Toto

It is a general rule of debates that a person making an assertion needs to provide some source, or some indication of why they believe that the assertion is true. Otherwise, people could just claim anything that sounded interesting, and where would we be? It would be virtually impossible to carry on a discussion.

In your case, you are asserting things that you claim are "common knowledge." That means that you should be able to find at least a wikipedia entry or something. I have tried to explain that a lot of "common knowledge" in this field is flat out wrong. And in fact, your assertions are way outside the mainstream.

<snip irrelevant stuff>

In the first place, Nazareth was probably a later addition to the Jesus story, so it is not productive to talk about Jesus of Nazareth.

Bart Ehrman and others think that there were many early varieties of Christianity, but that they all had some connection to Judaism, as the Jews were looking for a savior. The early church fathers were generally at pains to distinguish their religion from Mithraism.

What have you read about Mithraism? Why Mithraism?

Paul writes a lot about Judaism. Why would he do this if he were a pagan follower of Mithras, who was not crucified?

Is there anyone else on the planet that you know of who thinks that Constantine's conversion, and Roman conversion in general, to Christianity is a myth? How do you deal with the archeological evidence from the period?

Toto

I think that this is usually cited as evidence of some confusion on the part of Hadrian.

You need to be careful when you rely on Madame Blavatsky for your information. It might have come to her through the spirits.

The confusion between Christos and Chrestos is well known.

Roger Pearse

I note that my request for any specific references in ancient literature to any other group under that name was met with silence. As far as I know -- and clearly as far as anyone else knows -- 'Christians' in Roman literature always means Christians.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

It's a carefully edited extract from the Historia Augusta here. Here is the context.

For the Egyptians, as you know well enough, are puffed up, madmen,20 boastful, doers of injury, and, in fact, liars and without restraint, always craving something new, even in their popular songs, writers of verse, makers of epigrams, astrologers, soothsayers, quacksalvers. 5Â Among them, indeed, are Christians and Samaritans and those who are always ill-pleased by the present, though enjoying unbounded liberty. 6Â But, lest any Egyptian be angry with me, thinking that what IÂ have set forth in writing is solely my own, IÂ will cite one of Hadrian's letters, taken from the works of his freedman Phlegon,21 which fully reveals the character of the Egyptians.

8 From Hadrian Augustus to Servianus the consul, greeting. The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumour. 2. There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. 3. There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. 4. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ. 5. They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury; but their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one is idle. 6. Some are blowers of glass, others makers of paper, all are at least weavers of linen or seem to belong to one craft or another; the lame have their occupations, the eunuchs have theirs, the blind have theirs, and not even those whose hands are crippled are idle. 7. Their only god is money, and this the Christians, the Jews, and, in fact, all nations adore. And would that this city had a better character, for indeed it is worthy by reason of its richness and by reason of its size to hold the chief place in the whole of Egypt. 8. I granted it every favour, I restored to it all its ancient rights and bestowed on it new ones besides, so that the people gave thanks to me while I was present among them. Then, no sooner had I departed thence than they said many things against my son Verus, and what they said about Antinous I believe you have learned. 9. I can only wish for them that they may live on their own chickens, which they breed in a fashion I am ashamed to describe. 10. I am sending you over some cups, changing colour and variegated, presented to me by the priest of a temple and now dedicated particularly to you and my sister. IÂ should like you to use them at banquets on feast-days. Take good care, however, that our dear Africanus does not use them too freely."

9 So then, holding such an opinion about the Egyptians Aurelian forbade Saturninus to visit Egypt, showing a wisdom that was truly divine.

The point is that the fickleness of the Egyptians in swaying cheaply between beliefs which are known to be opposed, if taken seriously.

I wonder if this really came from a work by Phlegon.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

You mean that we don't have his letters (most people must have written them, of course). This is so.

I can only think of fragments of two off-hand. The first is the fragment of the letter to Florinus, quoted by Eusebius, rebuking him for becoming a gnostic and reminding him of what the apostle John's disciple Polycarp would have said if he'd seen it. The other is extant in Syriac and is a portion of a later letter to the bishop of Rome requesting him to excommunicate the same Florinus.

Nor me. Mr. Cleaver, why not try to produce an ancient source to this effect?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Tim Holt

Justin Martyr's thesis in his First Apology is that there is nothing distinctive about Christianity that justifies the persecution of Christians. He is therefore at pains to emphasise the similarities between Christianity and the various pagan religions (which are tolerated). Having listed a number of parallels, which he explains as demonic imitations of Christianity, he writes:

"But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified". [Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter LV]

aa5874

"Christians" could in fact mean worshippers of Serapis. And in "Against Heresies", a believer in Christ could in fact mean a devotee of the Christ according to Valentinus, Marcion, Basilides, Cerinthus, Caprocates, Simon Magus, the Ebionites or a host of others.

The "Saviour" according to Valentinus in Against Heresies bk 1.1.3, "....Moreover, they declare that this invisible and spiritual Pleroma of theirs is tripartite being divided into an Ogdoad, a Decad, and a Duodecad. And for this reason they affirm it was that the "Saviour"----for they do not please to call him Lord---did no work in public for the space of thirty years...."

"Christians" did in fact mean different things in antiquity.

andrewcriddle

It comes from the part of the Historia Augusta dealing with the more obscure would-be emperors. This whole section of the Historia Augusta appears to be largely fiction, possibly in this particular passage fiction with an anti-Christian agenda.

Andrew Criddle

patcleaver

Crucified just means killed. There are lots of legends of sons of Gods that were killed. For example, I think Horus, Adonis, Attis were all killed. Justin Martyr certainly knew of all these legents.

Either Justin Martyr was lying or he was referring to only the son's of Jupiter and not the other crucified son's of god.

"When we say that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter." Apology 21 by Justin Martyr

Toto

Pat, you have to stop just making things up as you go along.

Crucified refers to a particular form of execution. It was used for political rebels and slaves, and was meant to be as painful and humiliating as possible.

Justin Martyr wanted to make Christianity look familiar to the Romans, so he emphasized the similarities. If you read him in context, he says that Christianity is a belief system with many similarities to the Romans', except where it is superior.

But none of the Roman gods were crucified. And Mithras was not crucified, and was not killed in any way that we know about.