Today we'll discuss what Pliny the Younger had to say about Jesus and early christianity. Sources : Pliny's letter to Trajan - www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...
This gives Romans 10:9 an entirely new meaning. Confession is not simply “inviting Jesus into our heart”, or acknowledging Him in front of a congregation. It means to confess that He is Lord over all other lords and kings. Even at the cost of losing your life. When Paul wrote this he knew what was at stake…
Do you think you would have that kind of strength today? ❤I can hope and pray, I would. what is more important than HEAVEN AND JESUS CHRIST ❤❤❤❤FOREVER
Do you think you would have that kind of strength today? ❤I can hope and pray, I would. what is more important than HEAVEN AND JESUS CHRIST ❤❤❤❤FOREVER
There are many layers of interest to Pliny's letter and Trajan's response. It is clear that Pliny is somewhat confused to finding out that Christians aren't doing anything nefarious at all in secret. Wild rumors were circulated in the Neronian persecution that Christians committed sacrilegious cannibalistic practices of eating flesh and drinking blood hence his mention that the food is ordinary. Trajan's response to Pliny is also a directive to him to not seek Christians out, which is exactly was Pliny was starting to do in his investigations. Trajan came to power after Domitian's growing reign of terror (mainly against the elites) and sought to rule as a greatest among equals. I think the quote would be that such persecutions and hunting out Christians like the treason trials and secret police he got rid of would be against, "the magnificence of the age". Trajan, not understanding Christians either thinks that just having them renounce Christianity is enough. This line of thinking seems to have held until 248 when in the face of growing disasters across the empire an edict was issued to have everyone make a blessing to the emperor and eat a sacrificial cake. This edict wasn't targeted against Christians but ended up launching the first great persecution as Christians refused to do so.
I mean, tbf, Domitian was a competent Emperor who was more autocratic than tyrannical. And Trajan (the GOAT that he was) was semi lazzie faire in his running of the provinces (being a provincial himself)
I mean, tbf, Domitian was a competent Emperor who was more autocratic than tyrannical. And Trajan (the GOAT that he was) was semi lazzie faire in his running of the provinces (being a provincial himself)
I mean, tbf, Domitian was a competent Emperor who was more autocratic than tyrannical. And Trajan (the GOAT that he was) was semi lazzie faire in his running of the provinces (being a provincial himself)
I mean, tbf, Domitian was a competent Emperor who was more autocratic than tyrannical. And Trajan (the GOAT that he was) was semi lazzie faire in his running of the provinces (being a provincial himself)
I mean, tbf, Domitian was a competent Emperor who was more autocratic than tyrannical. And Trajan (the GOAT that he was) was semi lazzie faire in his running of the provinces (being a provincial himself)
This letter sounds like a complaint. It doesn't sound like he's asking the questions, but saying, "Are we supposed to go along with this?" It sounds more like he's taking issue with, in a safe way politically.
It is and isn't. If you read the rest of Pliny you will find he was a Trajan groupie. Keep in mind that it was widely believed by the Roman elites in this time that Christians were atheists who rejected the all the gods and that they practiced incest and cannibalism.
The speaker errs, there was no ''Mass'' at that early period. The Mass is a Roman Catholic idea based on the doctrine of Radburtus who in 831 promoted the doctrine of transubstantiation in which it is believed that Christ is not just memorialized when the eucharist is served, but again sacrificed;a heresy opposed by Ratramnus who was driven from the church. It can be shown in the writings of Chrysostom that he goes out of his way to deny that the eucharist is a sacrifice and only a memorial
In the writings of Justin Martyr, specifically his first apology, he mentions almost the exact concept of transubstantiation, so I would argue that it is not a late doctrine as you make it seem.
@@SanctusApologeticsThe sacrifice of the Mass is heresy. It is a late doctrine and you are reading into Justyn Martyr what you want to find. That is not right. Transubstantiation resulted from the School Men watering down the meaning of propitiation and that came much later than Justin Martyr. Read scripture as Chrysostom did whose works were so close to Reformed that Calvin had them translated into French.
Are you unaware that St. Justin talks about Christian worship fulfilling the first prophecy of Malachi about how, "from the rising to the setting of the sun a clean SACRIFICE is offered, says the Lord, and My Name is great among the Gentiles." That's about 135 A.D., just after the unsuccessful Bar Kokhba revolt against Rome, though Justin's "Dialogue with Trypho", a Jewish scholar, may not have been public before 150 A.D. The point is, even if he didn't explicitly mention it to the Romans, Justin believed the Eucharist, each time and place it was memorialized, was One Clean Sacrifice. It was not just Justin, either. The Didache ("Teaching of the Twelve") a kind of 1st century proto-catechism, speaks of confessing (method unspecified) 5:44 sins before worship, to ensure one is "clean" before the (unspecified) "sacrifice". Finally, reread 1st Corinthians, chapter in this light. For one thing, Saint Paul uses the "communion" of partaking of Jewish or pagan animal sacrifices as a analogy for not mixing them with Communion, which he calls "partaking of the Body", "partaking of the Blood of Christ". The Eucharist has always meant people partaking in the Once-for-all Sacrifice of Christ and then partaking of the once-for-all sacrificed (and now glorified) Christ, Who dies no more.
@@RexKochanski I don't use that term Saint. Also, Justin held a suspect Christology that would have gotten him into trouble at a later time. And stop pontificating you are not the Pope nor should anyone be the Pope.
Your title, "Pliny the Younger on Jesus," suggested to me something very different from what was presented. In my opinion, it should have been titled "Pliny the Younger on Early Christians." As far as Jesus himself goes, he said nothing. The same goes with everything we know or do not know about the god incarnate of Christianity. It is all hearsay.
If you watched video , pliny says “and they sing hymns to Christ as to a God” , so yes pliny does mention Jesus. Whether what he’s hearing on Jesus is hearsay doesn’t matter , the point of the video was to show how pliny just spoke about Jesus, which is rare in ancient history, whether it’s reliable on Jesus or not , is not the point.
@SanctusApologetics No. There is nothing there about Jesus. He just told us about how early Christians believed and how they worshiped. You are stretching what he wrote beyond what is actually there. Click bait. It worked on me.
@@prrboricua I know he’s talking about what early christian believed. The point is though , he mentions Jesus by saying what early Christians believed, that Jesus was worshipped as God . Pliny is literally mentioning Jesus, even if it’s what he’s observing Christian’s believing.
@SanctusApologetics For example, if I'm discussing MAGA, BLM, or any group of people and I describe how "the wore red hats with the letters MAGA and thought Trump was the new messiah", I'm not talking about Donald Trump I'm actually talking about MAGA heads and what they believe.
@@prrboricua the thing is , you are talking about donald trump or mentioning him, whether that’s wrong or not is not the point of the video . The fact is Pliny mentioned the name Christ , in reference to Jesus . I’m not saying what he said about him was true , im just saying that Pliny mentioned Jesus. Simple brother.
First, Pliny said absolutely nothing about Jesus. So the title of the video is misleading. Second, by his own account, Pliny attests he knew nothing about "Chrisitans" before he interrogated some himself. Which - if we trust Pliny - thwarts any Christian claims about earlier persecutions by Nero and the such, since any such persecutions would be known by Pliny through his father, Pliny the Elder, who would be a contemporary to the events. And Pliny would absolutely be thoroughly familiar with his father's work, as would the kinds of Suetonius and Tacitus etc., who used Pliny the Elder as their source. So in conclusion, while Christians (according to Pliny) were persecuted by their faith in the 2nd century, the stories of Christians "being killed", as you depict, are simply later Christian fabrications.
First, Pliny mentioned "Christ". Of course he could have meant another Messianic claimant (Brian, from a later document by Monty Python?) Second, by his own account, Christians have been heard of before, and he is writing to an Emperor who has access to records of any previous Imperial encounters with them, so he has no earthly reason to talk about that with him. Third, what he does have to contribute is the startling information that Christians, who clearly have a bad reputation, cannot be found to have committed the lurid crimes in which they seem to have been rumored to delight. So, what to do with them? Pliny realizes that Christians are still technically guilty of engaging in a strange "superstitio" (illegal religion), a fact which suggests a law or some kind of precedent (from Nero?) already exists, but he prudently writes for direction. Please, go ahead and critique this as an feeble argument from silence. Only, for my sake and Christ's, critique your own (feebler?) argument from silence first.
@@RexKochanski First, Pliny had to torture some Christians he found to learn what they even believed. He had no knowledge of who this "Christ" was beforehand. He says absolutely nothing about him, just that the Christians worship such a person. Second, Pliny is writing to an Emperor for advice how to proceed, because he doesn't even know why being Christian is illegal. Pliny is one of the most connected and knowledgeable person in the Empire, so if he doesn't know, the Emperor doesn't know either; and doesn't probably care, as these Christians were probably in a long line of cults who were deemed illegal for far less splendid reasons than Christians later made it to be. Third, that's not what the evidence suggests, at all. Believing in superstitions was not illegal. For Christianity to be illegal, they must have either been categorized as a) the many mystery religions that had been banned for centuries from Republic times already, or b) simply refused to seek a permit for assembly, which was required by law, because they wouldn't pledge allegiance to the Emperor, something all cults had to conform to. An argument from silence is a fallacy where a lack of evidence is used as evidence, where such evidence isn't even expected to be present in the first place. When such evidence *is* expected to be present, like in the case of Pliny, it's not an argument from silence. Therefore, we have evidence to _know_ that Christians weren't persecuted in the way the Church fabricated. They were simply a fringe cult like many before and contemporary to them. A fact the Church doesn't want to admit in their grandiose "ecclesiastical" history with fabricated stories of heroism and martyrdom.
You make it sound like "pledging allegiance to the Emperor" was a simple acknowledgement rather than a solemn sacrifice worshipping Caesar's patron goddess, Fortuna. If the Christians were willing to do that they would become a legal religion...
@@RexKochanski Jews didn't sacrifice to Caesar's patron goddess, and Judaism was a legal religion in the Empire, and remained so even after all the Jewish-Roman wars. So clearly, a sacrifice to the Roman gods was not a prerequisite to being a legal religion. Yes, Trajan in his response to Pliny says that anybody accused of being a Christian can prove they are not by sacrificing to the old gods. Obviously, that doesn't mean that Christianity could necessarily even become a legal religion at that point anymore, sacrifice or not. You could simply prove you are not a Christian that way. That wouldn't make Christianity legal. Also note that Trajan also specifically orders Pliny to not _seek out_ Christians. A sentiment that the later Christians who rose to power in the 4th century didn't give to their competing cults, who were very much sought out, and the choice put upon them to either convert or die. The irony of this murderous cult playing the victim card, when they themselves are the biggest religious persecutors in human history - is palpable.
@christsavesreadromans1096 ok? So what? A man named Jesus existed. I even say he was an apocalyptic preacher. I even say he was crucified for sedition against the Roman Empire. I even say he died. There is nothing remarkable about any of this. People are born, and people die every day.
Comment Feedback!
I think it would be better without the monks chanting in the background.
This gives Romans 10:9 an entirely new meaning. Confession is not simply “inviting Jesus into our heart”, or acknowledging Him in front of a congregation. It means to confess that He is Lord over all other lords and kings. Even at the cost of losing your life.
When Paul wrote this he knew what was at stake…
Do you think you would have that kind of strength today? ❤I can hope and pray, I would. what is more important than HEAVEN AND JESUS CHRIST ❤❤❤❤FOREVER
Do you think you would have that kind of strength today? ❤I can hope and pray, I would. what is more important than HEAVEN AND JESUS CHRIST ❤❤❤❤FOREVER
Great video on a subject I knew nothing about. Always humbling, as an American, to hear what true persecution of Christianity was -and is- like.
Ya , persecution was a very real reality to believers in the roman empire! Glad you enjoyed
There are many layers of interest to Pliny's letter and Trajan's response. It is clear that Pliny is somewhat confused to finding out that Christians aren't doing anything nefarious at all in secret. Wild rumors were circulated in the Neronian persecution that Christians committed sacrilegious cannibalistic practices of eating flesh and drinking blood hence his mention that the food is ordinary. Trajan's response to Pliny is also a directive to him to not seek Christians out, which is exactly was Pliny was starting to do in his investigations. Trajan came to power after Domitian's growing reign of terror (mainly against the elites) and sought to rule as a greatest among equals. I think the quote would be that such persecutions and hunting out Christians like the treason trials and secret police he got rid of would be against, "the magnificence of the age". Trajan, not understanding Christians either thinks that just having them renounce Christianity is enough. This line of thinking seems to have held until 248 when in the face of growing disasters across the empire an edict was issued to have everyone make a blessing to the emperor and eat a sacrificial cake. This edict wasn't targeted against Christians but ended up launching the first great persecution as Christians refused to do so.
I mean, tbf, Domitian was a competent Emperor who was more autocratic than tyrannical. And Trajan (the GOAT that he was) was semi lazzie faire in his running of the provinces (being a provincial himself)
I mean, tbf, Domitian was a competent Emperor who was more autocratic than tyrannical. And Trajan (the GOAT that he was) was semi lazzie faire in his running of the provinces (being a provincial himself)
I mean, tbf, Domitian was a competent Emperor who was more autocratic than tyrannical. And Trajan (the GOAT that he was) was semi lazzie faire in his running of the provinces (being a provincial himself)
I mean, tbf, Domitian was a competent Emperor who was more autocratic than tyrannical. And Trajan (the GOAT that he was) was semi lazzie faire in his running of the provinces (being a provincial himself)
I mean, tbf, Domitian was a competent Emperor who was more autocratic than tyrannical. And Trajan (the GOAT that he was) was semi lazzie faire in his running of the provinces (being a provincial himself)
Awesome video and I like how you provide the sources
Brilliant ! You are doing God's work so well.
thank you ! God bless
Thanks a lot. Very interesting and informative.
Glad you enjoyed, thank you!
Thank you 🙏🏻
Very good video!
This letter sounds like a complaint. It doesn't sound like he's asking the questions, but saying, "Are we supposed to go along with this?" It sounds more like he's taking issue with, in a safe way politically.
It is and isn't. If you read the rest of Pliny you will find he was a Trajan groupie. Keep in mind that it was widely believed by the Roman elites in this time that Christians were atheists who rejected the all the gods and that they practiced incest and cannibalism.
Just discovered your channel, nice work. You oughta do a video about Suetonius
for sure ! Thanks for watching
NICE ONE ! THANKS ! FROM, U.K. (2024).
It baffles me that apologists use Pliny as evidence against mythicism and some even cite him as evidence for the resurrection.
Pliny was one of the first Christians and he may have been the primary author of the Pauline epistles
Sad to say persecutions of christians by muslims are happening in africa , middle east and pakistan.
Could Pliny's letter be considered a new testament writing?
Absolutely
nice!
W video !
The speaker errs, there was no ''Mass'' at that early period. The Mass is a Roman Catholic idea based on the doctrine of Radburtus who in 831 promoted the doctrine of transubstantiation in which it is believed that Christ is not just memorialized when the eucharist is served, but again sacrificed;a heresy opposed by Ratramnus who was driven from the church. It can be shown in the writings of Chrysostom that he goes out of his way to deny that the eucharist is a sacrifice and only a memorial
In the writings of Justin Martyr, specifically his first apology, he mentions almost the exact concept of transubstantiation, so I would argue that it is not a late doctrine as you make it seem.
@@SanctusApologeticsThe sacrifice of the Mass is heresy. It is a late doctrine and you are reading into Justyn Martyr what you want to find. That is not right. Transubstantiation resulted from the School Men watering down the meaning of propitiation and that came much later than Justin Martyr. Read scripture as Chrysostom did whose works were so close to Reformed that Calvin had them translated into French.
Are you unaware that St. Justin talks about Christian worship fulfilling the first prophecy of Malachi about how, "from the rising to the setting of the sun a clean SACRIFICE is offered, says the Lord, and My Name is great among the Gentiles." That's about 135 A.D., just after the unsuccessful Bar Kokhba revolt against Rome, though Justin's "Dialogue with Trypho", a Jewish scholar, may not have been public before 150 A.D.
The point is, even if he didn't explicitly mention it to the Romans, Justin believed the Eucharist, each time and place it was memorialized, was One Clean Sacrifice. It was not just Justin, either. The Didache ("Teaching of the Twelve") a kind of 1st century proto-catechism, speaks of confessing (method unspecified) 5:44 sins before worship, to ensure one is "clean" before the (unspecified) "sacrifice".
Finally, reread 1st Corinthians, chapter in this light. For one thing, Saint Paul uses the "communion" of partaking of Jewish or pagan animal sacrifices as a analogy for not mixing them with Communion, which he calls "partaking of the Body", "partaking of the Blood of Christ".
The Eucharist has always meant people partaking in the Once-for-all Sacrifice of Christ and then partaking of the once-for-all sacrificed (and now glorified) Christ, Who dies no more.
@@RexKochanski I don't use that term Saint. Also, Justin held a suspect Christology that would have gotten him into trouble at a later time. And stop pontificating you are not the Pope nor should anyone be the Pope.
@@Justhumbleme Presbyterian.
w
Your title, "Pliny the Younger on Jesus," suggested to me something very different from what was presented. In my opinion, it should have been titled "Pliny the Younger on Early Christians."
As far as Jesus himself goes, he said nothing.
The same goes with everything we know or do not know about the god incarnate of Christianity. It is all hearsay.
If you watched video , pliny says “and they sing hymns to Christ as to a God” , so yes pliny does mention Jesus. Whether what he’s hearing on Jesus is hearsay doesn’t matter , the point of the video was to show how pliny just spoke about Jesus, which is rare in ancient history, whether it’s reliable on Jesus or not , is not the point.
@SanctusApologetics No. There is nothing there about Jesus. He just told us about how early Christians believed and how they worshiped. You are stretching what he wrote beyond what is actually there. Click bait. It worked on me.
@@prrboricua I know he’s talking about what early christian believed. The point is though , he mentions Jesus by saying what early Christians believed, that Jesus was worshipped as God . Pliny is literally mentioning Jesus, even if it’s what he’s observing Christian’s believing.
@SanctusApologetics For example, if I'm discussing MAGA, BLM, or any group of people and I describe how "the wore red hats with the letters MAGA and thought Trump was the new messiah", I'm not talking about Donald Trump I'm actually talking about MAGA heads and what they believe.
@@prrboricua the thing is , you are talking about donald trump or mentioning him, whether that’s wrong or not is not the point of the video . The fact is Pliny mentioned the name Christ , in reference to Jesus . I’m not saying what he said about him was true , im just saying that Pliny mentioned Jesus. Simple brother.
First, Pliny said absolutely nothing about Jesus. So the title of the video is misleading.
Second, by his own account, Pliny attests he knew nothing about "Chrisitans" before he interrogated some himself. Which - if we trust Pliny - thwarts any Christian claims about earlier persecutions by Nero and the such, since any such persecutions would be known by Pliny through his father, Pliny the Elder, who would be a contemporary to the events. And Pliny would absolutely be thoroughly familiar with his father's work, as would the kinds of Suetonius and Tacitus etc., who used Pliny the Elder as their source.
So in conclusion, while Christians (according to Pliny) were persecuted by their faith in the 2nd century, the stories of Christians "being killed", as you depict, are simply later Christian fabrications.
First, Pliny mentioned "Christ". Of course he could have meant another Messianic claimant (Brian, from a later document by Monty Python?)
Second, by his own account, Christians have been heard of before, and he is writing to an Emperor who has access to records of any previous Imperial encounters with them, so he has no earthly reason to talk about that with him.
Third, what he does have to contribute is the startling information that Christians, who clearly have a bad reputation, cannot be found to have committed the lurid crimes in which they seem to have been rumored to delight. So, what to do with them? Pliny realizes that Christians are still technically guilty of engaging in a strange "superstitio" (illegal religion), a fact which suggests a law or some kind of precedent (from Nero?) already exists, but he prudently writes for direction.
Please, go ahead and critique this as an feeble argument from silence. Only, for my sake and Christ's, critique your own (feebler?) argument from silence first.
@@RexKochanski First, Pliny had to torture some Christians he found to learn what they even believed. He had no knowledge of who this "Christ" was beforehand. He says absolutely nothing about him, just that the Christians worship such a person.
Second, Pliny is writing to an Emperor for advice how to proceed, because he doesn't even know why being Christian is illegal. Pliny is one of the most connected and knowledgeable person in the Empire, so if he doesn't know, the Emperor doesn't know either; and doesn't probably care, as these Christians were probably in a long line of cults who were deemed illegal for far less splendid reasons than Christians later made it to be.
Third, that's not what the evidence suggests, at all. Believing in superstitions was not illegal. For Christianity to be illegal, they must have either been categorized as a) the many mystery religions that had been banned for centuries from Republic times already, or b) simply refused to seek a permit for assembly, which was required by law, because they wouldn't pledge allegiance to the Emperor, something all cults had to conform to.
An argument from silence is a fallacy where a lack of evidence is used as evidence, where such evidence isn't even expected to be present in the first place. When such evidence *is* expected to be present, like in the case of Pliny, it's not an argument from silence. Therefore, we have evidence to _know_ that Christians weren't persecuted in the way the Church fabricated. They were simply a fringe cult like many before and contemporary to them. A fact the Church doesn't want to admit in their grandiose "ecclesiastical" history with fabricated stories of heroism and martyrdom.
You make it sound like "pledging allegiance to the Emperor" was a simple acknowledgement rather than a solemn sacrifice worshipping Caesar's patron goddess, Fortuna. If the Christians were willing to do that they would become a legal religion...
@@RexKochanski Jews didn't sacrifice to Caesar's patron goddess, and Judaism was a legal religion in the Empire, and remained so even after all the Jewish-Roman wars. So clearly, a sacrifice to the Roman gods was not a prerequisite to being a legal religion.
Yes, Trajan in his response to Pliny says that anybody accused of being a Christian can prove they are not by sacrificing to the old gods. Obviously, that doesn't mean that Christianity could necessarily even become a legal religion at that point anymore, sacrifice or not. You could simply prove you are not a Christian that way. That wouldn't make Christianity legal.
Also note that Trajan also specifically orders Pliny to not _seek out_ Christians. A sentiment that the later Christians who rose to power in the 4th century didn't give to their competing cults, who were very much sought out, and the choice put upon them to either convert or die. The irony of this murderous cult playing the victim card, when they themselves are the biggest religious persecutors in human history - is palpable.
Pliny was probably Paul. Pliny was a proto Christian Roman
Sooo nothing.
Yeah, he clicked bait me. We had a back and forth, and I concluded he's either not getting the letter or he's intellectually dishonest.
@@prrboricuaJesus existed.
@christsavesreadromans1096 ok? So what? A man named Jesus existed. I even say he was an apocalyptic preacher. I even say he was crucified for sedition against the Roman Empire. I even say he died. There is nothing remarkable about any of this. People are born, and people die every day.