The attitude these Roman citizens held toward Christians in second century A.D. was one of pure hatred. The governor at time publicly announced that they were to be deliberately hunted out and brought before tribunal and city authorities (141). Christians were led into forum where entire city could watch proceedings. The martyrs were then treated with savagery and cruelty and endured every kind of torture city authorities and populace heaped upon them: noisy abuse, blows, dragging along ground, stoning, and imprisonment (139). The whole fury of crowd, governor and soldiers was unleashed at mere mention of phrase ‘I am a Christian’. But why? What I find interesting about popular attitudes that made arrests and executions possible is that in report in Eusebius’ History, Christian community appears harmless. A few of martyrs gave testimony to this:

As such [Vettius Epagathus] found judgment so unreasonably given against us more than he could bear: boiling with indignation, he applied for permission to speak in defense of Christians, and to prove that there was nothing godless or irreligious in our society. (140)

I [Sanctus] am a Christian: we do nothing to be ashamed of. (141)

The Christians felt like they had done nothing wrong; according to above references this seems to be true, so why such hatred? Of what offense were they being charged?

There were several of what I call “surface-level” accusations – accusations that were stated with intent to expose something much deeper. According to author of this report, soldiers were known to accuse Christians of “Thyestean banquets” and “Oedipean incest” (141). As horrible as charges may have been, writer claims these accusations were false. We don’t know whether Christian community in second century was in fact guilty of these charges; all we have is author’s account. I believe accusations were indeed false, for not only do they seem too absurd for people who claimed to be upholding a particular standard, there was something deeper behind these charges and eventual punishments and deaths: crime martyrs committed was that they simply were what they were: Christian. This statement in and of itself seems simple enough, but by confessing their faith in Christ, Christians deeply offended religious beliefs of Roman population, and so were deemed scapegoats. Many attempts were made to make martyrs swear allegiance to “heathen idols”, but Christians could not be swayed. This infuriated Romans, who would inflict insurmountable cruelty up their captives, almost always to death, with hopes of “avenging their gods” (143, 146-47). This statement alone indicates that Romans were highly offended at Christians’ claim to a higher God, a god who is different than that of Romans. By inflicting pain and suffering on Christians, Romans thought their gods would have their revenge for being rejected. It seems only crime committed by Christians was declaration of their faith:

When they confessed Christ, they were locked up in gaol to await governor’s arrival…[who] treated them with all cruelty he reserves for Christians. (140)

When Vettius Epagathus defended his faith, crowd round tribunal howled him down…and he, too, was admitted to ranks of martyrs. (140)

Pothinus…was conveyed to tribunal by soldiers, accompanied by civil authorities and whole populace, who shouted and jeered at him as though he were Christ himself. (143)

The latter quote brings up another interesting point. The author attributed Pothinus’ trial to that of Christ before His own trial. During trial of Attalus, Roman authorities went a step even further. It wasn’t enough just to torment him. They led him around amphitheatre with a placard, on which was written in Latin: “This is Attalus Christian” (145). Not only was this man mocked like Christ, but placard he bore was similar to Christ’s, which read “The King of Jews”. Christ was crucified for political reasons – “King of Jews” implied that Jesus, Christ, was claiming superiority over Caesar, which was considered a political crime in Roman provinces. One could say that Attalus and his fellow Christians were being martyred for same reason – politics. Although they weren’t claiming supremacy over Caesar, they were implying by their defiant actions (their refusal to give up Christ as Lord) that their God was superior over Roman gods. Throughout his report author, someone clearly Christian as his use of “us”, “our”, and “we” made apparent, referenced Roman gods as “heathen idols” (146), which would imply that these gods were wrong gods to worship and Christian God, “the Way”, had supremacy over them. Since Romans were so intent on avenging their rejected gods, it is clear that martyrs’ attitude offended Roman populace. Another attitude I found interesting was distinction being made between Roman Christians and non-Roman Christians. None of martyrs were treated well, that much is obvious. But what is also obvious from text is preferential treatment given to Roman Christians by Caesar:

The term Gnosticism comes from Greek word gnosis, meaning ‘knowledge’. This knowledge is knowledge of participation, knowledge of union and salvation. It is existential knowledge in contrast to scientific knowledge.2 Gnosticism was influenced by Oriental dualism and Greek philosophies. In this dualism Gnostics believed that creation of world was bad and that its creator, Yahweh, Old Testament God of Jews, was an evil being. The God of Gnostic Christianity was a benevolent and loving being, superior over Yahweh.3 This God was God Father, Jesus’ Father, “real” God. Paul Tillich said that Gnosis is used in three ways: as knowledge in general terms; as mystical communion; as sexual intercourse.4 This article will be concerned with second as it applies to Resurrection.

The theory that Jesus rose from dead is fundamental element of Christian faith. The idea that this event occurred in one unique historical moment is a central theme to orthodox position. What makes this so ordinary is not claim that Jesus’ friends had seen him after his death, but that they saw a human being. The orthodox position states that as Christ rose bodily from grave, so every believer should anticipate resurrection of flesh. 4 Some New Testament accounts insist on this literal view of resurrection and orthodoxy of second century insisted on it as well, rejecting all others as heretical. Luke 24:34 states that “the Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon Peter!” Whatever truth of this claim, in all honesty we can’t verify or disprove it on simply historical grounds – we were not there to see it happen. All we can say is that Peter claimed that resurrection happened and generations after him continued to believe him, and still do.