Freethought & Rationalism Archive

patcleaver · 12-13-2007, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

...
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'.

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

Quote:

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

....

Hope this helps.

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.

Yes I should. The Christians were channeling the Holy Spirit or Jesus or angels and the Madame Blavatsky was channeling the dead. All a bunch of nutters.

patcleaver · 12-13-2007, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Crucifiction did not mean killed on a cross. The only thing it had to do with a cross is that some criminals were killed on a cross. Crucified just meant killed in Greek.

In English, crucified has come to mean killed on a cross, but that was not true in ancient Greek.

Toto · 12-13-2007, 09:16 PM

Crucifixion

Noun
S: (n) crucifixion (the act of executing by a method widespread in the ancient world; the victim's hands and feet are bound or nailed to a cross)

What word in ancient Greek do you refer to?

patcleaver · 12-13-2007, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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

I do not understand how this indicates that he is confused. He says "those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis". That does not seem confused or ambiguous to me.

patcleaver · 12-13-2007, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Crucifixion

Noun
S: (n) crucifixion (the act of executing by a method widespread in the ancient world; the victim's hands and feet are bound or nailed to a cross)

What word in ancient Greek do you refer to?

Yes of course in modern English crucified means killed on a cross.

But your wrong about Greek. Just because a word in modern English is derived from Greek does not mean that it has the same meaning that it had in Greek. The ancient Greek word crucified is usually translated in English as crucified even though in ancient Greek it only meant killed and in modern English it means killed on a cross.

George S · 12-13-2007, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Crucifixion

Noun
S: (n) crucifixion (the act of executing by a method widespread in the ancient world; the victim's hands and feet are bound or nailed to a cross)

What word in ancient Greek do you refer to?

Yes of course in modern English crucified means killed on a cross.

But your wrong about Greek. Just because a word in modern English is derived from Greek does not mean that it has the same meaning that it had in Greek. The ancient Greek word crucified is usually translated in English as crucified even though in ancient Greek it only meant killed and in modern English it means killed on a cross.

I am not a scholar of the Greek and Latin texts. Perhaps you could present the sentences in which the word "crucified" (or similar Latin) was tranlated from the original Greek.

I am most interested in what word you find that the thousands of scholars who have re-translated the bible have found "crucified" as the proper translation. They do know the difference (we hope) between "executed" and "crucified" as used today. They surely would have used it as more accurate if, indeed, it was.

What's this Greek word again?

patcleaver · 12-13-2007, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

I am not aware that Mithras even died.

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

All the best,

Roger Pearse

I do not have a cite that directly proves that Roman Mithraism or even Persian Mithraism believed that Mithra died. However:

Mithra is a sun god and all the other sun gods of the Eastern Mediterranean died and arose again.

You do not have any cite that indicates that Mithra did not die and arise again. Since there were different branches of Mithraism and it probably evolved and changed over time that could never be done.

In addition, I think it makes sense that Paul was preaching some pagan religion that worshiped a Jesus Christ and Tarsus was his home and an ancient center of Mithraism, and Paul preached that the Jesus Christ died and arose from the dead.

Of course its possible that Paul was really preaching some other crucified and resurrected son of god pagan religion - there were so many.

renassault · 12-13-2007, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

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

I guess you completely ignored Roger's previous comment that this is the wrong reading.

Quote:

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.

So how does this relate to Christianity, the name of which is derived only from the meaning, not from any of the practices associated with these other cults.

Quote:

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.

Not true. Romans 8 elucidates the meaning of this: to do righteousness means Christ is in you.

Quote:

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.

Matthew is quoting Isaiah in that, so it is hardly something that came along with the name.

Quote:

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

Doesn't really matter.

Quote:

"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.

Some references unmistakably refer to Jesus such as the one describing the 44 AD explusion of the Jews by Claudius, the connection being the disputes between Christians and Jews.

renassault · 12-13-2007, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

I do not understand how this indicates that he is confused. He says "those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis". That does not seem confused or ambiguous to me.

Read it carefully. It is clear that the Christians and bishops of Christ are the ones related to Christianity (presbyters, Jews), and that they were simply worshipping Serapis but were Christians.

renassault · 12-13-2007, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Josephus, in the book Jewish Antiquities" wrote: (TF snipped)

Unfortunately this passage has often been considered a later interpolation. While this view is not the consensus today among scholars, it is still widely held, and everyone can see that the passage 'feels wrong'. (Unfortunately there is no consensus in what respect it is 'wrong'). The other passage refers briefly.

This has been discussed in this forum ad infinitum.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

What is your opinion of this: http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/testimonium.htm ?

Quote:

In 1995 a discovery was published that brought important new evidence to the debate over the Testimonium Flavianum.

For the first time it was pointed out that Josephus' description of Jesus showed an unusual similarity with another early description of Jesus.

It was established statistically that the similarity was too close to have appeared by chance.

Further study showed that Josephus' description was not derived from this other text, but rather that both were based on a Jewish-Christian "gospel" that has since been lost.

For the first time, it has become possible to prove that the Jesus account cannot have been a complete forgery and even to identify which parts were written by Josephus and which were added by a later interpolator.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-13-2007, 09:16 PM	#83
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Crucifixion Noun S: (n) crucifixion (the act of executing by a method widespread in the ancient world; the victim's hands and feet are bound or nailed to a cross) What word in ancient Greek do you refer to?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.