Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[Ichneumonwasp]

That's my whole point. For Christianity to spread all over the Roman Empire in such an environment doesn't make much sense. Why believe in something that can get you killed when you have the nice safe interesting Greek and Roman gods and the Caesar you can worship with no fear.

And Christianity didn't need the sword to spread like Islam initially did.

There had to be some driving force behind all this growth in such an environment -- Something like many people seeing a resurrected person.

WTF? It makes perfect sense. Early Christianity after it morphed into the mystery religion-like version that Paul inherited was the easiest mystery religion for anyone to join. Mystery religions sprung up like daisies in that place and at that time in large part because of social changes/movements of people throughout the empire -- think the Jewish diaspora, but it wasn't restricted to this one group. Remember, the Romans were consummate road builders, so they could beat up on the next neighbors; but this allowed other people to move and try to improve their lot.

There were no large scale persecutions of Christians. There is no evidence of it. Besides, the people who were persecuted would have tended to say -- "who cares, you're all going to die soon too because the retribution is coming, and you're just lettin me die like Jesus, so I'm going to paradise." Haven't you read these books? Don't you know what is in them? Paul thought the end of times was at hand.

 

[truethat]

I doubt he's read the books. Trust me. Check out my other thread.


Hey Doc, have you read the bible?

 

[cj.23]

WTF? It makes perfect sense. Early Christianity after it morphed into the mystery religion-like version that Paul inherited was the easiest mystery religion for anyone to join. Mystery religions sprung up like daisies in that place and at that time in large part because of social changes/movements of people throughout the empire -- think the Jewish diaspora, but it wasn't restricted to this one group. Remember, the Romans were consummate road builders, so they could beat up on the next neighbors; but this allowed other people to move and try to improve their lot.

Er, as someone who has written a lot on the mystery religions, I'm not at all convinced early Christianity really meets the criteria. It was a common theme in 50's scholarship, but I tend to follow Walter Burkert and see more differences than similarities. Still this could make a fascinating new thread if anyone is interested? Certainly there are commonalities, but the obvious model for the early Christian communities seems to me to have been the diaspora Judaism, with synagogue and houses forming a central feature, and public preaching. Also, to the best of my knowledge the majority of the Mystery Cults were exclusivist and often gender and occupation or status specific, and almost exclusively appealed to the wealthy, without the slightest hint of populaism or egalitarianism, things which mark the Christians. I only hesistate because it's years since i wrote my book and I can't think off the top of my head of any details on how the Eleusinian Rites worked - were they a populist religion? ALso, and maybe this is later gnosticism influencing my thinking, were not most of the Mystery Cults concerned with initiatory and psychopompic rites? (in the original not the hypnagogic sense of psychopompic, obviously!)

Also Mystery Religions are actually declining overall I think in the period - long story - and again I would point to the massive increase in Judaizing among the Roman population, and the Hellenist gentile synagogue members prevalent in many diaspora cities and of considerable numbers, but who who resisted full conversion because of circumcision, as a more obvious base?

There were no large scale persecutions of Christians. There is no evidence of it. .

UM, well not really. There were large scale persecutions - the four major persecutions were all quite major compared with anything seen since the holocausts which marked the destruction of the strigoi and the suppression of the Bachanles, where some estimate a million might have died - I find that highly unlikely, but who knows, certainly in terms of population it was the most horrendous witchhunt in history - but anyway, compared with the limited expulsions and persecutions experienced by the Jewish communities in the previous two centuries, the persecutions were quite major.

What they were not was systematic - they were effectively local, and while decreed across the Empire the enthusiasm with which they were enforced varied widely, meaning they rarely effected more than certain small localities, and hundreds rather than thousands probbaly perished in most. (We can see this with Pliny's puzzled letter as Governor of Bithynia - "...these 'ere Christians, what on earth do we do with 'em?" to paraphrase!). As far as I know the Neronic persecution was entirely local to Rome. I had a long argument a couple of years back with an (atheist, as it happens) scholar who made the assertion that the persecutions were unevidenced, and did not occur at all - and I still have most of the citations - but the general point that they were not systematic imperial wide persecutions I cheerfully accept.

cj x

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Er, as someone who has written a lot on the mystery religions, I'm not at all convinced early Christianity really meets the criteria. It was a common theme in 50's scholarship, but I tend to follow Walter Burkert and see more differences than similarities. Still this could make a fascinating new thread if anyone is interested? Certainly there are commonalities, but the obvious model for the early Christian communities seems to me to have been the diaspora Judaism, with synagogue and houses forming a central feature, and public preaching. Also, to the best of my knowledge the majority of the Mystery Cults were exclusivist and often gender and occupation or status specific, and almost exclusively appealed to the wealthy, without the slightest hint of populaism or egalitarianism, things which mark the Christians. I only hesistate because it's years since i wrote my book and I can't think off the top of my head of any details on how the Eleusinian Rites worked - were they a populist religion? ALso, and maybe this is later gnosticism influencing my thinking, were not most of the Mystery Cults concerned with initiatory and psychopompic rites? (in the original not the hypnagogic sense of psychopompic, obviously!)

Also Mystery Religions are actually declining overall I think in the period - long story - and again I would point to the massive increase in Judaizing among the Roman population, and the Hellenist gentile synagogue members prevalent in many diaspora cities and of considerable numbers, but who who resisted full conversion because of circumcision, as a more obvious base?

Hence my use of the term Mystery religion-like. I did not call Christianity a mystery religion. It had some features in common with some of the mystery religions at the time; and entry into Christianity was much simpler than entry into the mystery cults. The presence of mystery cults helped pave the way for entry into Christianity -- this was probably one of the reasons why Christianity took off the way that it did.

I certainly hope you are not arguing that Mithraism was declining at the time that Christianity was beginning because there is no evidence of that, nor is there evidence of decline in Isis or Cybele worship.

I know you have been sick, but you are making my points for me. Perhaps you are reading into what I wrote above?

UM, well not really. There were large scale persecutions - the four major persecutions were all quite major compared with anything seen since the holocausts which marked the destruction of the strigoi and the suppression of the Bachanles, where some estimate a million might have died - I find that highly unlikely, but who knows, certainly in terms of population it was the most horrendous witchhunt in history - but anyway, compared with the limited expulsions and persecutions experienced by the Jewish communities in the previous two centuries, the persecutions were quite major.

What they were not was systematic - they were effectively local, and while decreed across the Empire the enthusiasm with which they were enforced varied widely, meaning they rarely effected more than certain small localities, and hundreds rather than thousands probbaly perished in most. (We can see this with Pliny's puzzled letter as Governor of Bithynia - "...these 'ere Christians, what on earth do we do with 'em?" to paraphrase!). As far as I know the Neronic persecution was entirely local to Rome. I had a long argument a couple of years back with an (atheist, as it happens) scholar who made the assertion that the persecutions were unevidenced, and did not occur at all - and I still have most of the citations - but the general point that they were not systematic imperial wide persecutions I cheerfully accept.

cj x

I know you are sick and have probably not been keeping up with this thread, but you've just repeated all of my points for me. We have been discussing the very early years, not the widespread persecutions from the 3rd century. None of the early persecutions were widespread. They were all local affairs. DOC seems to have this idea in mind that it was nearly impossible to be a Christian in the very early years, and that is simply wrong.

 

[AWPrime]

That's my whole point. For Christianity to spread all over the Roman Empire in such an environment doesn't make much sense. Why believe in something that can get you killed when you have the nice safe interesting Greek and Roman gods and the Caesar you can worship with no fear.

Because they were fanatical cannon folder, that thought that they would be getting a super ticket to heaven. Kinda like suicide bombers of today. Thankfully there weren't any explosive in those times.

And Christianity didn't need the sword to spread like Islam initially did.[/quote]Lie. Although many records have been destroyed in areas where christianity spread, there were many incidences of bribery, kidnapping, murder all done to spread the faith.

There had to be some driving force behind all this growth in such an environment -- Something like many people seeing a resurrected person.

Actually the growth sprout of christianity occurred when it was adapted as the official roman religion. And as a religion that doesn't tolerate any other gods........

 

[cj.23]

Hence my use of the term Mystery religion-like. I did not call Christianity a mystery religion. It had some features in common with some of the mystery religions at the time; and entry into Christianity was much simpler than entry into the mystery cults. The presence of mystery cults helped pave the way for entry into Christianity -- this was probably one of the reasons why Christianity took off the way that it did.

Yes, I gathered your point, and appreciate that you are not making a direct comparison - I'm just not sure how far any of the Mystae can be felt to influential in providing a model. I actually think that the systematics of the Greek Philosophers and Diaspora Judaism as I said were better models, simply because the mystery cults tended to attract a very different kind of audience with very different aspirations. Still, sure, it was probably a factor.

I certainly hope you are not arguing that Mithraism was declining at the time that Christianity was beginning because there is no evidence of that, nor is there evidence of decline in Isis or Cybele worship.

Mithraism no: it's growing in the Western Empire, within the army, and in Rome, but was really at it was strongest as always in the units in area between the Alps and the Danube, which was always the heartland of the Roman Cult. It never reached anything like popular religion level though - I think it might be usefully be thought of as like Freemasonry in terms of influence and scale on the modern US religious scene? Note this is an analogy, not a suggestion of causation before any Conspiracy Theorists get all excited! Isis worship was declining from the 1st century onwards - of course its still strong in the second century, but it's a waning force - I'd put the apogee about 50 CE? From my recollection the cult of Cybele was strongest in Rome in the 1st and 2nd centuries BCE, entering a sharp decline thereafter, indeed losing members to the Isis cult? Dunno, can check it out if you like.

I know you have been sick, but you are making my points for me. Perhaps you are reading into what I wrote above?

I thought I was largely agreeing with you?

We have been discussing the very early years, not the widespread persecutions from the 3rd century. None of the early persecutions were widespread. They were all local affairs. DOC seems to have this idea in mind that it was nearly impossible to be a Christian in the very early years, and that is simply wrong.

Well to be fair we know that in the early years of the second century the persecution is not local, because of Pliny. I suspect the Neronic persecution was never more than local as you say, and indeed doubt any real persecution occurred outside of Rome for most of the 1st century, though we do know of course from other sources that Domitian instituted a persesecution in 81 -96.

If you want real persecution though in the era DOC is talking about, do not look to the Romans. Try the Christians fellow Jews, who do actively persecute and expel and martyr some as I recall? I think that is where the real conflict lies in the 1st century - in the schism in Judaism from which Christianity develops???

cj x

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yes, I gathered your point, and appreciate that you are not making a direct comparison - I'm just not sure how far any of the Mystae can be felt to influential in providing a model. I actually think that the systematics of the Greek Philosophers and Diaspora Judaism as I said were better models, simply because the mystery cults tended to attract a very different kind of audience with very different aspirations. Still, sure, it was probably a factor.

Not a model for Christianity itself, no. But as similar sorts of belief systems that make the idea less foreign, yes.

Of course, it grew out of diaspora Judaism as an apparently apocalyptic cult morphing as time went on.

Mithraism no: it's growing in the Western Empire, within the army, and in Rome, but was really at it was strongest as always in the units in area between the Alps and the Danube, which was always the heartland of the Roman Cult. It never reached anything like popular religion level though - I think it might be usefully be thought of as like Freemasonry in terms of influence and scale on the modern US religious scene? Note this is an analogy, not a suggestion of causation before any Conspiracy Theorists get all excited! Isis worship was declining from the 1st century onwards - of course its still strong in the second century, but it's a waning force - I'd put the apogee about 50 CE? From my recollection the cult of Cybele was strongest in Rome in the 1st and 2nd centuries BCE, entering a sharp decline thereafter, indeed losing members to the Isis cult? Dunno, can check it out if you like.

Yes, actually if you could. My impression was that Isis and Cybele worship did not begin to decline until the 2nd or 3rd centuries.

I thought I was largely agreeing with you?

OK, sorry, it didn't sound like it.

Well to be fair we know that in the early years of the second century the persecution is not local, because of Pliny. I suspect the Neronic persecution was never more than local as you say, and indeed doubt any real persecution occurred outside of Rome for most of the 1st century, though we do know of course from other sources that Domitian instituted a persesecution in 81 -96.

If you want real persecution though in the era DOC is talking about, do not look to the Romans. Try the Christians fellow Jews, who do actively persecute and expel and martyr some as I recall? I think that is where the real conflict lies in the 1st century - in the schism in Judaism from which Christianity develops???

cj x

With that I must disagree -- at least with the reference to Pliny. Do we have any evidence of persecutions outside Bythynia at the time? I'm not aware of any. Pliny's persecutions seemed to be motivated by local political concerns and not concerns over the religion per se.

Domitian's persecutions were also primarily local (in Rome was it not?) and the reference in Cassius Dio is questionable. Even Eusebius doesn't have much about it with maybe one martyrdom?

As to the Jewish persecutions -- already mentioned them more than once; I specifically told DOC to look in that direction and not to the Romans. But, even there, the info we have from Paul concerned gentile converts, not so much Jewish converts; so the fights within the synagogue did not affect those members as easily. The big synagogue expulsions were all post-70s era as well, so second generation. And there is little evidence outside Acts that any of these persecutions were violent. Do you really think the Romans would sit by watching Jews stone one another to death when they could have done it themselves? The governors were charged with keeping the peace and raising taxes.

 

[arthwollipot]

Odd, I thought there were only 12 apostles.

Oh snap!

 

[DOC]

With that I must disagree -- at least with the reference to Pliny. Do we have any evidence of persecutions outside Bythynia at the time? I'm not aware of any. Pliny's persecutions seemed to be motivated by local political concerns and not concerns over the religion per se.

I have to disagree on several points. One, Pliny in his letter to the emperor implies that there are other Christian trials going on elsewhere when he says this in his letter:

Pliny to the Emperor Trajan

"It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.

Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed."

Then Trajan verifies that punishment {including execution} of Christians is a proper procedure when he says this in response to Pliny:

{Emperor}Trajan to Pliny:

""You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance."

Also if you read Pliny the Younger's letter it has very little to do with local politics as you say and is mostly about Christianity in and of itself.

Both quotes above are from this site:

Medieval Sourcebook:
Pliny on the Christians

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pliny1.html

ETA: Bottom line is that if you are openly practicing your Christianity in the Roman Empire, you are putting your life at risk. Therefore I stand by my statement that there had to be a huge event take place (like many people seeing a resurrected person) for the great growth of Christianity to take place in such a repressive environment.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

DOC, I suppose that is certainly one interpretation you could impose on that letter.

But, how do you possibly move from Pliny's local concern to an empire-wide persecution based on the lines that you have high-lighted? Please explain how the language works in your favor because I see a governor concerned with matters in Bithynia -- he specifically refers to a prior order of Trajan concerning political associations, the implication being that insurrection or possible insurrection is to be dealt with harshly -- asking his emperor the proper course of action in a new situation that he had previously not encountered and the emperor replying -- ya done good, boy, but don't be goin' and roundin' up the varmits cause that'll just cause more problems. Pliny possibly knows of the prior history of persecutions in Rome -- to which he refers in the letter -- or he knows what is before him -- that people are being accused of being Christians and meeting secretly, which had been forbidden by the earlier order -- but he does not imply that there are persecutions going on elsewhere, nor is there any evidence that Christians were even considered more than a wacky fringe group at the time.

What the letter clearly shows is that both Pliny and Trajan thought they should go out of their way to allow those denounced as Christians to "get off the hook". They were trying, best as they could, to keep from executing them.

In other words, you've got to be kidding me.

Since you seem to think there was an empire-wide persecution of Christians at that time, would you please produce the evidence? Pliny's letter clearly won't cover it. I suppose you have something that actually demonstrates this empire-wide persecution?

ETA: Bottom line is that if you are openly practicing your Christianity in the Roman Empire, you are putting your life at risk. Therefore I stand by my statement that there had to be a huge event take place (like many people seeing a resurrected person) for the great growth of Christianity to take place in such a repressive environment.

Um, you do realize that Pliny wrote this letter in the second century? That the persecution that you need for that hypothesis would have to have occurred in the 30's or 40's. The only persecutions we know about at that time were from the Jewish community (and possibly some odd stares from gentiles), but the testament for those supposed persecutions come only from Christians writings -- specifically Paul and the author of Acts. Paul was actually writing in the 50's -- but at least this was still first generation. And he seems only to refer to people being thought weird in Thessolonika and Corinth for their new beliefs. He does not say, nor does he imply, that Christians were being rounded up and executed. The author of Acts, writing probably near the end of the first century, knew of many other persecutions that had occurred by that time, so it was natural for him/her to code the idea of Christian persecution into the narrative (we cannot be sure that what is written as occurring in Acts actually did, especially since the portrait of Paul in Acts varies so much from what we see of him in his letters).

Whoever was being executed in Bithynia (and there is no evidence that this amounted to more than a handful of people, certainly not thousands, though Pliny does imply that large numbers were accused) were not witnesses of the resurrection. They heard stories of it and believed based on those stories. This could never be used as evidence that the resurrection occurred, unless you want to tell me that Joseph Smith really did receive golden tablets from an angel and that you should immediately convert to Mormonism or that you missed your chance to board the mother ship for Cygnus X-1 when Hale-Bopp shwooshed through our solar system.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

If anyone is interested, I have been working my way through some of the other correspondence between Pliny and Trajan, especially that concerning fear of insurrection. Trajan didn't even want Pliny to form a fire brigade for fear of what could happen in future!?!

Trajan to Pliny

32. You will remember you were sent into Bithynia, for the particular purpose of correcting those many abuses which appeared necessary to be reformed. Now none stands more in need of reformation, than that criminals, who have been sentenced to punishment, should not only be set at liberty (as your letter informs me) without any apparent authority, but even appointed to employments, which ought alone to be exercised by persons whose characters are irreproachable. Those, therefore, among them, who have been convicted within these ten years, and whose sentence has not been reversed by proper authority, must be sent back to their respective punishments; but where more than ten years have elapsed since their conviction, and they are grown old and infirm, let them be disposed of in such employments, as are but few degrees removed from the punishments to which they were sentenced; that is, either to attend upon the public baths, cleanse the common sewers, or repair the streets and highways; those being the offices to which such persons are usually sentenced.

To the emperor Trajan

33. While I was making a progress in a different part of the province, a most destructive fire broke out at Nicomedia, which not only consumed several private houses, but also two public buildings; the town-house and the temple of Isis, though they stood on contrary sides of the street. The occasion of its spreading thus wide, was partly owing to the violence of the wind, and partly to the indolence of the people, who, it appears, stood fixed and idle spectators of this terrible calamity. The truth is, the city was not furnished with either engines, buckets, or any single instrument proper to extinguish fires: which I have now, however, given directions to be provided. You will consider, Sir, whether it may not be advisable to form a company of firemen, consisting only of one hundred and fifty members. I will take care none but firemen shall be admitted into it; and that the privileges granted them shall not be extended to any other purpose. As this corporate body will be restricted to so small a number of members, it will be easy to keep them under proper regulation.

Trajan to Pliny

34. You are of opinion it would be proper to establish a company of firemen in Nicomedia, agreeably to what has been practiced in several other cities. But it is to be remembered, that societies of this sort have greatly disturbed the peace of the province in general, and of those cities in particular. Whatever name we give them, and for whatever purpose they may be instituted, they will not fail to form themselves soon into political clubs. It will, therefore, be safer, to provide such equipment as is of service in extinguishing fires, enjoining the owners of houses to assist in preventing the mischief from spreading; and if it should be necessary, to call in the aid of the populace.

To the emperor Trajan

35. Agreeably to the general notice we previously gave for that purpose, we have offered, Sir, our annual vows a for your prosperity, in which that of the empire is essentially involved; imploring the Gods to grant that these yearly vows may never cease to be thus, by public authority announced and offered.

Trajan to Pliny

36. I received the satisfaction my dear Pliny, of being informed by your letter, that you, together with the people under your government, have both discharged and renewed your annual vow, to the immortal Gods, for my health and happiness.

Pliny also wishes Trajan a happy birthday. Ahhhh, what a guy.


Bottom line, and the theme running throughout the correspondence is this -- the role of governors was to collect money to send back to the emperor (those portions not necessary for local concerns) and to keep the peace.

There had apparently been significant mismanagement in Bithynia before Pliny's arrival; he was specifically sent to re-establish order. The question regarding Christians was simply part of the concern over general order in that region. That local persecution was clearly not part of a general persecution of Christians throughout the Empire.

 

[joobz]

ETA: Bottom line is that if you are openly practicing your Christianity in the Roman Empire, you are putting your life at risk. Therefore I stand by my statement that there had to be a huge event take place (like many people seeing a resurrected person) for the great growth of Christianity to take place in such a repressive environment.

Just like the mormons who currently practice polygamy. I mean, there must be a reason why they would be willing to risk their freedom and lose their children. There had to be a HUGE EVENT take place (the gold tablets that Joseph Smith translated) for the great growth of mormonism under the current suppressive environment.

 

[Mojo]

Odd, I thought there were only 12 apostles.

Oh snap!

And one Christ, and no kangaroo.

 

[arthwollipot]

No kangaroo!!???

 

[DOC]

Just like the mormons who currently practice polygamy. I mean, there must be a reason why they would be willing to risk their freedom and lose their children. There had to be a HUGE EVENT take place (the gold tablets that Joseph Smith translated) for the great growth of mormonism under the current suppressive environment.

Mainline Mormons currently forbid polygamy. And their main growth period was out in the middle of nowhere in Utah. Whereas early Christian growth was totally within the Roman Empire. And any growth Mormonism has experience in the last 30 years is without fear of death or imprisonment.

 

[zooterkin]

Mainline Mormons currently forbid polygamy. And their main growth period was out in the middle of nowhere in Utah. Whereas early Christian growth was totally within the Roman Empire. And any growth Mormonism has experience in the last 30 years is without fear of death or imprisonment.

Which completely misses the point, since joobz was specifically talking about "the mormons who currently practice polygamy". What 'mainline Mormons' do is irrelevant to this point.

 

[arthwollipot]

Mainline Mormons currently forbid polygamy. And their main growth period was out in the middle of nowhere in Utah. Whereas early Christian growth was totally within the Roman Empire. And any growth Mormonism has experience in the last 30 years is without fear of death or imprisonment.

You do realise that the Roman Empire at the time covered all of Europe, the north coast of Africa and the Middle East - more land area than mainland United States - don't you?

 

[joobz]

Mainline Mormons currently forbid polygamy.

irrelevant. (as zooterkin already pointed out).
You seemed to believe that worshipping and practicing religion under the threat of persecution some how makes that religion potentially more valid.

I think that's a stupid argument and gave polygamist mormons as an example. Why does your argument not apply here?
Why does your argument regarding martyrdom not apply to non-christian religions?

The simple answer is you are committing special pleading.

And their main growth period was out in the middle of nowhere in Utah. Whereas early Christian growth was totally within the Roman Empire. Mormons And any growth Mormonism has experience in the last 30 years is without fear of death or imprisonment.

And, unlike christianity, they grew without the aide of an emperor who became christian.

 

[DOC]

Just like the mormons who currently practice polygamy. I mean, there must be a reason why they would be willing to risk their freedom and lose their children.

It's one thing to be caught and go to jail for a few years, it's another to be crucified, beheaded, or put in boiling water. Plus those men who are practicing polygamy get a lot of immediate fringe benefits if you know what I mean, whereas St. Paul and Peter were getting beaten and thrown in jail (not to mention the constant risk of being killed) for their beliefs with no immediate benefits.

 

[Tirdun]

It's one thing to be caught and go to jail for a few years, it's another to be crucified, beheaded, or put in boiling water. Plus those men who are practicing polygamy get a lot of immediate fringe benefits if you know what I mean, whereas St. Paul and Peter were getting beaten and thrown in jail (not to mention the constant risk of being killed) for their beliefs with no immediate benefits.

So the odds of something being true are directly proportional to the willingness of someone to die for it? Is the number of people a linear multiplier or exponential multiplier? I guess that makes Galileo wrong since he recanted. Lack of will to die and boom, we're the center of the universe again.

People have believed a range of things and have been willing to endure (or perform, sadly) all sorts of horrors in the name of their beliefs. Early Christians certainly suffered, but that isn't a measurement of the truth, it's a measurement of their dedication to their particular faith. By your logic the Jews of 14th & 15th century Spain were correct, the Jehovas Witnesses of Nazi Germany were correct, the early persecuted Mormons were correct and today's Falun Gong is also correct.

Evan a slight expansion of your definition brings Jonestown into the "correct" status. After all, a willingness to die horribly isn't far from a willingness to take your own life because your faith dictates that it is the correct path.