we discussing how many U-turns did the church do throughout history because there is quite a lot of them.

No, since we should decide historical questions based on the relevant historical evidence, rather than what people may or may not have done 1,500 years later.

What it did later is proof that it was a normal practice for the church of Rome to make u-turns on things including to add pagan things to doctrine like Easter and Christmas which were not part of Christianity but very popular in Rome since the Caesar cult used to do those exact same feasts.
The church in Rome wanted to be popular and adopted those feast that were popular in Rome.
That is why it makes absolutely no sens to claim that if the emperor issued an edict about sacrifice, the church would act on rejecting it.
It is very very likely they would follow it instead.

The true believers are the ones that get persecuted and go extinct like you pointed out

"True believers" are certainly the ones who face persecution head-on when it comes. But there is no reason to assume true-believing orthodox Christians went "extinct" during these persecutions.

Roman persecution of orthodox Christians in the 3rd and 4th Century was sporadic, unevenly enforced, and limited in duration. Many escaped punishment altogether while some who suffered beatings and imprisonment also survived.

orthodox Christians followed what the church of Rome ordered, and it never ordered to not follow roman law as far as we know.
You presented no evidence of this apart from eusebius which I rejected for the reasons explained.

"True believers" = non orthodox Christians, like the Gnostics and they did get persecuted.

First of all, historians take every historical source with a "grain of salt." Critically assessing sources and taking into account their biases is part and partial to good scholarship.

We agree, but eusebius is the exception, one must take eusebius with a truckload of salt.

When a historian admits he uses falsehood, it means that in his own time everybody knew about it and he is just explaining himself.

"How far it may be proper to use falsehood
as a medium for the benefit of those
who require to be deceived;"
--- Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea, (circa 324)

Some historians call him the forger, because he is clearly writing fiction in some cases.

Why should I or anyone else reading this thread take your unsubstantiated opinions over the conclusions of these scholars?

The scholars do not share your conclusion, you are presuming it does.

No historian ever claimed with that the church of Rome(later Orthodox) was persecuted but that Christians in general could have been persecuted for various political reasons, not because they were Christians per se.

I think you mean to say the "persecutors." Here is the full quote from Carrier again with a little added context:

[The Roman and Persian empires] conquered for greed and power, rarely for any declared religious reasons, and actually sought to integrate foreign religions into their civilization, rather than seeking to destroy them. People were generally not killed because they practiced a different religion. Indeed, the Christians were persecuted for denying that the popular gods existed — not for following a different religion.

the Christians were persecuted for denying that the popular gods existed
Not by roman authorities except in 303, which again for political reasons and mostly in the east where the Gnostic Christians were popular, not in Rome(Orthodox).
One has to wonder why the east(Alexandria) did suffer more then other provinces, and suspicion is that the church of Rome had something to do with it.

Clearly he is talking about Roman authorities persecuting Christians because of their beliefs. Consider this especially in the light of your other comments:

When we say a group is persecuted by the Romans we mean the roman authorities, even you mentioned the edicts so don't make the u-turn now and change your claim to be persecution by any roman citizen outside of the law.

Except apparently when Richard Carrier says it, in which case it's now just "pagan influential people."

You are generalizing to mud the argument here, you failed to address the point that nowhere have you provided any evidence that the church of Rome was persecuted at any point in history.

I am willing to grant that pagan supporters could have persecuted the church of Rome for obvious reasons but not the roman authorities, not until you support your claims at least.
Carrier says nothing about the church of Rome which was your claim, thus this point is irrelevant.

Again, why should we take your opinions over Carrier's?

I did not place my opinion, I just correct your mistakes, since they were not supporting your claims.

The...
...You don't donate land unless money is not enough in ancient Rome.

Unless you are providing a cemetery, in which case only land would be sufficient.

What kind of nonsense is that?
How many cemeteries did people donate to you?
In ancient times land was more valuable, the catacombs(later given name) were not called catacombs when they were donated, they were underground tombs that only the rich could afford.
The christian community were donated an underground mausoleum of sorts for their most prestigious members to bury in.
If you look at the level of art and size in that catacomb, it is evident that it is given to powerful and influential people of those times.

All the evidence points to a very powerful institution called Christianity in the late first century.

It appears that the mere charge of believing in Judaism or Christianity could cause a member of the royal family to lose their property, be banished, or even be killed at the direction of the emperor. So much for Christianity being a "powerful institution."

Well it seems clear to me that you know nothing about emperor Domitian and how hated he was by Cassius Dio and the rest of the senators.

Emperor Flavius Domitian was killing left right and center people(especially senators who he hated), but mostly those who threatened his power after the failure against the Dacians.

There is also some who think that Flavius Clemens the consul is also the Saint Clement of Rome(the first historical Pope), since it would explain why Flavia Domatilla and her children were among the Flavian saints.

If Christianity was influential as the evidence points it to be, then it makes perfect sens for Domitian to kill Flavius Clemens(a family male member with a lot of influence in rome) since he could have taken his throne.

(If he did take his throne Christianity could have become a state religion in the late first century which is a disturbing thought)

The claim of atheism was a pretext to kill him, most historians agree on this regardless if he was the pope/influential or not.

[historia]

The edicts are not evidence of persecution, but evidence that IF the church of Rome acted on their faith and the edict lasted long enough it WOULD have been persecuted.

Very good, this is progress!

Although I have to point out your equating orthodox Christianity with the "church of Rome" is unusual and anachronistic. Orthodox Christians lived in all areas of the empire. And, in the 3rd and 4th centuries, the bishop of Rome was simply one patriarch among many.

The edict was in effect only for 6 months and there is no evidence apart from eusebius that anybody was even killed in rome because of it.

This is wrong on all accounts.

First of all, persecution should not be equated with "killing," as you did throughout this latest post. Religious persecution can include killing, of course, but also other harassing actions, like beatings, imprisonment, destroying churches and scriptures, and so on.

Second, it's not clear to me what you mean by "the" edict or why you've come to the conclusion that any of the edicts (plural) we've been discussing only lasted six months.

Go back and read the Wikipedia articles again. The edict that Decius issued lasted nearly 18 months. The emperor Valerian (who we haven't discussed) re-issued Decius' edict a few years later, which remained in effect for three years. The (four) edicts issued under Diocletian were in effect in parts of the empire for 10 years. And that doesn't include earlier regional persecutions of Christians in which Roman governors were involved, which we have yet to discuss.

Clearly, that is more than sufficient time for persecutions to take place.

Finally, your assertion that there is no evidence for orthodox Christian persecution apart from Eusebius is unfounded.

There are a number of early orthodox Christian writers who tell us what happened during the persecutions of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries: Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, and Firmillian describe the earlier regional persecutions, which they experienced first-hand. Cyprian, Dionysis of Alexandria, Lactantius, Arnobius, and Peter of Alexandria describe the imperial persecutions under Decius, Valerian, and Diocletian, which they lived through.

Let's look at a few examples from that list.

Tertullian's most famous work is his Apology, written to the "rulers of the Roman Empire . . . occupying there all but the highest position in the state" -- by which he means the regional governors.

In it he attempts to show that Christians were not deserving of the (regional) persecutions that occurred in his day. He notes that Christians were forced by these officials to perform sacrifices to the gods/emperor, and were punished when they did not:

"You do not worship the gods," you say; "and you do not offer sacrifices for the emperors." Well, we do not offer sacrifice for others, for the same reason that we do not for ourselves--namely, that your gods are not at all the objects of our worship.

So we are accused of sacrilege and treason. This is the chief ground of charge against us--nay, it is the sum-total of our offending; . . . We do not worship your gods, because we know that there are no such beings.

. . .

When we are called therefore to sacrifice, we resolutely refuse, relying on the knowledge we possess, by which we are well assured of the real objects to whom these services are offered, under profaning of images and the deification of human names.

Some, indeed, think it a piece of insanity that, when it is in our power to offer sacrifice at once, and go away unharmed, holding as ever our convictions, we prefer an obstinate persistence in our confession to our safety.

. . .

You have been led, no doubt, by these same evil spirits to compel us to offer sacrifice for the well-being of the emperor; and you are under a necessity of using force, just as we are under an obligation to face the dangers of it.

. . .

How often you inflict gross cruelties on Christians, partly because it is your own inclination, and partly in obedience to the laws! How often, too, the hostile mob, paying no regard to you, takes the law into its own hand, and assails us with stones and flames!

Another useful example is Cyprian. He lived through the persecution of Decius and was apparently martyred during the Valerian persecution.

Writing after the persecution of Decius, he praised the orthodox Christians who were martyred for refusing to perform the sacrifices, while chastising those who gave in and sacrificed or procured a libellus, a certificate, saying they had performed the ritual.

Bravely you have resisted the world: you have afforded a glorious spectacle in the sight of God; you have been an example to your brethren that shall follow you . . . those illustrious hands, which had only been accustomed to divine works, have resisted the sacrilegious sacrifices . . . Your head has remained free from the impious and wicked veil with which the captive heads of those who sacrificed were there veiled.

...

Nor let those persons flatter themselves that they need repent the less, who, although they have not polluted their hands with abominable sacrifices, yet have defiled their conscience with certificates.

In a different letter, Cyprian recounts a report from Rome during the early days of the Valerian persecution, noting that, among others, that Xistus (or Sixtus), the bishop of Rome, himself was martyred. Roman prefects, he tells us, oversaw the persecution.

Valerian had sent a rescript to the Senate, to the effect that bishops and presbyters and deacons should immediately be punished; but that senators, and men of importance, and Roman knights, should lose their dignity, and moreover be deprived of their property; and if, when their means were taken away, they should persist in being Christians, then they should also lose their heads; but that matrons should be deprived of their property, and sent into banishment.

Moreover, people of Caesar's household, whoever of them had either confessed before, or should now confess, should have their property confiscated, and should be sent in chains by assignment to Caesar's estates.

The Emperor Valerian also added to this address a copy of the letters which he sent to the presidents of the provinces concerning us; which letters we are daily hoping will come, waiting according to the strength of our faith for the endurance of suffering, and expecting from the help and mercy of the Lord the crown of eternal life.

But know that Xistus was martyred in the cemetery on the eighth day of the Ides of August, and with him four deacons. Moreover, the prefects in the City are daily urging on this persecution; so that, if any are presented to them, they are martyred, and their property claimed by the treasury.

Dionysius of Alexandria recounts the persecution under Decius as it affected the orthodox Christians in Alexandria:

Already, indeed, the edict had arrived; and it was of such a tenor as almost perfectly to correspond with what was intimated to us beforetime by our Lord, setting before us the most dreadful horrors, so as, if that were possible, to cause the very elect to stumble.

All verily were greatly alarmed, and of the more notable there were some, and these a large number, who speedily accommodated themselves to the decree in fear; others, who were engaged in the public service, were drawn into compliance by the very necessities of their official duties; others were dragged on to it by their friends, and on being called by name approached the impure and unholy sacrifices; others yielded pale and trembling, as if they were not to offer sacrifice, but to be themselves the sacrifices and victims for the idols, so that they were jeered by the large multitude surrounding the scene, and made it plain to all that they were too cowardly either to face death or to offer the sacrifices.

But there were others who hurried up to, the altars with greater alacrity, stoutly asserting that they had never been Christians at all before; of whom our Lord's prophetic declaration holds most true, that it will be hard for such to be saved. Of the rest, some followed one or other of these parties already mentioned; some fled, and some were seized.

And of these, some went as far in keeping their faith as bonds and imprisonment; and certain persons among them endured imprisonment even for several days, and then after all abjured the faith before coming into the court of justice; while others, after holding out against the torture for a time, sank before the prospect of further sufferings.

Yet another orthodox Christian writer, Lactantius, described the persecution under Diocletian:

And while [Diocletian] sacrificed, some attendants of his, who were Christians, stood by, and they put the immortal sign on their foreheads . . . . At length Tages, the chief of the soothsayers, either from guess or from his own observation, said, "There are profane persons here, who obstruct the rites."

Diocletian, in furious passion, ordered not only all who were assisting at the holy ceremonies, but also all who resided within the palace, to sacrifice, and, in case of their refusal, to be scourged. And further, by letters to the commanding officers, he enjoined that all soldiers should be forced to the like impiety, under pain of being dismissed the service.

...

[T]he prefect, together with chief commanders, tribunes, and officers of the treasury, came to the church in Nicomedia, and the gates having been forced open, they searched everywhere for an image of the Divinity. The books of the Holy Scriptures were found, and they were committed to the flames; the utensils and furniture of the church were abandoned to pillage: all was rapine, confusion, tumult.

...

Then the Pretorian Guards came in battle array, with axes and other iron instruments, and having been let loose everywhere, they in a few hours leveled that very lofty edifice with the ground.

Next day an edict was published, depriving the Christians of all honours and dignities; ordaining also that, without any distinction of rank or degree, they should be subjected to tortures, and that every suit at law should be received against them; while, on the other hand, they were debarred from being plaintiffs in questions of wrong, adultery, or theft; and, finally, that they should neither be capable of freedom, nor have right of suffrage.

...

Presbyters and other officers of the Church were seized, without evidence by witnesses or confession, condemned, and together with their families led to execution. In burning alive, no distinction of sex or age was regarded; and because of their great multitude, they were not burnt one after another, but a herd of them were encircled with the same fire; and servants, having millstones tied about their necks, were cast into the sea.

Nor was the persecution less grievous on the rest of the people of God; for the judges, dispersed through all the temples, sought to compel every one to sacrifice. The prisons were crowded; tortures, hitherto unheard of, were invented; and lest justice should be inadvertently administered to a Christian, altars were placed in the courts of justice, hard by the tribunal, that every litigant might offer incense before his cause could be heard.

Here, then, we have enough evidence to show that orthodox Christians were, in fact, persecuted (including being killed) by Roman authorities during these persecutions, and this was the direct result of the Christians refusing to perform sacrifices to the gods/emperor due to it being a direct violation of their beliefs.

So if you can agree that such a belief, if acted upon, could lead to persecution under Decius and Diocletian's edicts, and we have ample evidence from Christian and Roman sources saying orthodox Christians were persecuted for this reason, and we have Wikipedia articles summarizing historians and scholars saying this is why orthodox Christians were persecuted, I have to ask: Why are you continuing to deny this?

we don't have evidence of orthodox Christians being persecuted.
btw Wikipedia is not a reliable source(just for your info)

Clearly there is evidence, it appears you just weren't familiar with it. But, if you don't like Wikipedia, let's look at Encyclopedia Britannica instead:

Before Decius’s reign, persecution of the Christians in the empire had been sporadic and local, but about the beginning of January 250 he issued an edict ordering all citizens to perform a religious sacrifice in the presence of commissioners. A large number of Christians defied the government, for which the bishops of Rome, Jerusalem, and Antioch lost their lives and many others were arrested.

[Valerian] vigorously renewed Decius’s persecution of the Christians, executing, among others, Bishop Cyprian of Carthage and Bishop Xystus (Sixtus II) of Rome.

The end of the [Diocletian's] reign was darkened by the last major persecution of the Christians. The reasons for this persecution are uncertain, but various explanations have been advanced: the possible influence of Galerius, a fanatic follower of the traditional Roman religion; the desire to restore complete unity, without tolerance of a foreign cult that was seen as separatist and of individuals who were forming a kind of state within the state; the influence of anti-Christian philosophers such as Porphyry and governors such as Hierocles on the scholarly class and on the imperial court; the fear of an alienation of rebellious armies from emperor worship; or perhaps the disturbances provoked by the Christians themselves, who were agitated by doctrinal controversies.

At any rate, some or all of these factors led Diocletian to publish the four edicts of 303–304, promising all the while that he would not spill blood. His vow went unheeded, however, and the persecutions spread through the empire with an extreme violence that did not succeed in annihilating Christianity but caused the faith of the martyrs to blaze forth instead.

As you can see, these Britannica articles say the same thing as the Wikipedia articles. But the Wikipedia articles are doubly useful in that they also cite dozens of scholarly books and articles in support of their assertions, including the works of W.H.C. Frend, Timothy Barnes, and G.E.M. de Sainte-Croix.

So again, I'll reiterate the question above: If you can agree that orthodox Christian belief, if acted upon, could lead to persecution under these Roman edicts, and we have ample evidence from Christian and Roman sources saying orthodox Christians were persecuted for this reason, and we have reliable encyclopedia articles summarizing historians and scholars saying this is why orthodox Christians were persecuted, I have to ask: Why continue to deny this?

The scholars do not share your conclusion, you are presuming it does.

I'm making no such presumption. Encyclopedia articles like the one in Britannica consciously present the scholarly consensus on any given issue, while the Wikipedia articles cite dozens of scholars. My conclusions simply follow the evidence and the scholarly consensus.

By comparison, you've cited no scholars in support of your opinions, and the one source you did cite, a BBC documentary, said nearly the opposite of what you claimed.

Here is the full quote from Carrier again with a little added context:

[The Roman and Persian empires] conquered for greed and power, rarely for any declared religious reasons, and actually sought to integrate foreign religions into their civilization, rather than seeking to destroy them. People were generally not killed because they practiced a different religion. Indeed, the Christians were persecuted for denying that the popular gods existed — not for following a different religion.

the Christians were persecuted for denying that the popular gods existed
Not by roman authorities except in 303, which again for political reasons and mostly in the east where the Gnostic Christians were popular, not in Rome(Orthodox).
One has to wonder why the east(Alexandria) did suffer more then other provinces, and suspicion is that the church of Rome had something to do with it.

Carrier says nothing about the church of Rome which was your claim, thus this point is irrelevant.

First of all, most scholars and historians usually just refer to orthodox Christians as "Christians." Had Carrier wanted to say that Gnostic Christians were persecuted he would have drawn that distinction.

Second, what he is saying here is exactly what the the primary sources, scholars, and encyclopedia articles above have also said: orthodox Christians were persecuted because they denied the existence of the Roman gods and refused to worship and perform sacrifices.

Finally, please provide evidence to support your assertion that Alexandria suffered the worst persecutions, that this was principally directed at Gnostics, and scholars who believe that "the church of Rome had something to do with it."

Putting aside the dubious claim that one example constitutes "all the evidence," let's see what the ancient Roman historian Cassius Dio (Hist 67.14) has to say about Flavia Domatilla:

And the same year Domitian slew, along with many others, Flavius Clemens the consul, although he was a cousin and had to wife Flavia Domitilla, who was also a relative of the emperor's. The charge brought against them both was that of atheism, a charge on which many others who drifted into Jewish ways were condemned. Some of these were put to death, and the rest were at least deprived of their property. Domitilla was merely banished to Pandateria.

It appears that the mere charge of believing in Judaism or Christianity could cause a member of the royal family to lose their property, be banished, or even be killed at the direction of the emperor. So much for Christianity being a "powerful institution."

. . .

The claim of atheism was a pretext to kill him, most historians agree on this regardless if he was the pope/influential or not.

Whether it was a trumped-up charge or not is beside the point. Clearly, not believing in the gods was a charge someone could level against you -- for political reasons or otherwise -- which could result in your punishment or death. By comparison, nobody was killed under Domitian on the charge they worshiped Jupiter!

And, as Dio rightly notes, this "atheism" was associated with "Jewish ways," since Judaism, of course, rejects a belief in the gods. The charge of "atheism" was leveled against later Christians as well.

This is consistent with what we've seen above. Christians were persecuted for not believing in and, more importantly, not worshiping/sacrificing to the gods/emperor, especially when pressed by Roman governors or emperors to do so. The Romans believed that these sacrifices and religious ceremonies were critical to ensuring the favor of the gods and thus the continued prosperity of the state, so that anyone who refused was jeopardizing the empire.

In that way, from the first century to the fourth, although some aristocrats may have had sympathies with, or even converted to, Christianity, their positions could be (and during these sporadic persecutions were) in jeopardy if the rulers decided to turn against them.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 75 by historia]

What a tragedy. Isn't it wonderful, that only a few short years later, after this monstrous persecution of Christians, that the Roman Empire re-wrote the Bible so that it would never have to persecute Christians again?

Why Jesus himself capitulated saying you should, "Render to Caesar what is Caesars'," and

All of you must obey the government rulers. Everyone who rules was given the power to rule by God. And all those who rule now were given that power by God. 2 So anyone who is against the government is really against something God has commanded. Those who are against the government bring punishment on themselves. 3 People who do right don’t have to fear the rulers. But those who do wrong must fear them. Do you want to be free from fearing them? Then do only what is right, and they will praise you.

In fact this seem written very well to suit the topic at hand doesn't it? Almost as if it were written for the very instance time we are discussing?

Sorry, the piece of time you are trying not to discus, but, alas is parameterized in the OP.

Oh, happy day when Rome re-wrote Christianity internally, just as it re-wrote so many other foreign religions to suit its conquering and pacification needs.

[Tetragrammaton]

The edicts are not evidence of persecution, but evidence that IF the church of Rome acted on their faith and the edict lasted long enough it WOULD have been persecuted.

Very good, this is progress!

I don't think so since you constantly seem to conflate the 2 as 1.
All the quotations thus far you provided show no persecution of the Christians because they followed the christian doctrine of the church of rome but persecution because they did not follow roman law.

I did not mean that the church of Rome at the time is the church of today, it changed and adapted a lot since then but it originated mostly from the church of Rome and those that supported it's doctrine.

All I meant to say is that if believers believed something which was not in accordance to roman law they WOULD be persecuted.

There is no evidence that the church of rome did order their believers to not follow roman law though, which is the assumption you are making.

Although I have to point out your equating orthodox Christianity with the "church of Rome" is unusual and anachronistic. Orthodox Christians lived in all areas of the empire. And, in the 3rd and 4th centuries, the bishop of Rome was simply one patriarch among many.

Ok now you have proven that you don't even know what orthodox Christianity is.

There was no orthodox Christianity during the persecutions so you cannot call every single christian church/community part of the orthodox church.

There were many churches with different philosophical theologies, some with a crucified Jesus, some with a Jesus that didn't die on a cross, some with a Jesus that did not die at all but lived peacefully and some with an allegorical non existent Jesus.
There was no real restrictions about doctrinal conformity back then until the church of Rome decided to create conformity/orthodoxy with the help of the emperor.

So when I say church of Rome, I am referring for the church that will win later on and exterminate the rest by winning the support of the emperor.

All the churches in the roman empire who sided with the church of Rome are the pre-orthodox Christianity.

The edict was in effect only for 6 months and there is no evidence apart from eusebius that anybody was even killed in rome because of it.

This is wrong on all accounts.

we will see.

First of all, persecution should not be equated with "killing," as you did throughout this latest post.

You made the claim about the killing of Christians and I replied to it and we have been discussing it all along.

Simply because I ignore when you twist the argument away from killings, it does not mean you are right to change subject.

here let me remind you about your own claim:

This persecution was directed at all Christians -- orthodox, Gnostics, or otherwise. But the Gnostics largely escaped persecution by giving in to Roman demands rather than facing martyrdom. Whereas orthodox Christians refused to give in and were killed for their faith.

Again I just objected to this claim and explained that there is no evidence of this.
It is all your bias.

Second, it's not clear to me what you mean by "the" edict or why you've come to the conclusion that any of the edicts (plural) we've been discussing only lasted six months.

Go back and read the Wikipedia articles again. The edict that Decius issued lasted nearly 18 months.

There I was referring to the first edict of 250 which was only in effect about 18 months with governors not really knowing how harsh should they be on it.
It is also noted that at the last year of the emperor Decius this edict was basically ignored or not enforced by governors.
6 months is a fair assumption of total persecution time for everybody including Christians that did not follow roman law.
Again, a persecution against law breakers, not against Christians.

Not a valid evidence for Christian persecution.
There is no passage in the gospels that says to not follow roman law.
So an argument could be made that those Christians that refused were not really Christians that follow their doctrine.
The church of Rome made sure that the Christians would follow roman law anyway, it had too much to lose if it did not.

The emperor Valerian (who we haven't discussed) re-issued Decius' edict a few years later, which remained in effect for three years.

Yes but they were not a christian persecution but a persecution against those who break the law.

The (four) edicts issued under Diocletian were in effect in parts of the empire for 10 years. And that doesn't include earlier regional persecutions of Christians in which Roman governors were involved, which we have yet to discuss.

Clearly, that is more than sufficient time for persecutions to take place.

Yes enough time but not for your original claim, no christian died because of their faith, but because they did not follow it, since Jesus says to follow roman law not to rebel against it.

Finally, your assertion that there is no evidence for orthodox Christian persecution apart from Eusebius is unfounded.

They all are either christian apologetics or not saying directly the reasons for the persecutions and let the christians believe it was for their faith.

All the quotes are easily explained if one realizes that they were against the law, not against chirstians.

Orthodox Christianity that emerged after Constantine is the Church of Rome and it's supporters that followed roman law, and all the persecutions were done against those Christians that did not, even if christian apologetics tried to twist this for their own political advantage.

Let's look at a few examples from that list.

yes shall we:

Tertullian's most famous work is his Apology, written to the "rulers of the Roman Empire . . . occupying there all but the highest position in the state" -- by which he means the regional governors.

In it he attempts to show that Christians were not deserving of the (regional) persecutions that occurred in his day. He notes that Christians were forced by these officials to perform sacrifices to the gods/emperor, and were punished when they did not:....

Again Christians like every other roman citizen was forced to sacrifice.

This is not evidence of a christian persecution, it is standard roman practice to enforce their laws.

What you thought that a belief trumped roman law?
If the Romans did not punish the Christians that disobeyed roman law, then they would be humiliated with the other good roman citizens that obeyed the law.

I am amazed that they did not just ban Christianity from the roman empire because of this alone.

But I guess the christian community was too numerous and influential in the roman empire to do that.

How often you inflict gross cruelties on Christians, partly because it is your own inclination, and partly in obedience to the laws! How often, too, the hostile mob, paying no regard to you, takes the law into its own hand, and assails us with stones and flames!

"partly in obedience to the laws!" is a lie, just read the edict, everybody has to sacrifice not just Christians.
Inserting the hate some Christians brought upon themselves by insulting the other gods as if it has any merit regarding their disobedience to roman law is very cheap.

Another useful example is Cyprian. He lived through the persecution of Decius and was apparently martyred during the Valerian persecution.

Writing after the persecution of Decius, he praised the orthodox Christians

Wrong
There were no orthodox Christians at that time, 325 is where the orthodox idea starts.

Bravely you have resisted the world: you have afforded a glorious spectacle in the sight of God; you have been an example to your brethren that shall follow you . . . those illustrious hands, which had only been accustomed to divine works, have resisted the sacrilegious sacrifices . . . Your head has remained free from the impious and wicked veil with which the captive heads of those who sacrificed were there veiled.

Cyprian:
"He refused to sacrifice to the pagan deities and firmly professed Christ."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprian

There you have the word of a believer that did not follow Jesus teaching to obey roman law.
Religion does make people insane sometimes Cyprian was one of them.

Nor let those persons flatter themselves that they need repent the less, who, although they have not polluted their hands with abominable sacrifices, yet have defiled their conscience with certificates.

Does he think that he knows the mind of god to know all these things, since they are not in the teachings of Jesus.

In a different letter, Cyprian recounts a report from Rome during the early days of the Valerian persecution, noting that, among others, that Xistus (or Sixtus), the bishop of Rome, himself was martyred. Roman prefects, he tells us, oversaw the persecution.

Again does not specify why but we can assume that they, just as him did not follow roman law and neither Jesus teaching to follow roman law.

Moreover, people of Caesar's household, whoever of them had either confessed before, or should now confess, should have their property confiscated, and should be sent in chains by assignment to Caesar's estates.

Wonder who are those Christians "of Caesar's household" with "their property"?
Do we have a confession here that Christians were among the highest positions of society to be called "of Caesar's household".

Of course this would happen to anyone who disobeyed roman law and not to any christian that followed it.

Dionysius of Alexandria recounts the persecution under Decius as it affected the orthodox Christians in Alexandria:

Another mistake, there are no Orthodox Christians at the time and again it is about Christians who break the law.

Yet another orthodox Christian writer, Lactantius, described the persecution under Diocletian:

Another mistake, there are no Orthodox Christians at the time and again it is about Christians who break the law.

And while [Diocletian] sacrificed, some attendants of his, who were Christians, stood by, and they put the immortal sign on their foreheads . . . . At length Tages, the chief of the soothsayers, either from guess or from his own observation, said, "There are profane persons here, who obstruct the rites."

Another confession of christians amongs the most influencial people in roman society:
"sacrificed, some attendants of his"
"resided within the palace"

Again here the Romans are quite clear it is not because they are Christians but because they disrespect roman law if they act upon their non christian belief which they think it is a christian belief.
...

[T]he prefect, together with chief commanders, tribunes, and officers of the treasury, came to the church in Nicomedia, and the gates having been forced open, they searched everywhere for an image of the Divinity. The books of the Holy Scriptures were found, and they were committed to the flames; the utensils and furniture of the church were abandoned to pillage: all was rapine, confusion, tumult.

This was not roman practice to disturb a holy place and it is unusual that the officers would not know that there are no "image of the Divinity" inside a church, since Christianity well know to be a roman friendly Jewish religion that did not make images of god.

Then the Pretorian Guards came in battle array, with axes and other iron instruments, and having been let loose everywhere, they in a few hours leveled that very lofty edifice with the ground.

Next day an edict was published, depriving the Christians of all honours and dignities; ordaining also that, without any distinction of rank or degree, they should be subjected to tortures, and that every suit at law should be received against them; while, on the other hand, they were debarred from being plaintiffs in questions of wrong, adultery, or theft; and, finally, that they should neither be capable of freedom, nor have right of suffrage.

This account is dubious to say the least and something also has to be said about Nicomedia being the province of the emperor himself so filled with Christians they they composed most of the palace stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthimus_of_Nicomedia

The edict also emerged the day after all this happened so it is quite reasonable that a christian servant offended the emperor in some manner here and the edict was a retaliation to that.

Nor was the persecution less grievous on the rest of the people of God; for the judges, dispersed through all the temples, sought to compel every one to sacrifice. The prisons were crowded; tortures, hitherto unheard of, were invented; and lest justice should be inadvertently administered to a Christian, altars were placed in the courts of justice, hard by the tribunal, that every litigant might offer incense before his cause could be heard.

Sorry I don't buy anything this particular historical account says except the "sought to compel every one to sacrifice."

Who wrote this? link?

Here, then, we have enough evidence to show that orthodox Christians were, in fact, persecuted (including being killed) by Roman authorities during these persecutions, and this was the direct result of the Christians refusing to perform sacrifices to the gods/emperor due to it being a direct violation of their beliefs.

No, you only showed how much you are confused.
-No orthodox Christians existed at this time but the church of rome and those who agree with it's teaching were the pre-orthodox Christians.
-Not only Christians were forced to sacrifice so it is not a christian persecution.
-their beliefs are not christian beliefs, so they were persecuted not for being Christians but for having a perverted interpretation of christianity which did not conform to roman law.

The church of today conformed to roman law, it emerged mainly from the church of Rome and made sure that it's teachings conform to roman law of that day as Willum showed very clearly.

Romans 13:
"All of you must obey the government rulers."

As you can see, these Britannica articles say the same thing as the Wikipedia articles. But the Wikipedia articles are doubly useful in that they also cite dozens of scholarly books and articles in support of their assertions, including the works of W.H.C. Frend, Timothy Barnes, and G.E.M. de Sainte-Croix.

So again, I'll reiterate the question above: If you can agree that orthodox Christian belief, if acted upon, could lead to persecution under these Roman edicts, and we have ample evidence from Christian and Roman sources saying orthodox Christians were persecuted for this reason, and we have reliable encyclopedia articles summarizing historians and scholars saying this is why orthodox Christians were persecuted, I have to ask: Why continue to deny this?

As I said orthodox Christians could only be persecuted if their belief was against roman law and we know for a fact that orthodox Christianity was not against roman law.
However before orthodoxy was formed some(not many) Christians were persecuted yes but it was not because they were pre-orthodox Christians but because their version of non-orthodox Christianity was against roman law.

[The Roman and Persian empires] conquered for greed and power, rarely for any declared religious reasons, and actually sought to integrate foreign religions into their civilization, rather than seeking to destroy them. People were generally not killed because they practiced a different religion. Indeed, the Christians were persecuted for denying that the popular gods existed — not for following a different religion.

The quote is saying exactly what I said, there is absolutely no evidence of Christians being persecuted for their faith(for being Christian believers) but rather because of their faith being different than the christian's faith that conformed to roman law(Christianity of Rome, forefathers of Christianity of today i.e. Orthodox Christianity)

Second, what he is saying here is exactly what the the primary sources, scholars, and encyclopedia articles above have also said: orthodox Christians were persecuted because they denied the existence of the Roman gods and refused to worship and perform sacrifices.

Yes we agree here but that is not what you said before, you claimed that Christians were persecuted for their faith, for being Orthodox Christians.
(which I thought you were referring to the pre-orthodox Christians since I did not know back then that you did not even know what Orthodoxy was about.)

I said they were never persecuted for that reason but because they went against roman law.

Here let me remind you your own claim so maybe you stop changing it:

This persecution was directed at all Christians -- orthodox, Gnostics, or otherwise. But the Gnostics largely escaped persecution by giving in to Roman demands rather than facing martyrdom.

Whereas orthodox Christians refused to give in and were killed for their faith.

[historia]

I thought you were referring to the pre-orthodox Christians

I am. Throughout the thread I've used the term "orthodox" in reference to these Christians. Some scholars prefer the term "proto-orthodox," which is fine by me. If my use of "orthodox" has confused you, I'm happy to use the term "proto-orthodox" instead for added clarity.

Second, what he is saying here is exactly what the the primary sources, scholars, and encyclopedia articles above have also said: orthodox Christians were persecuted because they denied the existence of the Roman gods and refused to worship and perform sacrifices.

Yes we agree here

If we agree here then I'm afraid I don't fully understand your objections elsewhere in your posts.

You have repeatedly asserted that (proto-)orthodox Christians were not persecuted for refusing to sacrifice to the gods/emperor, since, according to you, their theology required them to follow all Roman laws, even if those laws involved sacrificing to the gods/emperor.

So either you agreed here in haste, or your argument appears confused.

but that is not what you said before, you claimed that Christians were persecuted for their faith, for being Orthodox Christians.

I'm afraid we're talking past each other here.

When I say that proto-orthodox Christians were persecuted "for their faith," I don't mean that they were persecuted simply for being Christians, as if Christianity were in-and-of-itself illegal. We already settled that in post 46.

Rather, I'm saying that, when a government (or a mob or anyone else) forces a religious group to engage in religious practices that are expressly against their beliefs, and punishes them if they don't comply, that constitutes persecuting them "for their faith," as that phrase is commonly used.

There was no orthodox Christianity during the persecutions so you cannot call every single christian church/community part of the orthodox church.

Nowhere did I say that every single Christian church in the 3rd and 4th Century was orthodox. Rather, what I said was that those churches that were part of the (proto-) orthodox Christian community were geographically located in every part of the empire, not just in Rome.

There is no passage in the gospels that says to not follow roman law.

So an argument could be made that those Christians that refused were not really Christians that follow their doctrine.

I suppose someone could make such an argument, but that would be a rather silly argument.

First of all, just because no passage in the gospels explicitly says you shouldn't follow Roman law, doesn't, of course, mean the gospels are saying you should follow every Roman law.

Second, there is, of course, more to Christian scripture than just the gospels.

Cyprian, one of the proto-orthodox authors cited above, tells us that sacrificing to the gods is expressly prohibited in Christian scripture, and anyone who did so, even under persecution, was guilty of a grave sin:

Does not the sacred Scripture, which ever arms our faith and strengthens with a voice from heaven the servants of God, say, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve?" [Deuteronomy 6:13] Does it not again show the anger of the divine indignation, and warn of the fear of punishment beforehand, when it says, "They worshipped them whom their fingers have made; and the mean man bows down, and the great man humbles himself, and I will forgive them not?" [Isaiah 2:8-9] And again, God speaks, and says, "He that sacrifices unto any gods, save unto the Lord only, shall be destroyed." [Exodus 22:20]

This is, of course, obvious to anyone with even a passing understanding of the Bible and early Christian literature.

Third, proto-orthodox Christian writers simply did not interpret Matthew 22:21 ("Render unto Casear") or Romans 13:1-6 ("Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities") as blanket commands that they should follow every Roman law even when it violated core Christian beliefs, as you seem to have interpreted it.

Consider these examples:

To God alone we render worship, but in other things we gladly serve you, acknowledging you as kings and rulers of men, and praying that with your kingly power you be found to possess also sound judgment.

Therefore, as to what relates to the honours due to kings or emperors, we have a prescript sufficient, that it behooves us to be in all obedience, according to the apostle's precept, "subject to magistrates, and princes, and powers;" but within the limits of [religious] discipline, so long as we keep ourselves separate from idolatry . . .

So too, Daniel, in all other points submissive to Darius, remained in his duty so long as it was free from danger to his religion.

Then [Paul] goes on also to show how he wishes you to be subject to the powers, bidding you pay "tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom," that is, the things which are Caesar's to Caesar, and the things which are God's to God; but man is the property of God alone.

Peter, no doubt, had likewise said that the king indeed must be honoured, yet so that the king be honoured only when he keeps to his own sphere, when he is far from assuming divine honours.

It is a proper thing, when the written law is not opposed to that of God, for the citizens not to abandon it under pretext of foreign customs; but when the law of nature, that is, the law of God, commands what is opposed to the written law, observe whether reason will not tell us to bid a long farewell to the written code, and to the desire of its legislators, and to give ourselves up to the legislator God.

Besides, what are the laws in accordance with which Celsus [a pagan critic] would have us propitiate the demons? For if he means laws enacted in states, he must show that they are in agreement with the divine laws.

But if that cannot be done, as the laws of many states are quite inconsistent with each other, these laws, therefore, must of necessity either be no laws at all in the proper sense of the word, or else the enactments of wicked men; and these we must not obey, for we must obey God rather than men.

Celsus goes on to say: "[Christians] must make their choice between two alternatives. If they refuse to render due service to the gods, and to respect those who are set over this service . . . let them depart hence with all speed, and leave no posterity behind them, that such a race may become extinct from the face of the earth.

. . .

To this we reply, there appears to us to be no good reason for our leaving this world, except when piety and virtue require it; as when, for example, those who are set as judges, and think that they have power over our lives, place before us the alternative either to live in violation of the commands of Jesus, or to die if we continue obedient to them.

When men command us to act in opposition to the law of God, and in opposition to justice, we should be deterred by no threats or punishments from preferring the command of God to the command of man.

The point these proto-orthodox Christian writers make is plain: Christians are happy -- eager, even -- to follow the law, except when the law violates Christian religious mandates, and especially if they are being forced to worship idols or anything other than God. Such laws, in that case, should not be followed.

It seems to me, then, this "argument," such that it is, is based on the faulty assumption that, just because a critic of Christianity today on an Internet message board can interpret a handful of passages in the Bible to mean that Christians should always obey the Roman laws, that must mean ancient proto-orthodox Christians shared that same interpretation.

But when we look at actual proto-orthodox sources from this time period, as we just did, it turns out that assumption is completely mistaken.

their beliefs are not christian beliefs, so they were persecuted not for being Christians but for having a perverted interpretation of christianity which did not conform to roman law.

It seems to me your objection here is operating on a kind of No True Scotsman fallacy.

You have simply asserted -- without citing any evidence or scholarship -- that proto-orthodox Christians always obeyed every law and were not persecuted for refusing to sacrifice to the gods. And then when I provided evidence to the contrary, you simply claimed those author's views aren't really Christian, or are not really (proto-)orthodox.

But if Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Lactantius, and the other authors I cited -- most of whom were bishops or other leaders in the proto-orthodox community -- are not (proto-) orthodox, or part of the "church of Rome," as you would have it, then no one is! These are all proto-orthodox writers.

It seems clear to me, then, the actual evidence disconfirms your hypothesis; it is high time you discard it.

Who wrote this? link?

All of the authors I'm citing are from the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Their name is listed at the top of each quote, and the name itself is linked to an online version of the letter or work cited.

You made the claim about the killing of Christians and I replied to it and we have been discussing it all along.

Simply because I ignore when you twist the argument away from killings, it does not mean you are right to change subject.

here let me remind you about your own claim:

This persecution was directed at all Christians -- orthodox, Gnostics, or otherwise. But the Gnostics largely escaped persecution by giving in to Roman demands rather than facing martyrdom. Whereas orthodox Christians refused to give in and were killed for their faith.

Again I just objected to this claim and explained that there is no evidence of this.

You seem to have forgotten the history of our conversation. This tangential topic about persecution of Christians was started by you in post post 17, when you said:

News Flash, the Jesus Christians were probably never persecuted in the roman empire because of their faith.

You subsequently clarified that statement to this:

What I meant to say is that Christians were not persecuted for their faith, but for other reasons which are apparent once one starts to see when they were persecuted and by who.

All of my responses have, from the beginning, been directed at these assertions, as I take that to be the question under consideration in our discussion. Your assertion was about persecution -- broadly -- not just killing, and not even just by the government.

I'm responding to a claim you made, not the other way around. So when you say that you are "just" objecting to something I have said, or that what we've been discussing "all along" is a comment I made a good six or seven posts into our discussion (in post 41) is a bit disingenuous.

Now, if you want to shift from discussing the broader topic to now focus narrowly just on this one comment I made, let's do so. Here's the context again:

I'm afraid this is simply mistaken. What Jones is describing in the portion of the video cited above is, in part, the Diocletian Persecution of the early 4th Century. The Wikipedia article on this topic provides a succinct overview:

The Diocletianic or Great Persecution was the last and most severe persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire. In 303, the Emperors Diocletian, Maximian, Galerius, and Constantius issued a series of edicts rescinding the legal rights of Christians and demanding that they comply with traditional Roman religious practices. Later edicts targeted the clergy and ordered all inhabitants to sacrifice to the Roman gods (a policy known as universal sacrifice).

The persecution varied in intensity across the empire—weakest in Gaul and Britain, where only the first edict was applied, and strongest in the Eastern provinces. Persecutory laws were nullified by different emperors at different times, but Constantine and Licinius's Edict of Milan (313) has traditionally marked the end of the persecution.

This persecution was directed at all Christians -- orthodox, Gnostics, or otherwise. But the Gnostics largely escaped persecution by giving in to Roman demands rather than facing martyrdom. Whereas orthodox Christians refused to give in and were killed for their faith.

As you can see, my comment here was in regards to the persecution under Diocletian. The first three edicts Diocletian issued were specifically aimed at Christians, stripping them of legal rights and calling for the destruction of churches and scriptures.

And, as the Wikipedia and Britannica articles point out, this persecution directly lead to the death of proto-orthodox Christians. Not all proto-orthodox Christians, of course, as some evaded persecution, capitulated, or were punished in other ways -- if that is your objection. But some were killed.

[Willum]

[Replying to Tetragrammaton]

Tetra'
Do you think if we open a topic about how rudely Christians were abused by the Roman Empire, we could get Historia/Help to discus if the church of Rome selected writings for the Bible? Or should we just consider it a "win," that obviously the Romans put whatever they wanted into and all our friends can do is to talk about how Romans treated "criminals who happened to be Christian?"

[historia]

[Replying to Willum]

There is really nothing left to discuss on the main topic of the thread.

The OP has been answered, and those who were arguing that emperors were involved in the formation of the canon could not cite any evidence or scholarship to support that assertion.

In fact, the sources that were cited -- two Wikipedia articles on the formation of the canon, the BBC documentary, and the works of Ehrman and Carrier -- said the exact opposite.

Here's a concluding quote from Bart Ehrman -- again, the leading scholar today in North American on the text of the Bible, who also happens to be an atheist -- from Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code (2004), pg. 74:

The historical reality is that the emperor Constantine had nothing to do with the formation of the canon of scripture: he did not choose which books to include or exclude, and he did not order the destruction of the Gospels that were left out of the canon (there were no imperial book burnings).

The formation of the New Testament canon was instead a long and drawn-out process that began centuries before Constantine and did not conclude until long after he was dead. So far as we know, based on our historical record, the emperor was not involved in the process.

Exactly as I said. The idea that Constantine and the Romans "rewrote" the Bible is the stuff of conspiracy theories and fictional novels. It's not history.