None so baldly stated. The classic work on early christian pagan relations is of course R. L. Fox's Pagans and Christians. However, this doesn't get us much past Constantine. There is a great series on Witchcraft and Magic called (suprise) Witchcraft and Magic in Europe and consists of 6 edited volumes. The third of these has a some papers which directly concern how the early church treated pagans, witches, etc., all of which support Hutton's statement. The Power of Sacrifice by George Heyman is good to, but it to deals mainly with persecution of christians. The only other books that come time mind as supportive (often indirectly simply because they lack any detail of christian persecution of pagans) are Early Christianity by Humphries, Second Church by MacMullen, and Religious Rivalries in the Early Roman Empire and the Rise of Christianity. Of course, my focuse has always been on Christianity and Judaism around the time of Jesus, so this is hardly my area. Hutton's specialty, though, is the history of paganism in europe.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why the Jesus Myth is illogical.
- Thread starter fallingblood
- Start date
None so baldly stated. The classic work on early christian pagan relations is of course R. L. Fox's Pagans and Christians. However, this doesn't get us much past Constantine. There is a great series on Witchcraft and Magic called (suprise) Witchcraft and Magic in Europe and consists of 6 edited volumes. The third of these has a some papers which directly concern how the early church treated pagans, witches, etc., all of which support Hutton's statement. The Power of Sacrifice by George Heyman is good to, but it to deals mainly with persecution of christians. The only other books that come time mind as supportive (often indirectly simply because they lack any detail of christian persecution of pagans) are Early Christianity by Humphries, Second Church by MacMullen, and Religious Rivalries in the Early Roman Empire and the Rise of Christianity. Of course, my focuse has always been on Christianity and Judaism around the time of Jesus, so this is hardly my area. Hutton's specialty, though, is the history of paganism in europe.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
OK, thanks.
If Christians didn't persecute pagans in the 4th-6th century, I'm Mickey Mouse.
Mickey! I've always wanted to meet you!OK, thanks.
If Christians didn't persecute pagans in the 4th-6th century, I'm Mickey Mouse.
Actually, Hutton flatly states they did persecute pagans (and, obviously, so does everyone else). What he notes is that there isn't any record of christians executing or killing pagans. Rather, they destroyed literary works, sacred sites, and so on.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
The story of Hypatia is centered around Cyril's attempt to bring down holy sites in Alexandria, which did not happen bloodlessly.
Hypatia
MW0082
Jesus 4 Profit.... =)~
Really, they take all the attributes from every other religion, to gain the followers with familiarity so many would not even really have to change their lifestyles to convert, they rampage on through into the most bloodiest religious campaign EVER, and they change their book with the times along with what they accept or how they accept it. Pretty clear the had an agenda and would not stop till they met it....
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
I use wikipedia simply because it is an easy source. In this case, it does provide the general scholarly opinion. Simply dismissing it off hand (which you criticized me for supposedly doing in a different thread, even though I gave a rebuttal to said article), is not a logical argument. But just so you don't have an excuse to actually debate, I will suggest a few other sources. First, Bart D. Ehrman's Introductory book to the New Testament. It contains information on the subject as to how we can know that Josephus did in fact write something about Jesus.Really? Wikipedia is a credible a source.......
I think you've proven here that you go off more faith/opinoin then actual proof on anything....
Religion: Josephus and Jesus - TIME
Josephus'Testimony to Jesus Also, gives reference to a great book with a discussion on the subject, A Marginal Jew by John P. Meier.
Josephus on Jesus - Paul Maier
I can give you additional books as well, from various other authors who are authorities on the subject.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Do you have any sources? Anything credible at all supporting your position? I highly doubt it.
If you actually look at the influences of the early Jesus movement, you see Judaism. The reason is simple, Jesus was a Jew, the early movement was Jewish. Support: L. Michael White's From Jesus to Christianity, The Birth of Christianity by John Dominic Crossan. Also, just for an internet site: FRONTLINE: from jesus to christ - the first christians | PBS
A very good site.
logician
Well-Known Member
You just proved my point for me.
Going to address any of the points I brought up? Answer a few questions?
Of course not. That's not your style.
Sorry, none of your points merits consideration, please make your arguments a little more coherent.
logician
Well-Known Member
We certainly do know most "famous" people's dates of birth and death. We also know a lot about their lives from real historical records, real historical artifacts, their own writings, writings of biographers, etc. None of this exists for the supposed Jesus.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
It doesn't matter as long as you believe.
logician
Well-Known Member
Simple logic demands that if the supposed Jesus was not "important" enough for historians to write about (i.e. no miracles, no multitudes of people following him around, no high profile trial), then where were the gospel writers pulling this material from?
Not from a living person's actions, but from pre-existant religious thought and philosophy. The characters and events were made up to fit the story line.
Not from a living person's actions, but from pre-existant religious thought and philosophy. The characters and events were made up to fit the story line.
MW0082
Jesus 4 Profit.... =)~
If Josephus was born c37, how could he be a reliable source for Jesus....???
IO can't believe you even believe that....... conspiracy!!!
Last edited:
Perhaps it's the fact that he was an historian, by trade, that lends him credibility.
waitasec
Veteran Member
not as an eye witness but through hearsay...
he wrote antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels were written
Last edited:
MW0082
Jesus 4 Profit.... =)~
Prceisley, at that is why Fallingblood falls flat here. It's hearsey not actual proof. So far you have failed at proving Jesus is not a MYTH or an actual person.. pfft
OK, I'll go back over my last few posts and see if I can rephrase them in monosyllables.
You didn't ask for DOB, location, or date of death, you asked for stories (God, man, at least read your own posts).
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Even so, they're both forgeries. "Called Christ" is right out of the NT, and how would Josephus' readers know who Josephus would be referring to by writing "called Christ" to describe someone that was unknown, and supposedly killed 60 years prior to his writing? Christ who? Christians argue that Jesus Christ was well known yet aside from a few Christians, no one else wrote about him.