Malachi151

The rest of the work is serious, as you can read for yourself.

Here is one example chosen at random:

The inconsistent life of any false Christian no more condemns true disciples of Christ, than a passing cloud obscures a summer sky.

As to your saying of us that we are a most shameful set, and utterly steeped in luxury, avarice, and depravity, we will not deny that this is true of some. It is, however, a sufficient testimonial for our name, that this cannot be said of all, not even of the greater part of us. It must happen even in the healthiest and purest body, that a mole should grow, or a wart arise on it, or freckles disfigure it. Not even the sky itself is clear with so perfect a serenity as not to be flecked with some filmy cloud. A slight spot on the face, because it is obvious in so conspicuous a part, only serves to show purity of the entire complexion. The goodness of the larger portion is well attested by the slender flaw. But although you prove that some of our people are evil, you do not hereby prove that they are Christians...

The rest of the text reads in the same manner.

Roger Pearse

While I frequently eat babies myself -- as indeed happens in every Christian church with which I am familiar --, I must say that I don't quite follow your logic. But no doubt you will report me to the police without delay. Indeed if you do not, can I take your comments seriously?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Malachi151

Here is info on Crosses:

http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p039.html

http://www.albatrus.org/english/paga...n_of_cross.htm





Antinous (God of Homosexuality) with Cross and Grapes of Dionysus

GakuseiDon

Minucius Felix clearly denies that Christians ate babies:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co.../octavius.html

BUT how unjust it is, to form a judgment on things unknown and unexamined, as you do! Believe us ourselves when penitent, for we also were the same as you, and formerly, while yet blind and obtuse, thought the same things as you; to wit, that the Christians worshipped monsters, devoured infants, mingled in incestuous banquets. And we did not perceive that such fables as these were always set afloat by those (newsmongers), and were never either inquired into nor proved

Are you sure that Tertullian doesn't mention the name "Christ" or details of Christ's earthly life like the crucifixion at all in "Ad nationes"? Tertullian is one of the Church Fathers, so it doesn't seem reasonable that he would ignore either topics in "Ad nationes", which was an apologetic to the pagans.

Malachi151

It is certianly reasonable that people would deny the eating of babies, and also that indeed the practice may have been restricted to a few and others were honestly unaware of it. I know already that many people denied the practice, what I am presenting here is early evidence that someone DID admit to the practice.

Indeed Tertullian may be wrong, but the point is that the only way I can read what he said here, assuming a correct translation it comes from a catholic website) is that he is claiming that Christians did slaughter infiants ritually and eat them.

There is no mention of "Jesus" or "Christ" in Ad Nationes. The only mention of crucifixion is talking about the crucifixion of contemporary Christains.

Furthermore, the earliest Greek texts that describe the killing of Jesus don't mention a cross, they say that he was strung up on a pole. There is actually an account in the Bible that says he was killed on a tree. In addition to this, death by being strung up on a pole is a uniquely Greek form of killing, lending support to the idea that this was a mytholgy that developed as the Christian religion developed in Greece.

Jesus on the cross is not an idea that appeard until hundreds of years later actually, after the Greek texts of the NT were "mistranslated". I suspect that they were intentionally reworded to unify the worship of the cross, then recognized as a pagan symbol, and Christian mythology.

They had to come up with a purely Christian reason to worship the cross, so they invented the "crucifixion of Christ" myth.

Edit:

The killing of Jesus on a tree is in Acts:

Roger Pearse

Indeed he doesn't mention Christ at all, directly. Instead he follows the Greek apologists in trying to play down the founder of the Christians (a sleazy criminal, in Roman eyes, remember), and pleading that the things alleged against Christianity are both false and insufficient grounds for persecution.

This approach never worked, and it was the genius of Tertullian to realise this, and rework the whole genre with the revised version of the same, which we have as the great Apologeticum. This, written in the same year, does mention Christ and the events of his life.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

So did I, just now. So, why haven't you called the police?


All the best,

Roger Pearse

River

Jesus Christ (pbuh) was certainly NOT crucified.

Dan Brown, the author of the Da Vinci Code also believes that the

crucifiction was a hoax...however, he left it out of his book due to its

controversial nature

lastly,

And [on account of] their saying: "We killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Messenger of God." They did not kill him and they did not crucify him, but it was made to seem so to them. Those who argue about him are in doubt about it. They have no real knowledge of it, just conjecture. But they certainly did not kill him. God raised him to Himself. God is Almighty, All-Wise. (Surat An-Nisa', 4:157-158 Qur'an)

Vorkosigan

Congratulations! You're the first person ever to read it that way. Mal, no group of humans has ever eaten babies, ritually, or any other way. The charge was simply one the Romans used to defame Christians, and Tertullian is having fun with it.

FYI The cult of antoninus does not predate Christianity by hundreds of years (it does not predate Christianity at all).

Michael

Malachi151

Again people keep making this claim, but demonstrate it.

#1 He is addressing a accusations against Chrsitians. The entire work addresses the accusations against the Christians. He is serious in the work. In many cases is flat our denis claims.

#2 In this section he addresses the claim that Christians sacrafices babies and he states that they do indeed slaughter infants ritually and he never, at any point, denies. He goes on further to justify the practise.

There is nothing here that says "hey, I'm just joking". If you are joking you go back at the end and say, "No seriously..."

Now, does anyone have other quotes from Tertullian where he does specifically deny this claim?

As for the cult of Antoninus, its just one example of an image that I was able to find at a moments notice with google.

By the same token I also provided links to textual documents that discuss the long history of the cross as a religious symbol, and I also provided other evidence that contradicts the claim that Jesus was supposedly crucified on a cross.

The idea that Jesus was crucifed on a cross is a late developing idea.

Worship of the cross predated the crucifixion myth.

The earliest myths about Jesus death have him being killed on a pole or tree, not a cross.