Toto

An amazing amount of what is "well known" in this field is in fact false, or urban legends.

But start here:I don't think he said that. If he did, please provide the quote.


Source? Do you discount Irenaeus and Tertullian?

Source? Here's one reason to think that Paul was not writing about Mithras: Mithras was not crucified. Here's another: Mithraism was confined to men, and Paul worked with women preachers and wrote to women followers.

What other religions in the Eastern Empire had followers who were known as Christians?

That's just a start.

Solitary Man

Paul was from Tarsus, a city in Anatolia. The taurus is the Latin word for a bull, the central beast of sacrifice in the Mithraic sacra.

mountainman

Do you happen to know whether the original text was
"The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called Christians", or
"The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called Chrestians".


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

patcleaver

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.
- emperor Julian

I think that we know some of Irenaeus's letters are forgeries. We know that there have been lots of interpolations such as in Josephus and alterations of the Gospels for doctrinal purposes.

Religious literature is the least reliable of all literature. There are thousands of religious documents that Christians claim are false.

The first time that Christians burned a book was irrefutable proof that Christianity was all just a fraud.

I do not discount Irenaeus or Tertullian anymore than I discount Joseph Smith or H Ron Hubbard.

Do you have evidence of that ?


Paul said that women should be quiet and not preach.

There is a myth that pagan religions are uniform throughout the world. The worshipers of Mithra were no more uniform than the worshipers of Yahweh. Every congregation was probably different. There were probably dozens of independent groups that worshiped Mithra in different ways in the Roman Empire.


Crestian/Christian could mean "the good" or it could mean "the anointed". Since anointing was symbolic for becoming a leader, it could also mean "chosen" or "leader". Also, it could indicated that they were followers of a good or anointed god, or a good or anointed leader, or just someone that is chosen or a leader. It was common to anoint someone who died so anyone who followed a dead leader could be called Christians.

With all the thousands of cults in Rome it is silly to think that only one of them were ever know as Christians.

Toto

This is mountainman's favorite quote of all time, but it does not say explicitly that "Constantine and Eusebius forged everything in the Early 4th century to create Christianity." It just says that the religion is false.

Erm, Iraneaus was not a letter writer. I bring him up to indicate that there were Christians operating before Constantine.

So what?

I'm sorry, but this is not the place for this sort of rhetoric. I might agree with you that Christianity is a fraud, but it would take more than one early misbehaving Christian to show that, and even that does nothing to support the historical claims that you have made.

:huh:

You are supposed to be providing your sources for your claims.

I do know that it is generally conceded that the Christian god was the only one who was crucified - other gods who died and were resurrected in a general sense had other forms of death. I am not aware that Mithras even died.

This is part of the Pauline epistles that is highly likely to have been interpolated.

We do know that Mithraism was popular with the Roman soldiers, although wikipedia says that there might have been some women involved in a few places. Christianity, on the other hand, from all accounts was popular with women and slaves.

This does not follow. There are many possible derivations for the term Christians, but no evidence that there were a lot of different groups known as Christians.

patcleaver

From http://www.tutorgig.com/ed/Christian

Followers of Serapis were called Christians as demonstrated in a letter from Emperor Adrian to Servianus, 134 A.D. (Quoted by Giles, ii p86) :Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by every breath of fame. The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called 'Christians', and those who are devoted to the god Serapis (I find), call themselves 'Bishops of Christ'.

from http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/ctg/chj-chz.htm

TG Chrestos (Gr.). The early Gnostic form of Christ. It was used in the fifth century B.C. by Aeschylus, Herodotus, and others. The Manteumata pythochresta, or the "oracles delivered by a Pythian god" through a pythoness, are mentioned by the former (Choeph. 901). Chresterion is not only "the seat of an oracle", but an offering to, or for, the oracle. Chrestes is one who explains oracles, "a prophet and soothsayer", and Chresterios one who serves an oracle or a god. The earliest Christian writer, Justin Martyr, in his first Apology, calls his co-religionists Chrestians. "It is only through ignorance that men call themselves Christians instead of Chrestians," says Lactantius (lib. iv., cap. vii.). The terms Christ and Christians, spelt originally Chrest and Chrestians, were borrowed from the Temple vocabulary of the Pagans. Chrestos meant in that vocabulary a disciple on probation, a candidate for hierophantship. When he had attained to this through initiation, long trials, and suffering, and had been "anointed" (i.e., "rubbed with oil", as were Initiates and even idols of the gods, as the last touch of ritualistic observance), his name was changed into Christos, the "purified", in esoteric or mystery language. In mystic symbology, indeed, Christes, or Christos, meant that the "Way", the Path, was already trodden and the goal reached; when the fruits of the arduous labour, uniting the personality of evanescent clay with the indestructible INDIVIDUALITY, transformed it thereby into the Immortal EGO. "At the end of the Way stands the Chrestes", the Purifier, and the union once accomplished, the Chrestos, the "man of sorrow", became Christos himself. Paul, the Initiate, knew this, and meant this precisely, when he is made to say, in bad translation: "I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you" (Gal. iv. 19), the true rendering of which is "until ye form the Christos within yourselves". But the profane who knew only that Chrestes was in some way connected with priest and prophet, and knew nothing about the hidden meaning of Christos, insisted, as did Lactantius and Justin Martyr, on being called Chrestians instead of Christians. Every good individual, therefore, may find Christ in his "inner man" as Paul expresses it (Ephes. iii. 16, 17), whether he be Jew, Mussulman, Hindu, or Christian. Kenneth Mackenzie seemed to think that the word Chrestos was a synonym of Soter, "an appellation assigned to deities, great kings and heroes," indicating "Saviour," -- and he was right. For, as he adds: "It has been applied redundantly to Jesus Christ, whose name Jesus or Joshua bears the same interpretation. The name Jesus, in fact, is rather a title of honour than a name -- the true name of the Soter of Christianity being Emmanuel, or God with us (Matt. i., 23.). . . Great divinities among all nations, who are represented as expiatory or self-sacrificing, have been designated by the same title." (R. M. Cyclop.) The Asklepios (or Aesculapius) of the Greeks had the title of Soter.

KT Chrestos (Gr.) The early gnostic term for Christ. This technical term was used in the fifth century B.C. by AEschylus, Herodotus and others. The Manteumata pythocresta, or the "Oracles delivered by a Pythian God" through a pythoness, are mentioned by the former (Cho. 901), and Pythocrestos is derived from chrao. Chresterion is not only "the test of an oracle," but an offering to, or for, the oracle. Chrestes is one who explains oracles, a "prophet and soothsayer," and Chresterios, one who serves an oracle or a God. The earliest Christian writer, Justin Martyr, in his first Apology, calls his co-religionists Chrestians. "It is only through ignorance that men call themselves Christians, instead of Chrestians," says Lactantius (lib. IV., cap. VII.). The terms Christ and Christians, spelt originally Chrest and Chrestians, were borrowed from the Temple vocabulary of the Pagans. Chrestos meant, in that vocabulary, "a disciple on probation," a candidate for hierophantship; who, when he had attained it, through Initiation, long trials and suffering, and had been anointed (i. e., "rubbed with oil," as Initiates and even Idols of the Gods were, as the last touch of ritualistic observance), was changed into Christos -- the "purified" in esoteric or mystery language. In mystic symbology, indeed, Christes or Christos meant that the "way," the Path, was already trodden and the goal reached; when the fruits of the arduous labour, uniting the personality of evanescent clay with the indestructible INDIVIDUALITY, transformed it thereby into the immortal EGO. "At the end of the way stands the Christes," the Purifier; and the union once accomplished, the Chrestos, the "man of sorrow" became Christos himself. Paul, the Initiate, knew this, and meant this precisely, when he is made to say in bad translation, "I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you" (Gal. iv., 19), the true rendering of which is, " . . . . until you form the Christos within yourselves." But the profane, who knew only that Chrestos was in some way connected with priest and prophet, and knew nothing about the hidden meaning of Christos, insisted, as did Lactantius and Justyn Martyr, on being called Chrestians instead of Christians. Every good individual, therefore, may find Christ in his "inner man," as Paul expresses it, (Ephes. iii., 16, 17) whether he be Jew, Mussulman, Hindu or Christian.

from http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/...o/sio-eso1.htm

The earliest Christian author, Justin Martyr, calls, in his first Apology, his co-religionists Chrestians, [Chrestianoi] -- not Christians.

"Clemens Alexandrinus, in the second century, founds a serious argument on this paranomasia (lib. iii., cap. xvii., 53 et circa), that all who believed in Chrest (i.e., "a good man") both are, and are called Chrestians, that is, good men," (Strommata, lib. ii. "Higgins' Anacalypsis"). And Lactantius (lib. iv., cap. vii.) says that it is only through ignorance that people call themselves Christians, instead of Chrestians: "qui proper ignorantium errorem cum immutata litera Chrestum solent dicere." (return to text)

Good slaves were often referred to as Chrestus. It was a common name for slaves and former slaves.

Crest could be interpreted as kind, gentle, good.

Hope this helps.

mountainman

Yes - and thanks for the reference.

Earlier you said:

About the forgeries and the fiction
I do have some questions ...

What do you know about Arnaldo Momigliano?
What do you think was discussed at the Council of Nicaea?
Who first published this fiction book - the New Testament?
When was this NT first published?
Where was this NT first published?
Who paid for - or "sponsored" - the fabrication?
Who was contracted to, or wrote, the text?

Finally, what do you make of the chronology and place
in the whole scheme of things of the three major NT
codices - the Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus?

Thanks again and best wishes



Pete Brown

patcleaver

what is your source for that? I was not aware of the rules of this forum. Where can I find them. Do they really say that you have to provide sources for everything you say? Why isn't everyone else providing sources?

I will try to respond to what I believe are honest inquires, but I will not respond to attempts to waste my time on red herrings or wild goose chases.
If you ask for evidence of a particular claim then I will provide evidence if I have some.
If I quote something, that is not well known, and you ask for a source, then I will give a source or try to search for the source of the quote.

We can not depose and cross examine the authors of ancient writings. The fact that someone said something is not reliable evidence that its true for many reasons, such as:

1. everyone lies sometimes especially about emotional issues like religion and politics;
2. people often write things that the audience knows is fiction or allegory or metaphor - in fact most popular books are fiction;
3. forgery of documents is an ancient art;
4. people often believe things without justification;
5. people make mistakes;
6. it is easy to misinterpret what someone said/wrote;
7. when things are hand copied the copyists belief can affect what he thinks he reads;
8. copyists make errors;
9. if the copyist is dishonest then he can change anything he wants;
10. it was very common for these documents to have been at times in private libraries where the owner felt perfectly justified to make any changes he wished to his own document for his own use;
11. it is very common for all the copies or even the sole copy of these documents to be in possession of a single institution or even a single person who may not be trustworthy;
12. copyists often copy things in exactly the same textual style as the original;
13. there have been periods in history when it was common for governments to require that books be revised;
14. Any organization that could justify burning books or banning books could justify wholesale forging of documents - its the mirror image;

Unless there is some reason to think that a statement in a document is trustworthy then it should not be trusted.

There is no reliable confirmation of any followers of Jesus of Nazareth prior to at least 381.

I will not presume that anyone called Christians or Chrestians refers to followers of Jesus of Nazareth. I think it is a lot more likely that there were multiple groups calling themselves Christians than a single group that did so because there were thousands of groups and as previously discussed, Christians or Chrestians is something that any group might be likely to call themselves.

I will not presume that any reference to Jesus Christ is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus means savior and Christ means anointed or leader. These are titles - not names. Jesus Christ is a title that any god or any religious leader that ever existed might have been called. I think it is a lot more likely that the so called early church fathers were followers of Mithra or some other pagan deity then Jesus of Nazareth because we know that there were lots of followers of such pagan deities and no evidence that anyone followed any Jesus of Nazareth.

Many of the early Christian documents could just as easily be pagan. Many others have only have a word or two that could be interpolations that identify them as Christian instead of pagan. I do not know of anything in the so called letters of Paul that connect them with any unique attribute of Jesus of Nazareth (e.g. that could not have been attributes of Sol Invictus).

I just think that early Christianity and the early 3rd century conversion of Rome to Christianity are probably myths.

lpetrich

I don't know who's worse, the Bible-worshippers who claim that the Bible is a perfectly-preserved, 100%-literally-true documentary or those who claim that Xianity was invented in Constantine's day.

In any case, neither hypothesis is supportable, though I don't know if I have the patience to rebut either REVROSWELL or patcleaver in detail.

REVROSWELL makes the tired old argument from medieval copies. New Testament copies are VERY rare before Constantine's time, though we do have various fragments. In any case, we can check ancient documents against each other and against the abundant evidence of inscriptions, vase paintings, murals, statues, and the like.

As to Josephus, his supposed mention of Jesus Christ was likely some scribe's marginal note that got inadvertently interpreted as part of the text. It is very stylistically different, and it is contrary to what Josephus would have written. Given the sort of jaundiced eye with what Josephus had viewed a lot of self-styled prophets that he had written about, I'm sure that he would have written about Jesus Christ in an equally jaundiced fashion.

patcleaver seems to agree with mountainman that Xianity was invented some time around Emperor Constantine's reign, but there is a lot of evidence of pre-Constantine Xianity. And to say that it was really Mithraism is absurd; Mithraism had its own set of symbols and doctrines that agreed with Xianity mostly in rather commonplace things like having sacred meals and in the miraculous origin of its central figure.

mountainman

And the dating of these VERY rare copies and fragments
is by way of paleographic (handwriting) assessment.

Out of this abundance of evidence of inscriptions,
vase paintings, murals, statues, and the like, would
you care to drop a few crumbs of citations? You
are no doubt aware that I have been collating the
physical abundance of these citations, and their ambiguity.

One or two might be sufficient to start with.

Best wishes


Pete Brown