Talk:Christianity/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

First Sentence

Being raised as a Christian I have heard the phrase Jesus is Lord a thousand times, however what exactly does that mean? In the opening sentence I would like a statement that explains this, rather then just affirms it. Sethie 19:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I linked Lord in the sentence, so a reader can investigate further. KHM03 22:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a start, though it doesn't satisfy me, given that the 2nd sentence of that article reads: " It can have different meanings depending on the context of use."

What I would like to see in that first sentencce is the Christian context and meaning. Sethie 00:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

regarding the number of adherents/world's largest religion claim

I wonder if anyone can cite a source for the 2.1 billion adherents/world's largest religion claim other than the adherents.com website, which seems to have a pretty clear bias toward Christianity (numerous links on the site take the surfer to Christian Appologist web pages, etc...). Also, a simple Google search for the world's largest religion came up with claims that Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism are the world's largest religion within the first 20 hits. Additionally, estimates of the number of Christians world-wide ranges in the high end at about 2.1 billion, but also as low as 1 billion, again just from a simple Google search.

If a more definitive source can't be found, could the language simply be changed to say "With an estimated 2.1 billion adherents, it is arguably the world's largest religion."

Sorry to post this anonymously, but I'm new to this wiki thing and don't have an account. (comment posted by Anonymous user 203.151.141.193)

I made the change, which certainly seems fair enough to me. KHM03 19:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

New template

Template:Christian theology...help is solicited and appreciated! KHM03 13:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Transubstantiation

...was properly removed from Weekly worship services. Real presence links to all the various relevant theories and theologies, and there is no need to add any particular one. If we add one, we have to add all; that discussion belongs at Real presence and Eucharist. JHCC (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The section isn't about Roman Catholic theology, else transubstantiation might be an appropriate link. The section concerns weekly worship practices throughout Christendom. Certainly, the Eucharist needs to be mentioned (and it is), but if we start getting into specific theologies (consubstantiation, memorialism, transubstantiation, etc.), the article will get significantly lengthier. (See Template:Communion) for more links.) KHM03 21:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Persecution 2

If there is a section on the persecution of Xians, shouldn't there also be a section that addresses the fact that they in turn persecuted others? If we talk about them as being oppressed in some intstances, they why does balance not require a section that talks about their oppression of others? Maybe a section that talks about the tremendous amount of violence and bloodshed that this organized superstition has played major roles in bringing about, in addition to their direct oppression and outright murder of those who do not hold to their dogma throughout history? 216.104.211.5 22:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Christians have been perpetrators as well as victims of persecution. In ancient times, Christian mobs frequently molested pagans and destroyed their temples, sometimes with government support. The philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was murdered by such a mob in the year 415. Jewish communities have periodically suffered violence at Christian hands. Christians have persecuted not only members of other religions, but also other Christians. Byzantium suppressed non-Chalcedonian churches while Crusader armies sacked Byzantium. Protestant and Catholics fought the Thirty Years' War. Witch hunts of early modern Europe constituted another example.

Jkelly 22:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Guess I should read the whole section before speaking. I'm glad to see that it is balanced already. Thanks. 216.104.211.5 22:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I propose chaning the organization of this section to enhance the balanced treatment via its presentation, i.e., in how it lays out the information. For example, this sentence, "Christians have been perpetrators as well as victims of persecution" is a topic sentence that includes both victim and victimizer role, and therefore its placement should be at the top before each respective area is discussed-- not only after the persecution has been discussed. This makes it seem the section is one-sided, esp. if you dont bother to read down further, because you dont expect it to shift. The balancing treatment jumps out as a bit of a suprise the way its layed out now which points to the need for a more balanced lay out.

Also, shouldn't the inquisition of the Dark Ages, and crusades be mentioned, as well, where Christians were are the height of their political power, and which corresponds to what could be said to be the height of their persecution of others?

216.104.211.5 23:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above proposed change in layout, and may effect the changes when I get a chance. 64.121.40.153 08:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There was agreement and no disagreement here with my proposed changes in the layout which I thought was POV. However, when I effect the change its reverted as "POV!" hehe 64.121.40.153 01:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That's correct; because your changes made the article far too POV. KHM03 01:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That reflects your own bias. The argument is stated above and has agreement. What is your argument to counter it? 64.121.40.153 01:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The only bias I'm acting upon is toward accuracy. The argument is proposed above and has the agreement of one user...you. Hardly a consensus. Two other editors have reverted the changes as POV, so clearly we have a problem with it. Please explain why you wish to make these edits and what makes them POV or NPOV. Thanks...KHM03 01:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. User [[User:216.104.211.5| is a different user (not me). See argument already listed above. I agreed with it and proposed yesterday that I would make the changes. Since the argument is already made and you dispute the accuracy, then please point out what is not accurate. Note that most of the changes are only layout so then you dont object to the lay out change just the additional sentence I included as examples of persecution? 64.121.40.153 01:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

So one user (216.104.211.5) made a proposal, and another user (64.121.40.153) agreed. That's hardly a consensus. Please explain your proposed edits in order to reach a consensus. Thanks...KHM03 01:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The explanation has already been provided above. Again, what is your argument? What do you specifically disagree with with that proposal and its rationale? Silence points to aquiesence.

64.121.40.153 01:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Also...please be clear and correct in your edit summaries; both Musical Linguist and I reverted your changes because they were POV, not only inaccurate. Thanks...KHM03 01:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the new facts I added since there is a dipute about accuracy and POV,and I kept only the new layout changes per the above discussion which, so far, there is only agreement and no disagreement stated.

This is the diputed material I removed which is open for discussion. I take it that my new layout change will not be reverted.

"The pope, in April 2000, (belatedly) apologised for atrocities such as the Inquisition, torture and burnings of "witches", committed by the Church in past centuries. It is only in the last 150 years or so that it has been safe to criticise Christianity." 64.121.40.153 01:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Transcluded boxes

Is it common practice to leave the boxes at the top of this transcluded? - ElAmericano | talk 16:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Overview subsection

Shouldn't the "Overview" subsection be moved to the intro paragraph? It seems that is how articles are normally set up. - ElAmericano | talk 16:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

POV on Christian persecutions

I have made several changes to the section on Christian Persecutions. None of these changes are POVs and all can be easily conformed by reference to well respected and well known sources (eg Gibbon, Decline & Fall; Paul Johnson, History of Christianity; Henry Chadwick, The Early Church; Robin Fox Lave, Pagans & Christians, etc ). My changes have been repeatedly reversed by people whose personal faith seems rather stronger than their factual knowledge of early Church history. I would much appreciate it if, rather than simply cancel my changes, editors would explain here exactly what they disagree with - I will be happy to give detailed references for say the three points they find most contentious. I'd also be happy to take this question to arbitration 81.251.190.205 23:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)James

Then give us your cites (here first) and quit acting like a Roman imperial fascist bully, threatening to "tell the authorities." It's been a long time since I read Chadwick, but I remember nothing there to support your contentions; Gibbon is widely recognized for having had his own biases, and if I recall correctly, Robin LANE FOX (not as above), minimizes, but does not deny, persecution of Christians by the Roman Empire. Okay, fine. The extent of this persecution is a debateable question; it seems to have been sporadic, usually localized, and to have waxed and waned. No problem. However, again, to deny that it occurred at all is in the same category as the pseudo-scholarship which denies the Holocaust. Beyond that, your comparision between Judaism and early Christianity vis-a-vis the Roman Empire fails, on its face, because the exemption granted Jews with regard to emperor sacrifice was based on an ethnic-religious connection, a protection which was denied Christians after Christianity became a separate entity from Judaism with an ethnic base that was more and more non-Jewish. Further, the fact that you mis-identify Robin Lane Fox does not enhance your credibility. Also, the appropriate place for dealing with this matter in any great depth is not this article, but the article which itself is devoted to Persecution of Christians. --Midnite Critic 00:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The section of Christians persecuting others could be greatly enlarged. Without acknowledging the past, we tend to repeat it. The article currently reads as if Christians only persecuted others in the far distant past. Heretical groups have been treated abysmally by Christians; the Albigensians come immediately to mind. The Crusades was also a period of gross persecution. As a Mormon I am acutely aware that the vast majority of of hundreds, if not literally thousands, of beatings, rapes, murders of children, women and men, and untold hundreds of homes burned to the ground were instigated and lead by Christian ministers and their flocks. It still boggles my mind that in the US a state governor could issue a Mormon exterminiation order and people stood to let it happen. Christians are capable of godlike love, but we hare just as capable of the worst kinds of persecution and we should be aware of it, own it, and stop it from happening always. Storm Rider 07:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned in the section above there should be at least a link to the Inquisition and I would add the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre. These are very important historical events both of which have frightening echos in the present. Storm Rider makes a valid point about learning from the past. I also really don't like the paragraph "In discussing persecution we should be careful.....etc". It looks terribly POV - like we have to tip toe around. It's not what I'd expect to find in an encyclopedia. I understand that this is a brief summary of other pages but at the moment the balance of the section is such that Persecution by Christians seems a minor ancient footnote.

I don't want to get even more controversial but perecution of scientists such as Galileo is also not even mentioned. I have seen the discussions along the persecution vs discrimination line but indefinite house arrest is currently considered persecution (see the current situation for politial activists in Tibet as one example).SOPHIA 08:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly fair to mention the persecution, even provide a few historical highlights and links...but we ought to only have a paragraph or two (or three, if they're brief), and then point the reader to the appropriate articles. While the persecution by and of Christians has been real (particularly in the past), it hasn't been such a crucial part of Christianity (like denominationalism has been, for instance) that we need a lengthy section. Let's state some highlights and then point the reader elsewhere. And the writing about persection by Christians should be roughly equal in length to the writing about persecution of Christians...NPOV and all that. KHM03 11:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The above objections are valid and your response, KHM03, shows a bias when you say persecution "hasn't been such a crucial part of Christianity." No, not from a Christian point of view, but on the matter of Christianity in practice from an objective, secular pont of view, it couldnt be farther from the truth. Its a very big part of the history of Christianity with very important implications considering the tremendous harm organized religious fanaticism is capable and has done when it was unchecked. The gravity and seriousness of the kind of religious mentality (irrationalism, mysticism)which allows such extreme brutal oppression of mankind--in its name (as well as other superstitions) is something that is very important to the nature of the belief system (dogma). If they can make you believe in absurdities they can make you commit atrocities. True it has its own page but it should be clearly stated here as the facts are clear and there is no need to shy away from stating the cold truth plainly, i.e. the paragraph should give a clear sense of the scope and breath of the persecution that rests on Christian door steps.

In reading the current paragraph it would now seem that the persecution of Christians was a passing thought throughout history, an exception to the rule; balance must be achieved. I do not have a deep handle on the martyrs, but their story (not individually) should be brought up here. The persecution of Christians in the arena was certianly more broad than what is alluded to; it was the exception for those to seek arrest for to obtain the "crown" of martyrdom. I would also echo the comments of KHM03 above; to be blanced is to have similar lengths of writing. Storm Rider 07:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The question is a matter of historical truth. To what extent were Xians persecuted by the Romans in the first three centuries? I think the record shows it was not considerable as directed against their religious beliefs per se. Yes, they were crucified but in the same manner as Roman political prisoners-- or fed to lions as a games spectacle. They could be recognized as martyrs, I supose, because they followed Jesus' teaching of nonresistance, preferring to die. The Christian writer Tertullian (AD 200) asserted that "the blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church." The irony is that while there was preference given for Jews over Xians the Romans were fair compared to the Christians who once they came to power, increased the persecution of other Xians who did not conform to orthodoxy. So the majority of the persecution of Xians are infact also exampls of persecution by Xians. The other point is that if infact the persecution was not equal (by vs. from), then there is no reason to make the text equal, implying they are equal; if the persecution by Xians has been far greater than the persecution of Xians by non-Xians, then the text can reflect this since historical truth is not POV. 64.121.40.153 08:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Why was this sentence deleted?

Christians in Rome are first attested after the Great Fire of Rome in 64, see also Tacitus on Jesus. XXX

I removed it because it is not true, as there are earlier references as Paul's Letter to the Romans (written in the 50s) and possibly the "Chrestus" passage in Sueton. Str1977 12:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Paul never uses the term Christian. Acts 24:5 calls Paul the ringleader of the Nazarene sect. Christian is found in the NT only at Acts 11:26, 26:28, 1 Peter 4:16. The Suetonius cite (Claudius 25.4) is early, placed in 49, and is about a person named Chrestus: "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome." Chrestus was a normal Roman name, generally a slave name, in Latin and Greek it means Useful. Maybe the sentence should be changed as such:

Christians in Rome are first clearly attested after the Great Fire of Rome in 64, see Tacitus on Jesus. User: 209.78.19.247

No, 209 .. (and please sign your posts), they are not. Above you are arguing that Paul doesn't count as he doesn't use the word "Christians", but your edit in the article didn't refer to the name but to the people. And these are clearly attested by Paul writing a letter to them. I was careful not to insist on any interpretation of the Sueton quote, but you cannot just ignore that it is a possibility that "Chrestus" could be a variation on "Christus" and that the intra-Jewish quarrels could be caused by arguments about Christ. But even if that is not the case, among those Jews expelled from Rome at that time were at least two Jewish Christians - Prisca and Aquila (Acts 18,2). Str1977 19:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Prisca and Aquila are Jews, "Jewish-Christians" is an anachronism. To say that Paul's Letter to the Romans is a letter to the Christians in Rome is an anachronism. However, the statement could be clarified:

Christians, as a distinct term, in Rome are first clearly attested after the Great Fire of Rome in 64, see Tacitus on Jesus.

Dear 209..., we don't need to clarify an erroneous statement which as it stands claims that the existence of Christians in the city of Rome is first attested with the Great Fire.

You should clarify whether you are talking about names or about people.

What you call "anachronism" are perfectly fitting descriptions. The Apostles, Paul, Prisca, Aquila etc were Christians (as we talking about post-Antioch days) but also Jews, as were most early Christians. Hence the term "Jewish Christian".

And please, again, sign your posts by typing four tildes (~). Str1977 22:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Re Midnight critic above

Cites below.

Not sure why I'm required to give detailed citations but you are not (none in the whole article)

Suggest you read Chadwick again to refresh your memory.

I love the idea that the greatest ever autority on the subject can be dismissed with the line "Gibbon is widely recognized for having had his own biases" I don't believe this is true

Robin Lane Fox, does not "minimize" persecution of Christians by the Roman Empire - he gives an authoritative factual account of it. - You can't simply dismiss authorities because they say things you don't want to hear.

Persecution, as you say was sporadic and usually localized (and evidenced only ny partisan believers) - but there is no hint of this in your repeated edits. Please indicate where I have ever asserted that there was no persecution at all.

You views on Judaism v Christian persecutions is clearly a PoV, which I'd be interested to see justified with some reliable citations.

I agree that the appropriate place for dealing with this matter in any great depth is in the article which itself is devoted to Persecution of Christians, and will be doing that. The present text is very much a high level overview.

I'd like to question your approach of demanding citations and then deleting them when they are supplied via external links.

Here's some supporting text, with citations.

Anyone who has benefited from a conventional western education will be familiar with the dreadful persecutions endured by untold numbers of early Christians. According to the conventional story these early Christians were meek and innocent, and invariably went to the lions with a preternatural bravery inspired by their great faith. For their part, the Roman oppressors were brutal and merciless, and killed the unfortunate Christians for no better reason than that they chose a new and harmless faith. Yet even these heartless pagans could not help but be impressed by the fortitude of their victims. Enjoyable as it is, the story is flawed in almost every respect, a fact which has been known to scholars for many centuries and which has been well known to the educated classes, at least since the publication of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire in the last quarter of the eighteenth century. Religious persecution was virtually unknown in the ancient world. The Romans especially were universally tolerant. Their principal reactions to the religions of others were interest and occasional amusement. Their toleration did not extend to cults which acted merely as a cover for sedition or criminality, but all genuine faiths were respected and protected. As far as we know no-one in the classical world hit upon the idea of exterminating others because of the god they chose to worship1. As Gibbon put it: "The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people as equally true, by the philosopher as equally false, and by the magistrate as equally useful. And thus toleration produced not only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord."i How strict this principle was is illustrated by the Roman attitude to the Jews, the sole dissenters from the religious harmony of the ancient world. Gibbon noted of Jewish beliefs that "according to the maxims of universal toleration, the Romans protected a superstition which they despised"ii. Soldiers were transferred or executed for offending Jewish sensibilities. Legions by-passed Judæa to avoid offence by carrying the imperial portraits on their standards across Jewish soil. Alone amongst the Roman provinces the Judæan coinage did not bear the Emperor's face, again because of Jewish sensibilities. In place of emperor worship, the Jews were permitted to show their respect for the state by offering sacrifices on behalf of the emperor. Jews could become full Roman citizens. Paul of Tarsus was one of many. All in all the Romans were flexible and tolerant. There was no obvious reason why Christians should not also be tolerated as the Jews were. And yet they were not. Christians seem to have provoked a great deal of hostility, and to have made themselves outstandingly unpopular. Tacitus wrote around 110 AD that they were "notoriously depraved". He described their beliefs as a deadly superstition, adding that all degraded and shameful practices collect and flourish in Rome. Nero, he noted, had arrested Christians in Rome for arson and for other anti-social behaviouriii. Suetonius (AD 70-160) recorded that Claudius expelled them from Rome for causing continual disturbancesiv. Because of widespread misgivings about them Pliny the Younger made enquiries but found only squalid superstition carried to great lengthsv. One way or another they made enemies everywhere. Some Christian leaders, like Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, noted that Christians deserved the treatment they were gettingvi. The philosopher Celsus disapproved of their intolerance. In AD 248 Origen noted that hostility to the Church was increasing rapidly. Soon the citizens of Antioch were asking that Christians be forbidden from living in their cityvii. The citizens of Nicomedia made similar requestsviii. Other cities passed resolutions making further such requests. In 312 the Emperor Maximin Daia was being petitioned to suppress the disloyal Christiansix. Despite popular dislike of the Christians, the authorities were generally still tolerant. In response to Pliny's requests for guidance the Emperor Trajan advised moderation. There should be no general inquisition. Anonymous accusers should be ignored, and accusations made by responsible citizens should be properly investigated. Christians were sporadically investigated by the authorities, mainly because they were believed to have been promoting sedition. They seem to have been unnecessarily secretive and did little or nothing to counter beliefs that they opposed the established government, apparently because they did oppose the established government. They reviled the Imperial capital, referring to it as the Whore of Babylon. They looked forward to its destruction (as in Revelations 14:8 & 17:3-6). They prayed for the end of the World: "Let grace come and let this world pass away"x. Indeed it was widely believed that they tried a number of times to ignite fires which would destroy the earth and hasten the coming of their new kingdom. They were accused of arson on a number of occasions. Nero accused them of arson in Rome, a charge that enjoys less publicity than the Christian counterclaim that Nero was the arsonist. Christians were also accused of cannibalism, and incest. The charge that they ate human flesh might well have arisen through misinterpretations of the Lord's Supper. Had not their dead leader claimed that "Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you" (John 4:53). If the charge was mistaken, then the mistake could easily have been explained. Instead, accused Christians refused to explain their practices, or to refute stories that they ate children at their ceremonies. Some declined to answer any questions at all - even refusing to give their name or nationalityxi. Sometimes they lied, for example claiming to be Old Testament characters like Elijah or Daniel. They also refused to take oaths. No doubt the accusations of canibalism were mistaken, but Christians were certainly guilty of other crimes. Infused with the truth of their own religion they were openly hostilite to the religions of others, frequently amounting to criminal behaviour. They reviled the Roman and other gods, they razed temples, vandalised sacred sites, destroyed images, and incited riots, especially in synagogues. The Romans thought these Christians were atheists. They denied the gods, and were known to revere a condemned criminal who had been executed for his opposition to the state. They declined to acknowledge the head of state, refusing to refer to Caesar by his honorific Lord. For them Jesus was the only Lord, and the only ruling monarchxii. People believed that this sort of disrespect angered the gods. The gods sent famines, draughts and plagues to punish the empire for allowing such blasphemy. By the fourth century the phenomenon was proverbial: "no rain because of the Christians". Christians were not only blasphemous atheists; they were also treasonable army deserters. As Robin Lane Fox, a prominent Oxford historian, notes of the supposed persecutions prompted by an edict of the Emperor Gallienus: "We know of at least one martyrdom which followed its despatch, but it occurred in a province which was not at first under Gallienus's control: otherwise, we have no knowledge of martyrdoms, as opposed to Christian fictions of them, between 260 and the 290s. When we find Christians being martyred, they are soldiers in the army. The charge against them is not their religion and their refusal to sacrifice, but their refusal to serve in the ranks, an offence which was punishable on other grounds".xiii Christian leaders actively encouraged soldiers to desert from the army. So all in all there was plenty of evidence that Christians were seditious. They did little or nothing to counter the charge, again apparently because it was true. Paul himself had been accused not only of stirring up trouble, but of offending against Caesar (Acts 25:8). That Christians posed a threat to public order is demonstrated by an imperial decree that they might practice their faith unmolested as long as they were not "scheming against the Roman Government" and according to another decree "on condition that they do nothing contrary to public order"xiv. Christians were widely hated and became the victims of mob violence throughout the empire. It cannot have been surprising in view of their open displays of disloyalty and hostility to the state, their trouble making, their arson and vandalism, and their refusal to refute a range of charges from sedition to baby-eating. There must also be a suspicion that Christians were adept at murdering their enemies. Time and time again surviving records boast of the untimely deaths of these enemies. They died in agony with their insides mysteriously eaten away, they unexpectedly committed suicide in private, they somehow toppled over cliffs. Invariably these deaths are explicitly or implicitly attributed to God by Christian chroniclers. Those who do not believe in murder-miracles might suspect that God enjoyed the benefit of his followers' assistance. Despite all this, the persecution of Christians was slight, intermittent, and limited geographically. Moreover it was political, not religious. The authorities were invariably very cautious about proceeding against them. In the few cities where they were thought to pose a threat only a few of those suspected were charged. Not all of those were indicted. Of those indicted not all were convicted. And those who were convicted were generally imprisoned or exiled, many subsequently being reprieved under the terms of amnesties. Despite their crimes, ancient rights of sanctuary were extended to the most guilty Christians. Under Roman law all burial places were regarded as sacrosanct, so all Christian criminals enjoyed inviolable sanctuary in the catacombs. If we look at those who are generally held responsible for the persecution of Christians we encounter another surprise. Instead of bloodthirsty monsters we find men of culture and moderation. The emperor most usually cited as a bloodthirsty monster, Diocletian, turns out to have been a humane, prudent, and magnanimous statesman, whose reign, as Gibbon pointed out, was more illustrious than that of any of his predecessorsxv. For most of his reign the Christians appear to have suffered no persecution at all, and one cannot help but wonder what happened towards the end of his reign to excite his displeasure. In his most savage persecution Diocletian was responsible for perhaps 2,000 Christian deaths throughout the known world, though this may be an overestimate. To put things in scale it might be noted that in centuries to come Christian churchmen would be responsible for the deaths of ten times as many Christians in a single city in a single dayxvi. A major reason for the execution of Christians in Roman times was that they actively sought their own deaths. They believed that martyrdom guarantied immediate and automatic admission to paradise. As Eusebius said, they despised this transient lifexvii. Many of them therefore sought their complimentary ticket to the hereafter - "glorious fulfilment" Eusebius called itxviii. Christians spoke of winning the crown of martyrdom, as though death was the ultimate prize. Ignatius of Antioch, one of the most famous early martyrs, who won his crown early in the second century, would probably have been released if he had wanted to be. He begged the church at Rome not to intervene with the authorities on his behalf. In a letter to them he said "it is going to be very hard to get to God unless you spare me your intervention" (Romans 1). He was yearning for death with all the passion of a lover (Romans 7) and he wanted no more of what men call life (Romans 8). He mentioned his yearning for death in another letter, and said that he was praying for combat with the lions (Trallians 4 and 10). His death-wish shines through all his surviving letters. So does his delight at being bound in chains during his journey to execution. He clearly sees himself as a sacrifice (Romans 4), and in another letter considers himself invested with a title worthy of a god (Magnesians 1). We do not know what he did to warrant his arrest, but we do know that he wanted to die. Yet the modern Church regards him not as a suicide, but a saint. Other Christians also committed public suicide, vying to kill themselves before anyone else did. At Alexandria an old woman called Apollonia voluntarily jumped into a fire and was burned to ashesxix. At Nicomedia "men and women alike leapt on to the pyre with an inspired and mystical fervourxx. Fellow martyrs must have sought their deaths even more fervently, for in the early centuries the Church criticised many of its own number as suicides. So did non-Christians. For Romans suicide was generally an honourable death if carried out with discretion. No one thought less of Seneca, for example, because of he took his own life. The emperor Marcus Aurelius had no objection to suicide in principal, but he found the Christian examples vulgar and theatrical. The Roman authorities begged accused Christians to spare themselves. So did friends and relatives. Judges tried to find reasons not to execute them. They were allowed to relent and save their lives right up to the last moment. On grounds of compassion they were asked to reconsider, to think of their age, of their wives, of their children. Some did. Possibly most did. But a few fervent ones would be satisfied with nothing short of their crown of martyrdom. The death of Polycarp, a bishop of Smyrna (modern Izmir) in AD 155 or 156 is well known to modern Christians but the circumstances are not quite so well known. His crimes, including the destruction of sacred images, were sufficient to incite the "whole mass of Smyrnaeans, Gentiles and Jews alike" to boil with anger. According to Eusebius he was burned alive in order to fulfil a prophetic dream he had had. The Smyrnaeans were sufficiently generous to play their part in its fulfilmentxxi. A little earlier a Christian called Germanicus had faced death there. The governor urged him to have pity on his own youth, but Germanicus desired a speedy release from this world. He was faced with savage beasts, and when they failed to attack him he dragged one of the animals towards him, and goaded it, no doubt with the required resultxxii. Origen, destined to become a Church Father, craved martyrdom as a boy. His fervour cannot have been as vigorous as that of others, for it was frustrated by his mother's expedient of hiding his clothes. Still the young Origen played his part and sent letters to his father encouraging him to face a martyr's death insteadxxiii. His father did die, leaving a destitute widow and seven children, whereupon the eldest, the divinely inspired seventeen year old Origen, left home and got himself adopted by a rich female heretic. After this, as a teacher, he inspired a clutch of his pupils to embrace martyrdom as well. Somehow Origen failed to win his own crown of martyrdom. Those who witnessed Christian martyrdoms/suicides were bewildered and horrified by the Christian desire for death. Perpetua and her pregnant slave Felicity were two Christian women driven by this desire. Romans were too civilised to kill pregnant women, so Felicity was obliged to live. She was delighted when she gave birth prematurely since the birth meant that she could now win her crown of martyrdomxxiv. The two women succeeded in securing their deaths in Carthage in AD 203, Felicity's breasts still wet with milk for her new-born infant. Christians were impressed. Others were appalled. A few years earlier a group of Christians had approached a proconsul in Asia, asking him to have them killed. "Unhappy men!" he said "if you are thus weary of your lives, is it so difficult to find ropes and precipices"xxv. Neither are these isolated incidents. There were numerous cases of Christians, alone or in groups, explicitly asking to be martyred, sometimes turning up with their hands already boundxxvi. Even including suicides the number of those executed was not great. Reliable numbers are very hard to come by, but where they are available they are low. Eusebius described a mere 146 of them in the whole empire, and some of those sound rather fanciful to modern ears. Polycarp, the episcopal vandal already mentioned - "destroyer of our gods" - became the twelfth martyr in his great city in the middle of the second centuryxxvii. This number included martyrs from Philadelphia, and may well have included genuine criminals as well as suicides. Origen (c185-254) stated openly that few Christians had died for their faith. They were he said "easily counted"xxviii. The fact is that we do not know how many Christians died during the persecutions of the first few centuries. In all probability they numbered only a few thousand. If we discount those who were genuinely guilty of sedition, those who chose not to mount a defence, and those who actively sought their own deaths, we may not have any real martyrs left at all. In any case it is certain that in total the number of Christians who died at the hands of pagan persecutors can have been at most only a tiny fraction of the number who later died at the hands of their fellow Christians. From the reign of the first Christian Emperor onwards, Christians were persecuted far more savagely by other Christians than they were by anyone else.

Now WHO wrote the above? Where is it published? --Midnite Critic 16:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

1 Socrates, who might appear to be an exception, had been given the option of exile. i. Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Ch 2, (Penguin p 50, Folio p 53). ii. Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Penguin p 262. iii. Tacitus, Annals of Imperial Rome 15:44 (Penguin translation by Michael Grant, 1971 pp 365-6). iv. This is generally assumed to have been what is meant by the following: "Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from the city" Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, Penguin translation by Robert Graves, p 202. v. Pliny writing to Trajan c 112 AD. Pliny: Letter 10, 96, para. 8, See Kidd, Documents Illustrative of the History of the Early Church p39. vi. Cyprian, Epistle 11.1. vii. Eusebius, The History of the Church, 9,2. viii. Eusebius, The History of the Church, 9,9. ix. Chadwick, The Early Church, p 122, citing an inscription from Arycanda in Lycia translated in J. Stevenson, A New Eusebius (1957), p 297 x. Didache, x, 6. xi. Eusebius cites with approval one Sanctus who refused to give any information at all to the authorities. Eusebius, The History of the Church 5,1. xii. The Martyrdom of Polycarp 8 & 21, see Early Christian Writings, p 127 and p 132. xiii. Lane, Pagans and Christians, p 553. xiv. Eusebius, The History of the Church, 4,13 and 8,17. xv. Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Penguin, p 181. xvi. To take a single example, a papal legate claimed that his forces had killed 20,000 citizens at Béziers on 22 July 1209. xvii. Eusebius, The History of the Church, 8,8, referring to Egyptian martyrs. xviii. Eusebius, The History of the Church, 8,13, again referring to Egyptian martyrs xix. Eusebius, The History of the Church, 6,41. xx. Eusebius, The History of the Church, 8,6. xxi. Eusebius, The History of the Church, 4,15. Cf. The Martyrdom of Polycarp 12, Early Christian Writings, p 129. xxii. The Martyrdom of Polycarp 3 & 4, see Early Christian Writings, p 126. xxiii. Eusebius, The History of the Church, 6,2 . xxiv. Quéré-Jaulmes, La Femme, "La Passion de Saintes Felicité et Perpétua" pp 194-210, cited by Warner, Alone of All Her Sex, p70. xxv. Tertullian, Ad. Scap. 5. Cited by Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, penguin p327. xxvi. For example of Christians asking to be martyred see Lane, Pagans and Christians, pp 442-3. xxvii. The Martyrdom of Polycarp 19, See Early Christian Writings p 131. xxviii. Origen, Contra Celsum 3.8.

(- posted by User:81.251.161.187, not signed)

Gibbon has been largely discredied by contemporary historians...no need to make a big deal of it. KHM03 11:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Even if Gibbon were not biased in his own way, he is not of much use here. He wrote in the 18th century and today only serves as an example of 18th century historiography. Unfortunately, his work is in the public domain and therefore spread all over the internet, whereas contemporary, more scholarly works are much harder to come by. Str1977 12:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Repeated Reversions eliminating entire edits, without adequate explanation

A number of editors, notably Midnight Critic, seem unwilling to countenence any change that does not accord with their personal opinions. A number of recent edits have been reversed without any justification.

There are several issues here:

first, asking for citations and then ignoring them (see for example the preposterous dismissal of Gibbon above). This is very poor practice, especially since the other authorities not disputed were also ignored.

second, reverting to previous versions reversses all new edits. Good manners requires each sentence to be considered on its merits, especially when there are numerous changes.

third, if one point is supported by citations, then the removal of that point must surely call for a better citation.

fourth, it is clearly not acceptable to simply dismiss anything you don't happen to like at PoV - especially when it's clearly not a PoV. I have the very clear impression that a number of devout believers are trying to impose their preferences over historical accuracy.

fifth, if someone provides a very detailed argument as above (posted by User:81.251.161.187, not signed)) then it surely warrants a proper response rather than a bland dismissal. Again, I get the very clear impression that some editors will revert any edit that does not conform to their personal opinions, however good the sources cited.

I intend to restore recently reverted material, and would be grateful if people would amend rather than revert it, and provide good citations for any such edits. I can't imagine that this would seem unreasonable to anyone interested in creating an objective article here.

Springald 01:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Springald

Midnite Critic reverted your changes for good reason...they weren't very good...not because of his personal views. Please review WP:AGF. Gibbon was dismissed because a) his work is extremely dated and b) his positions have largely been discredited by contemporary historians. Also, reverting poor edit choices to previous versions is entirely acceptable; no one is required to revert one sentence at a time...Midnite Critic acted appropriately. Midnite Critic hasn't acted in a POV fashion at all, so please don't accuse him of such. Poor, POV, or inaccurate edits will be removed. KHM03 01:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Springald has a valid point. I didnt think the original section as it stood was NPOV--it had a clear pro-Christian view point, even in the structure itself. See the comments above. I stated the problem and proposed a solution on the talk page first. The only response I received was an agreement. No one objected. Then, I announced a day in advance I was going to make the change. As soon as I did it was just reverted as "POV." No explanation given. They did this three times--and I note the reverting editors have a stated pro-christian bias---and as of yet, there is no counter argument as to why my change is considered POV, and yet their reversions are not. Clearly we have Christians with their point of view and the bias is producing these double standards of practice.

About Springalds change, I think it may have gone too much the other way now. I am going to try to balance it out, but I will not revert. I will amend. I also dislike when others simply revert to their version and wipe out a lot of contributions of others. I think reversions should be limited to vandalism or something that is clearly established as innacurate and POV with an argument on the talk page first. Simply reverting with the title "POV" is lazy and ineffective for the purpose creating a dynamic, evolving article that will get better as editors all contribute and discuss the issues. 64.121.40.153 06:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Repeated Reversions eliminating entire edits, without adequate explanation

Point 1. It is utterly preposterous to claim that Gibbon is either biased or somehow out of date. Modern discoveries have done very little to change the tennor of his history or conclusions. In fact Gibbon is notable today largely because he is unique as an eighteenth century writer whose work is still regarded as authoratative today. The following quote from the Wikipedia article on Edward Gibbon is very revealing:

"Decline and Fall has had its detractors too, almost invariably in the form of religious commentators and religious historians who detested his querying not only of official church history, but also of the saints and scholars of the church, their motives and their accuracy. In particular, the Fifteenth Chapter, which documents the reasons for the rapid spread of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire, was particularly vilified and resulted in the banning of the book in various countries until quite recently, with Ireland, for example, lifting the ban on sale in the early 1970's. Despite this official opposition, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire remains surprisingly popular and arguably one of the finest histories in the English language."

Point 2. What constitutes bad edits can be rather subjective. That is why it is good manners to consider serious edits sentence by sentence. It really is not good enough for a coterie of devout believers to revert any changes they consider critical to their faith.

Point 3. I cannot help noticing that so far the coterie of Christian apologists who think they own this site have spectacularly failed to produce a single citation to support their views, or their reversions, in contrast to the exposition given above on 15th January re Christian persecutions with extensive top quality citations.

Point 4. I have also noticed that external references that provide information that the Christian apoligists do not like also get removed without explanation. This encycopedia is not intended to be a devotional work, and needs to be written by scholars and historians rather than fervent devotees with their own axes to grind.

168.224.1.14 14:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC) James, 16th Jan 2006

I personally have removed inappropriate links on both this article and other religion-oriented articles which favor the Christian viewpoint (see discussion at Born again for a recent example).

Gibbon has, in fact, been discredited by contemporary historians; we needn't argue about this. If Gibbon's perspective is still as dominant as suggested, it would be relatively simple to produce examples of contemporary historians who support his views; please do so, and we can try and come to a consensus.

I haven't seen any editor make any reversions because of faith-based reasons. More specifics might help. The edit summaries don't support that theory. Please review WP:AGF before making any accusations. Thanks...KHM03 16:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Origins of Christianity

This is being reverted because its said that is being presented as fact. But it IS fact. Name some reputable scholarship which would deny the below connections in the origin and development of what became Christianity. I suggest you click on each link of the mystery cults listed along with their esoteric teachings, all of which have been shown to have contributed to the doctrines found in Christianity. Each section on Wiki has a section with references making this point. Its fair to mention each one here. My approach was to mention them all as being roots of the Christian religion's origins. These are statments of facts according to modern scholarship on the questions. Again what we see is simply reverting all my work because its secular in nature and not from a Christian point of view (note its not anti-Christian). 64.121.40.153 10:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, this is not the consensus about origins of Christianity. At best, as I said before, it is one theory, though how widely it is held today is another matter. But you worded it as it would be factual and uncontroversial, e.g. "the major Christian doctrines emerged ..." - no "may have emerged", no "scholars argue" etc. That is clearly against Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Also, calling those that disagree with your edits names does not help anyone here. Str1977 10:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It is the dominant theory that the majority hold to as factual. Infact, I do not know one reputable scholar who would deny these xian precursors. However, if your issues are that minor, i.e. only language such as "may," then why not make those word choice adjustments as you suggest here, instead of reverting the whole section, and getting rid of everything? As it stands now, the supresion of secular thought, and the current language--ironically lacking the very same neutral language regarding Jesus that you say makes my contribution NPOV, is what we have now, and thus is NPOV. FOr example, my inclusion of the word "purported" in "centered on the stories it teaches about the purported life, and actions of Jesus....is reverted. By your own logic, if you're consistent, is POV. Surely you are aware of that the Xian teaching about the life and actions of Jesus are highly doubtful as historical, and thus should be qualified with appropriate language accordingly. But, I guess this is pro-Christian so we see the double standard being enforced. 64.121.40.153 10:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't see that it is the dominant theory, at least not this extreme version you included. As for my issues, they are not only wording and NPOV, as I don't think your version is accurate at all. But if I suppose that for a moment, there are at least wording issues. "Purported" on the other hand is one of them weasel words, which seem neutral but in fact imply that what is being said is not only not necessarily true but in fact false. Another way to make the first sentence NPOV would be an addition like "as recounted in the New Testament". We had this before but it somehow got lost down the line. I will reinsert it now. As for your qualifications on the New Testament: I am well aware of the issue, but speaking as a historian, I cannot agree with on your conclusions that the NT is more doubtful than many other historical sources. Of course, we have do Quellenkritik and consider alternative sources as well, but the NT's books are still the most reliable sources on that complex. Str1977 11:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the word "purported", and had problems with it. Also, I find it illogical to imply that just because the word "Christians" first appears in Acts 11:26, Christianity first appeared then. People, things, and concepts exist before they are given names. AnnH ^(talk) 11:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 is absolutely correct; the theory that "mystery religions" were the roots of Christian doctrines is far from being a dominant theory. Were they an influence? Probably. But they were not nearly as important as the proposed edit implies. There is also no "pro-Christian" standard being applied; the proposed changes are wholly inaccurate, pure and simple. KHM03 16:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree its not logical regarding the quoting of Acts for when the word "Christians" first appears. I didnt add that, it was part of the original article, which I left unchanged. I've removed that in my most recent edit that restores the earlier information while addressing the use of language that states it as a fact, now changed to "believed to be by some scholars," "influenced," etc. Let the reader go to those links and learn from themselves these undisputed elements in the formation of the origin in Christianities teachings. To supress this can only be an example of an anti-historical stance. Btw, The NT is a book of faith and not a reliable historical source. 64.121.40.153 23:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Despite the changes of language my work is simply reverted on the pretext of POV. I wonder what next will be the rationale to advance a purely religious perspective, suppressing valuable understandings from secular scholarship regarding the origins of this religion. It appears too tabboo to entertain such knowlege for if followers of the faith understand the historical basis for their beliefs it my harm their faith? This type of POV pushing that suppresses knowlege is in keeping with the type of religious intolerance we seen in history, but is no place for an encylopedia. 64.121.40.153 00:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not claim POV. I claimed unsourced accusations and wiggle words, both of which are significantly different from POV. Jpers36 00:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

64.121.40.153, your recent edit summary claimed "rv vandalism/suppression of agreed changes in talk page"...but there was no vandalism and no agreed changes on the talk page. Please watch your summaries for accuracy. Thanks...KHM03 00:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiping out work of agreed changes from the talk page, without justification or any participatin on the talk page, despite notice, and over and over is a vandalism. My summary is accurate. 64.121.40.153 00:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There were no "agreed changes"; Jpers36 acted appropriately. Please be more accurate in your edit summaries. Thanks...KHM03 00:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

A quick review reveals that Str1977, AnnH, and myself all opposed your proposed changes, and only you supported them. Please be more accurate. Thanks...KHM03 00:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If the objection stated here was one of lanugage use, and I make the changes addressing the objected language, then this constitutes an agreement I was willing to make. I see no ohter objections stated, so as I could remedy those or discuss them. Therefore the changes I effected were the results of the ostensive agreement from this page. Your quick review is perhaps too quick. My comments are accurate. If not please be specific with other problems that have been stated which have escaped my attention. 64.121.40.153 00:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The objections were concerning your theory that Christian doctrine came from mystery religions. There was no agreement regarding the addition of your theory; you added it anyway and claimed agreement. There was / is no agreement. It was the content of your proposal which was opposed, not merely the wording. If you wish to add that theory, obviously, gain consensus. Thanks...KHM03 00:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

ANON, are you representing that there are similarities between Christianity and other groups, or that the others were the "ancestor/father" of Christianity. I can support the Greek/Plato connection for early Christain beliefs, but I would strongly resistant that Christianity was the product of the others. Also, what are you defining as Christianity? Is that 4th century Christianity or that taught by Christ? I see a distinction between the two; without any intended offense to our traditional Christians. Storm Rider 00:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the scholarship clearly backs up my contentions that the mystery cults were the forerunners of the early Christians. This information is suppressed by Christians--but it is true nonetheless. And, I did include references. The “weasle words” (if I understand the the term) were the very things that were said to be required to make my inclusion acceptable and NPOV. Ironic that now they are used to suppress it, yet again. Please tell me which “weasle words” you object to and we can fix them.

About citing sources---I did. Notice that each of the mytery cults I listed links to Wiki, and each of the respective articles substanciates the point. But, I’ll list them here:

Therapeutae--its stated a fact on the Wiki article as the “Forerunners of early Christian monastic orders.” This is not disputed. Next, the Essenes: “The Essenes were a religious sect of Judaism, of which it is Jesus was thought to be a member of, and which John the Baptist is widely regarded to be a prime example of an Essene.” Enough said. The Gnostics: This one needs some wiggle words. From the linked Wiki article: “The ultimate foundational elements of gnosticism are pre-Christian. That said, the exact origins of Gnosticism are a subject of dispute amongst scholars: some think Gnosticism is fundamentally pagan in origin, but has adopted a Christian veneer; others trace its origin to Judaism; yet others think it derives from Jesus, and is a development of his teaching that is arguably as valid as the orthodox one. Most scholars accept that orthodox Christianity and its canonical texts do not predate the Gnostic movement, but emerged alongside it, out of some of the same sources. Many Gnostic sects were made up of Christians who embraced mystical theories concerning the nature of Jesus or the Christ which was increasingly at variance with the teachings of orthodox Christian faith as it developed.: Next, Dionysus: According to Martin A. Larson in The Story of Christian Origins (1977) and the American scholar Camille Paglia, a 'disciple of the Cambridge School of Anthropology,” and the wiki page itself, this mystery cult is likewise linked. Infact Paglia writes succinctly about pagan mystery religion and Christianity, and I quote, “Christianity was a development of Dionysian mystery religion which paradoxically tried to suppress nature in favor of a transcendental other world." 13. Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson (New York: Random House, 1991) 25.

I hope these suffice as adequate sourced material. Somehow I know no matter what I do, prove, or change, the Christian slant will supress all secular scohlarship as POV if it counters their religious conception which is ahistorical at its core. To shed too much light on historical context and material basis for a belief system is to demysify it and bring understanding for how these ideas were formed. Such is counter to the devine, inspired nature that Christian faith depends on--thus its supressed and evidence of POV pushing. 64.121.40.153 01:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I left out the last mystery cult, Mithranism. This can be found both in Ernest Renan, in The Origins of Christianity, and Martin A. Larson, in The Story of Christian Origins (1977), which states that Mithraism and Christianity derived from the same sources, originally from the savior cult of Osiris. However, Larson believes that the Essenes were Jewish Pythagoreans, whose members not only gave birth to Christianity as Essenes, but were directly influenced by Zoroastrian doctrine as Pythagoreans. And that Mithraism, an established but exclusive sect devoted to social justice, was assimilated by state-sponsored Christianity before being disposed of in name.

“The resemblances between the two churches were so striking as to impress even the minds of antiquity” (Cumont, 193). From their common Zoroastrian sources, Mithraism first held that all souls pre-existed in the ethereal regions, and inhabited a body upon birth. Life then becomes a great struggle between good and evil, spirit and body, the children of light versus the children of darkness (identical to Pythagoreanism). All souls were to be judged by Mithra (represented as a bull) with the Elect going to heaven, and the earthly and evil being annihilated in a great battle. Mithraism divided the human race into three classes: the spiritual Elect, the wicked, and those who try to be good but can't seem to overcome evil. The Elect go straight to heaven, while the good-intentioned wait until judgment to be resurrected, where the wicked will be destroyed. Both Christianity and Mithraism prided themselves in brotherhood and organized their members as church congregations. Both religions purified themselves through baptism, and each participated in the same type of sacrament, bread and wine. Mithra was born in a cave; a cave is likewise the setting for the nativity of Jesus in the widely-read and influential Gospel of James, which though not canonical is the earliest surviving document attesting the veneration of Mary and claiming her continuing virginity. Both nativities were celebrated on December 25th, and each savior was visited by shepherds with gifts. Both Mithraism and Christianity considered Sunday their holy day, despite early Christianity observing the Jewish Sabbath for centuries. Many have noted that the title of Pope is found in Mithraic doctrine and seemingly prohibited in Christian doctrine. The words Peter (rock) and mass (sacrament) have original significance in Mithraism. Both Mithraism and early Christianity considered abstinence, celibacy, and self-control to be among their highest virtues. Both had similar beliefs about the world, destiny, heaven and hell, and the immortality of the soul. Their conceptions of the battles between good and evil were almost identical, with Christianity adopting millennial epochs that were integral to Mithraism from Zoroastrianism. “They both admitted to the existence of a heaven inhabited by beautiful ones…and a hell peopled by demons situate in the bowels of earth.” (Cumont, 191) Both religions placed a flood at the beginning of history, and both believed in revelation as key to their doctrine. Both awaited the last judgment and resurrection of the dead after the final conflagration of the world. Christ and Mithra were both referred to directly as the "Logos" (Larson 184). When inducted into the degree of Leo, he was purified with honey, and baptised, not with water, but with fire, as John the Baptist declared that his successor would baptise. After this second baptism, initiates were considered "participants," and they received the sacrament of bread and wine commemorating Mithra's banquet at the conclusion of his labors (Larson 190). Mitrha was perceived as the the persian savior, whose cult was the leading rival of Christianity in Rome, and was more successful than Christianity for the first four centuries of the "Christian" era. In 307 A.D. the emperor officially designated Mithra "protector of the Empire."1

That fact that Christians appeared to have copied many details of the Mithraic mystery-religion, was was explained by Christians with the argument that the devil had anticipated the true faith by imitating it before Christ's birth. Some resemblance between Christianity and Mithraism were so close that even St. Augustine declared the priests of Mithra worshiped the same deity as they did.2 Mithra was born on the 25th of December, called "Birthday of the Unconquered Sun," which was finally taken over by Christians in the 4th century A.D. as the birthday of Christ.3 Some said Mithra sprang from an incestuous union between the sun god and his own mother, just as Jesus, who was God, was born of the Mother of God. Some claimed Mithra's mother was a mortal virgin. Others said Mithra had no mother, but was miraculously born of a female Rock, the petra genetix, fertilized by the Heavenly Father's phallic lightning.4 Mithra's birth was witnessed by shepherds and by magi who brought gifts to his sacred birth-cave of the Rock.5 Mithra performed the usual assortments of miracles raising the dead, healing the sick, making the blind see and the lame walk, casting out devils. As a Peter, son of the petra, he carried the keys of the kingdom of heaven6 His triumph and ascension to heaven were celebrated at the spring equinox (Easter), when the sun rises toward its apogee. Before returning to heaven, Mithra celebrated a Last Supper with his twelve disciples, who represented the twelve signs of the zodiac. In memory of this, his worshipers partook of a sacramental meal of bread marked with a cross.7 This was one of seven Mithraic sacraments, the models for the Christian's seven sacraments. 8 It was called mized, Latin missa, English mass. Mithra's image was buried in a rock tomb, the same sacred cave that represented his Mother's womb. He was withdrawn from it and said to live again.9 Like early Christianity, Mithraism was an ascetic, anti-female religion. Its priesthood consisted of celibate men only. 10 Women were to enter Mithraic temples.11 The women of Mithraic families had nothing to do with the men's cult, but attended services of the Great Mother in their own temples of Isis, Diana, or Juno.12 To eliminate the female principle from their creation myth, Mithraists replaced the Mother of All Living in the primal garden of paradise (Pairidaeza) with the named Sole Ceated. Instead of Eve, this bull was the partner of the first man. All creatures were born from the bull's blood. Yet the bull's birth-giving was oddly female-imitative. The animal was castrated and sacrificed, and its blood was delivered to the moon for magical fructification, the moon being the source of woman's magic lunar "blood of life" that produced real children on earth.13 Persians have been called the Puritans of the heathen world. They developed Mithraism out of an earlier Aryan religion that was not so puritanical or so exclusively male-oriented.14 Mithra seems to have been the Indo-Iranian sun god Mitra, or Mitravaruna, one of the twelve zodiacal sons of the of the Infinity-goddess Aditi. Another of Aditi's sons was Aryaman, eponymous ancestor of "Aryans," whom the Persians transformed into Ahriman, the Great Serpent of Darkness, Mithra's enemy.15 Early on, there seems to have been a feminine Mithra. Herdotus said the the Persians used to have a sky-goddess Mitra, the same as Mylitta, Assyria's Great Mother. 16 Lydian combined Mithra with his archaic spouse Anahita an androgynous Mithra-Anahita, identified with Sabazious-Anaitis, the Serpent and Dove of Anatolian mystery cults.17 Anahita was the Mother of Waters, traditional spouse of the solar god whom she bore, loved and swallowed up. She was identified with the Anatlian Great Goddess Ma. Mithra was naturally coupled with her, as her opposite, a spirit of fire, light and the sun.18 Her "element', water overwhelmed the world in the primordial flood, when one man built an ark and saved himself, together with his cattle, according to Mithraic myth19 The story seems to have been based on the Hindu Flood of Manu, transmitted through Persia and Babylonian scriptures to appear in late, rather corrupt version in the Old Testament. What began in water would end in fire, according to Mithraic eschatology. The great battle between the forces of light and darkness in the Last Days would destroy the earth with its upheavals and burnings. Virtuous ones who fallowed the teachings of the Mithraic priesthood would join the spirits of light and be saved. Sinful ones who followed other teachings would be cast into hell with Ahriman and the fallen angels. The Christian notion of salvation was almost wholly a product of this Persian eschatology, adopted by Semitic eremites and sun-cultists like the Essenes, and by the Roman military men who thought the rigid discipline and the vivid battle-imagery of Mithraism appropriate for warriors. Under emperors like Julian and Commodus, Mithra became patron of Roman armies. 20 After extensive contact with Mithraism, Christians also began to describe themselves as soldiers for Christ; to call their savior light of the World. Helios the Rising Sun, and Sun of Righteousness; to celebrate their feats on Sun-day rather than the Jewish Sabbath; to claim their savior's death was marked by an eclipse of the sun; and to adopt the seven Mithratic sacraments. Like Mithraists, Christians practiced baptism to ascend after death through the planetary spheres to the highest heaven, while the wicked (anabaptized) would be dragged down to darkness.21 Mithra's cave-temple on the Vatican Hill was seized by Christians in 376 A.D. 22 Christian bishops Rome pre-empted even the Mithraic high priest's title of Pater Patrum, which became Papa, or Pope.34 Mithraism entered into many doctrines of Manichean Christianity and continued to influence its old rival for over a thousand years.24 The mithraic festival of Epiphany, marking the arrival of sun-priests or Magi at the Saviors birthplace, was adopted by the Christian church only as late as 813 A.D. 25 It is probable that Christianity emphasized common features that attracted Mithra followers, perhaps the crucifix appealed to those Mithra followers who had crosses already branded on their foreheads. In art, the halo was a well-known depiction of Mithra, a true sun god, but which also depicts Christ in the same way. However, the similiarities were an embarrassment, and differences such as star gazing were persecuted as heresy. Trypho wrote that “Justin Martyr declared that in a certain cave near Bethlehem…Mary brought forth the Christ…those who presided over the mysteries of Mithras were stirred up by the devil to say that in a place called among them a cave, they were initiated by them” (LXXVIII). Tertullian seems to have feared the parallels between Mithraism and Christianity the most, demonizing Mithraism as a perverted truth planted by the devil. References 1. Legge 2. 271; Angus, 168 2. Reiach, 73 3. J.H. Smith, D.C.P., 146; Campbell, M.I.,33 4. de Riencourt, 135. 5. H. Smith, D.C.P., 146; Campbell, M.M., 131. 6. H Smith, 129 7. Hooke, S.P.,89; Cumont,M.M.,160. 8. James,250. 9. H,Smith, 130,201 10. Legge 2, 261. 11.Lederer.36. 12 Angus, 205. 13. Campbell, Oc.M., 204 14. Knight, D.W.P., 63. 15 O'Flaherty, 339. 16. Larousse, 314 17. Cumont,M.M., 17. 18. Cumont, O.R.R.P.,54,65. 19. Cumont, M.M., 138 20. Cumont, M.M., 87-89. 21. Cumont,M.M., 144-45. 22. J.H.Smith, D.C.P., 146 23. H. Smith, 252. 24. Cumont, O.R.R.P., 154. 25. Brewter,55

64.121.40.153 01:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Giovanni

Anon user (Giovanni)is correct in my view. On what basis are this contributions now being supressed? He has met earlier objections, it seems to me. Consensus might not be possible here as a result of the heavily pro-Christian editors here, but what matters is consensus in the secular academic world, which Giovanni's inclusions reflect. If your lack of consensus is based on legitimate objections, please state them. Otherwise, I vote that this souced knowlege no longer be supressed. 69.107.7.138 02:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

My first objection is minor, namely that the early Christians did not use the "Hebrew Bible," they almost exclusively used the Greek Septuagint. The Jews did too, until they first tried a couple other Greek translations, then finally managed to revive widespread use of a Hebrew Bible. My next object to the paragraph quoted at the top of this section is the idea that a church hierarchy eventually emerged, and pulled together various ideas in order to broaden Christianity's appeal. It is well known that the basic church structure was established in the first century and maintained as Christianity expanded. Cumont's work on Mithraism is nearly 100 years old; today it seems more likely that many of Mithraism's features actually postdate Christianity's, making it more likely that it was Mithraism that borrowed from Christianity. Further, as I've already pointed out in Talk:Mithraism, many of the alleged similarities listed at that article are simply not true of Christianity at all; an example is the suggestion that Christianity started out being anti-female or even exclusively male. Many of the saints and martyrs from the early period, were women, including evangelists. Wesley \

It would greatly facility discussion if all the anon users would use registered usernames, so that we can address you by name rather than number. (For instance, which anon user is "Giovanni", and how do you know which IP Giovanni used, User:69.107.7.138? I honestly can't tell who you think is correct.) It would also help if you would assume good faith and discuss the edits themselves, not your fellow editors. Wesley 04:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I worked on the entry to address all of your points, Wesley. Let me know if you have any other objections. Btw, Giovanni lists his name above and is .40.153 My name is Mika.

"With an estimated 2.3 billion adherents, Christianity is arguably the world's largest religion. Its origins are intertwined with Judaism, with which it shares much sacred text and early history, specifically to Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible), which many Christians call the Old Testament.² The early Christians heavily relied on the Koine Greek Alexandrine text of the Hebrew Bible commonly refered to in the west as the Septuagint. Christianity is considered an Abrahamic religion, along with Judaism and Islam (see Judeo-Christo-Islamic). While initially Christianity grew out of Judaism (using Jewish scriptures as justification of their own teachings and scriptures), the major Christian doctrines are beleived to have also emerged out of the mystery teachings that existed in Greece and the Middle East around 2000 years ago. Early Christian fathers such as Clement of Alexander and Origen mention the continuity between Greek philosophy, especially Plato, the inner mystery teachings, and Christianity. Other scholars such as Camille Paglia have noted that Christianity was a development of the Dionysian mystery religion.

In its early years, what came to be called Christianity may have existed as a variety of mystery cults, limited to a small number of people and expounding esoteric teachings. Most scholarship believes these to included the Nasseni, Essenes,Therapeutae, Gnostics, Dionysus, and perhaps Mithraism which was assimilated by state-sponsored Christianity before being diposed of in name. The basic church hierarchy developed in the first century and it is fairly probable that they emphasized common features to attract follower. In doing so many of these same mystery teachings were brought out into the open, and redressed in often a literal interpretation. The early church was called "catholic", which means universal. It claimed to be for all, and combined many of the elements of its forrunners: Judaic monotheism, Persian dualism, eastern otherworldliness and asceticism, and various mystery teachings. Such a veritable potpourri of religious ideas explains the often complicated and confusing similarities Christian doctrine share with a variety of pagan teachings." updated 69.107.7.138 05:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

69.107.7.138 05:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Mika

Thank you for addressing those, Mika. Another general concern that I think others have already raised is the use of passive voice to express opinions or speculation, without attributing that speculation to anyone. Not every such sentence needs a full footnote to a book and page number, but it should at least say that "some/many/most scholars/critics/Christians/whoever think that..." in places that now say things like "...doctrines are believed..." for instance. Using passive voice to avoid attributing an idea or opinion to anyone at all is one example of "weasel words," something that can be hard to avoid. But atributing the idea, and in general using active voice instead of passive, is a good way to strengthen any article. Other parts of the above are clearly speculation, but speculation by whom? For instance, "it is fairly probably that..." and the final line saying that the potpourri of ideas explains the confusion etc. Other theories also explain the confusion, so why list only this one without attributing it to anyone in general or in particular? Wesley \

Regarding the word "catholic," you have the right definition, but not necessarily the right conclusion drawn from the literal definition. At least some early fathers used the word "catholic" to describe the faith or set of doctrines that they taught, particularly Irenaeus, and to differentiate them from the hodge-podge of various other religions that bore no more similarity to Christianity than to use some of the same names. Wesley \

Regarding the much later section about the list of persecutions, it's particularly important to note that the persecution of pagans and Jews was a two-way street for quite a while, especially in Alexandria. The pagans also had a brief 'revival' during the reign of Justinian the Apostate during which he tried to favor both pagans and Jews over Christians. If a detailed list of such is necessary, it should include both directions; such detail might be better in a History of Christianity or other such sub-article though. Wesley \

Again about Mithraism, I believe current thinking place their texts no earlier than mid second century, while the gospels and other Christian stories of Christ's birth etc. date no later than the end of the first century. Therefore it's more likely that Mithraism borrowed some ideas from Christianity, if any borrowing between them took place at all. Regarding gnosticism, it's at least as likely that gnosticism borrowed a few Christian names to attach to its aeons without really changing its ideas, as Christianity borrowed from gnosticism. Most 'gnostic Christians' tried to reject Judaism's influence, strongly suggesting that they were'nt well connected or descended from any of Jesus' Jewish followers.

Wesley 05:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Mika and Wesley for making this better. And, thanks everyone else for not instantly reverting but allowing this to be improved. We are making progress. In light of Wesley's comments regarding the current thinking of Mithraism, I have made further changes. The current text change now reads:

"There is much speculation that Christian beliefs were influenced by Mithraism which was assimilated by state-sponsored Christianity before being diposed of in name. According to Martin A. Larson, in The Story of Christian Origins (1977), Mithraism and Christianity derived from the same sources, originally from the savior cult of Osiris."

I agree with your comments about use of passive voice vs an active voice with attribution. I'll go back and see what I can do to correct this and I hope others can continue to improve this section as well.

I did not make the changes to the Persecution section below, but your comments make sense to me. Maybe someone else can work on that section.

64.121.40.153 09:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Giovanni

I have been reading various articles on Dionysus, Osiris, and Mithraism as it relates to Christianity for most of the day. My conclusion is that this article will turn into a rather lenthy discussion with references to the respective historians and their views on the evolution of Christianity. Based upon what I have read it certainly is not the prevailing thought of "scholars" that these three "religions" were the forefather of Christianity. To swallow that pill, the underlying premise is that Jesus was simply a fabrication, a melding of different religions of the day; however, the individual was not historical. That is the prevailing thought of several of the scholars cited above. Does it belong in the article? YES. However, it must be balanced with all of the scholars who oppose this research. It will be a long article, a little on the dry for most, but it will be accurate. Storm Rider 10:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Strom Rider. I'd be interested to see a reputable published scholar that discounts these attributed influences of early Christianity. I find it to be the prevailing thought among secular scholarship on the question, as cited. I agree that it raises questions about the stories of Jesus as described in the Bible. But, the bible is a book of faith and so the historical Jesus is probably quite different than the Christian one which incorporates myths that are part of the religious faith and consitent with its origins as described. No disrespect intended, ofcourse. However, this issue of the historcity of Jesus need not be mentioned here, since the title says Jesus "according to the New Testiment" which is a book of faith. Moreover, there are already many articles devoted to this issue alone: Historicity of Jesus, and Historical Jesus, and Names and titles of Jesus, and Cultural and historical background of Jesus, and Jesus-Myth. 64.121.40.153 11:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Gio

That, Giovanni, is one of the problems often encountered in such discussions. YOu say the Bible is a book of faith, and you are right: it is. But it is also a historical work in two senses:

1) it gives the history of the people of Israel (of course seen from their perspective and through the lens of faith - and not all books of the Bible are concerned with history)

2) it is a historical source just like other sources. Of course we need to do Quellenkitik but I object to any singeling out of the Biblöe as something different or inferior.

Now, regarding the real Jesus (I mean the one that lived and preached in the 1st century) it is reasonable to look at the sources avaiable. We will get at a "historical Jesus" - this is not identical with the "real Jesus", as the historical craft will not necesarily answer all questions and tell as anything we'd like to know, but at least it will provide a solid basis. The nEw Testament happens to be the best source for the where, when and what of Jesus. I object to dismissing the NT as a sources only to fuill the "void" with speculation.

I not with gladnesss, Giovanni, that you intend no disrespect and I believe you. I just wanted to point this out. I agree, that the issues of the "historical Jesus" need not be discussed in our context. Str1977 11:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have made further changes to improve the section, based on Wesley's helpful comments. In particular, notice that the Catholic word use is removed, and some sections reworded. I'm not sure about the last sentence I reworked to wrap it up: "Such a veritable potpourri of religious ideas combined from Judaic monotheism, Persian dualism, eastern otherworldliness and asceticism, and the various mystery teachings makes the origins of Christian doctrine one whose complexity continues to shroud it in mystery." The idea im trying to communicate in the sentence is that the origins are complex and are often not understood or known, even among practioners. Ofcourse, I want to do it with NPOV language. The section in whole as it currently stands for further scrutiny:

"With an estimated 2.3 billion adherents, Christianity is arguably the world's largest religion. Its origins are intertwined with Judaism, with which it shares much sacred text and early history, specifically to Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible), which many Christians call the Old Testament.1 The early Christians heavily relied on the Koine Greek Alexandrine text of the Hebrew Bible commonly refered to in the west as the Septuagint. Christianity is considered an Abrahamic religion, along with Judaism and Islam (see Judeo-Christo-Islamic). While initially Christianity grew out of Judaism (using Jewish scriptures as justification of their own teachings and scriptures), the major Christian doctrines are beleived to have also emerged out of the mystery teachings that existed in Greece and the Middle East around 2000 years ago. Early Christian fathers such as Clement of Alexander and Origen mention the continuity between Greek philosophy, especially Plato, the inner mystery teachings, and Christianity. Other scholars such as Camille Paglia have noted that Christianity was a development of the Dionysian mystery religion.

In its early years, what came to be called Christianity may have existed as a variety of mystery cults, limited to a small number of people and expounding esoteric teachings. Most scholarship believes these to included the Nasseni, Essenes,Therapeutae, Gnostics, Dionysus, and there is much speculation that Christian beliefs were influenced by Mithraism which was assimilated by state-sponsored Christianity before being diposed of in name. According to Martin A. Larson, in The Story of Christian Origins (1977), Mithraism and Christianity derived from the same sources, originally from the savior cult of Osiris. The basic church hierarchy developed in the first century and it is fairly probable that they emphasized common features to attract followers. In doing so many of these mystery teachings were brought out into the open, and redressed with often a literal interpretation. Such a veritable potpourri of religious ideas combined from Judaic monotheism, Persian dualism, eastern otherworldliness and asceticism, and the various mystery teachings makes the origins of Christian doctrine one whose complexity continues to shroud it in mystery." 64.121.40.153 11:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Giovanni

I disagree with the entire "mystery religion" thing. Aside from the fact that it's inaccurate (reason enough to not include it), it's unsourced. Clement & Origen commenting on Greek philosophy is not an endorsement on their part of the "mystery religion" theory...that's a separate school of thought. Paglia and Larson? If we're going to make this kind of claim, if it is true and supported by "most scholarship" (also completely untrue...and unsourced), surely there are dozens of mainstream historians we could cite. Let's do that first. KHM03 11:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, untrue, and you have failed to make a case for your contentions. I have already cited sources, above. The original had sources, too, with links. Apparently they are simply ignored. Meanwhile you revert the additions, even though they are currently being improved on the main page by many users in accordance with specifics raised here--- and already had the dispute heading.

Yes, these are all seperate schools of thought. No one is saying they are identical. Otherwise why would they have different names. That would be assinine. What it does say is that there is a influence of from these schools of thought, as is often the case is the evolution of ideas, and in particular the ones I mention--the mystery cults--are the ones believed by many scholars to be the ones that did that in development of what became known as Christian religious ideas. I do not make the claim that scholarship is uniform or difinitive in these matters, nor that in some cases its little more than speculation. But, the consensus has it that these influences are probable and they offer the best explanation to date for an understanding of the historical development from a naturalist historical perspective of the religious conceptions and doctrines under light. Do you propose an alternative theory that you'd like to include, or do you just not want any such discussion to be presented, which I might add is an essential part in understanding any line of philosophy, religious or otherwise.

But, again, I will cite my sources, which would suffice alone, but on top of that I'll include dozens of other sources which support these claims. And, I will re-insert the section so that it can continue to be improved by myself and others, and keep the NPOV tag until this is settled.

According to Martin A. Larson in The Story of Christian Origins (1977), Osiris was the first savior, and all soteriology in the region borrowed this religion, directly and indirectly, including Mithraism and Christianity, from an Osirian-Dionysian influence. Therapeutae--its stated a fact on the Wiki article as the “Forerunners of early Christian monastic orders.” This does not even appear to be disputed. Next, the Essenes: “The Essenes were a religious sect of Judaism, of which it is Jesus was thought to be a member of, and which John the Baptist is widely regarded to be a prime example of an Essene.” I'd say being a member is pretty good indication of influence, eh? The Gnostics, also linked Wiki article: “The ultimate foundational elements of gnosticism are pre-Christian. That said, the exact origins of Gnosticism are a subject of dispute amongst scholars: some think Gnosticism is fundamentally pagan in origin, but has adopted a Christian veneer; others trace its origin to Judaism. Most scholars accept that orthodox Christianity and its canonical texts do not predate the Gnostic movement, but emerged alongside it, out of some of the same sources. Many Gnostic sects were made up of Christians who embraced mystical theories concerning the nature of Jesus or the Christ which was increasingly at variance with the teachings of orthodox Christian faith as it developed." Dionysus: According to Martin A. Larson in The Story of Christian Origins (1977) and the American scholar Camille Paglia, a 'disciple of the Cambridge School of Anthropology,” and the wiki page itself, this mystery cult is likewise linked. Infact Paglia writes succinctly about pagan mystery religion and Christianity, and I quote, “Christianity was a development of Dionysian mystery religion which paradoxically tried to suppress nature in favor of a transcendental other world." 13. Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson (New York: Random House, 1991) 25. Mithranism: This can be found both in Ernest Renan, in The Origins of Christianity, and Martin A. Larson,in The Story of Christian Origins (1977), which states that Mithraism and Christianity derived from the same sources, originally from the savior cult of Osiris. However, Larson believes that the Essenes were Jewish Pythagoreans, whose members not only gave birth to Christianity as Essenes, but were directly influenced by Zoroastrian doctrine as Pythagoreans. And that Mithraism, an established but exclusive sect devoted to social justice, was assimilated by state-sponsored Christianity before being disposed of in name.

Francis Legge, Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity, From 330 B.C. to 330 A.D. (1914), reprinted as two volumes bound as one, University Books New York, 1964. LC Catalog 64-24125. The Therapeutae and Christianity http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0120PhiloJudaeus.html Vermes, Geza and Martin D. Goodman, eds. The Essenes according to the Classical Sources. Sheffield: Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies and JSOT Press, 1989. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/asbook.html Dr Constantine Scouteris, "The Therapeutae of Philo and the Monks as Therapeutae according to Pseudo-Dionysius": comparing the Therapeutae with the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy Golb, Norman. 1985. "Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? The Search for the Secret of Qumran". Scribner Sanders, E.P., 1992. "Judaism: Practice & Belief 63BCE - 66CE" Minneapolis: Fortress Schiffman, Lawrence H. 1991. "From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple & Rabbinic Judaism". Ktav Publishing House Smith, Enid S., Ph.D., 1959, The Essenes Who Changed Churchianity The Essenes are an important part of H. Rider Haggard's Pearl-Maiden: A Tale of the Fall of Jerusalem. [1] Bentley Layton's introduction to The Gnostic Scriptures, a translation of the texts found at Nag Hammadi. Layton, Bentley, ed. The Gnostic Scriptures ISBN 0385478437 Pagels, Elaine, The Gnostic Gospels Robinson, James M., ed. The Nag Hammadi Library in English ISBN 0060669357 Robinson, James M., 1979 "The discovery of the Nag Hammadi codices," in Biblical Archaeology vol. 42, pp206–224. The definitive account of the discovery of the Nag Hammadi cache. The Gnostic Scriptures: A New Translation with Annotations (Garden City: Doubleday & Co., 1987), Peake's Commentary on the Bible, Matthew Black and H.H. Rowley, ed., Revised edition, NY:Nelson 1982, section 607b. Gibbon: The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-49 CHRISTIANITY IN HISTORY General. F. L. Cross, The Oxford Dictionary of the Chris- tian Church (Oxford and New York, 1957). Adolf von Harnack, Outlines of the History of Dogma, 3rd ed. trans. Neil Buchanan, 7 vols. (London, 1894-99). K. S. Latourette, A History of the Expansion of Christianity, 7 vols. (New York, 1938-45). http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=280&letter=G&search=gnosticism The Early Church. N. H. Baynes, “Constantine the Great and the Christian Church,” Proceedings of the British Acad- emy, 15 (1929), 341-443. Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, Vol. I of The Pelican History of the Church (Harmondsworth, 1967; London, 1968). Jean Daniélou and Henri Marrou, The First Six Hundred Years, Vol. I of The Christian Centuries: A New History of the Catholic Church, ed. L. J. Rogier, et al. (London and New York, 1964). E. R. Dodds, Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety (Cam- bridge and New York, 1965). Louis Duchesne, Early History of the Christian Church..., trans. Claude Jenkins (from the 4th French edition), 3 vols. (London, 1920-24). W. H. C. Frend, The Donatist Church... (Oxford and New York, 1952). A. H. M. Jones, Constantine and the Conversion of Europe (London, 1948; New York, 1949). J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 2nd ed. (London and New York, 1960); idem, Early Christian Doctrines, 4th ed. (London, 1968). D. Knowles, Christian Monasticism (New York and Toronto, 1969). M. J. Lagrange, Histoire ancienne du Canon du Nouveau Testament (Paris, 1933). Has Lietzmann, A History of the Early Church, trans. B. L. Woolf, 4 vols. in 2 (New York, 1961). A. Momigliano, ed., The Conflict be- tween Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century (Oxford and New York, 1963). James M. Robinson, A New Quest of the Historical Jesus (London and Naperville, Ill., 1959). Albert Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede: eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (1906), trans. Mont- gomery as The Quest of the Historical Jesus (London, 1910). The Middle Ages. A. Fliche, La Réforme grégorienne et la Reconquête chrétienne, 1057-1125, Vol. 8 of Histoire de http://www.iep.utm.edu/g/gnostic.htm Dillon, John (1977). "Numenius of Apamea" in The Middle Platonists (Cornell University Press). Filoramo, Giovanni. A History of Gnosticism, tr. Anthony Alcock (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers 1990, 1992). Hegel, G.W.F. "The Gnostics" in Lectures on the History of Philosophy, vol 2. "Plato and the Platonists," tr. E.S. Haldane and Frances H. Simson (University of Nebraska Press; Bison Books Edition 1995). Jonas, Hans (1958, 2001). The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the Beginnings of Christianity (Boston: Beacon Press). Layton, Bentley (1987). The Gnostic Scriptures (Doubleday: The Anchor Bible Reference Library). Plato. Laws, tr. Trevor J. Saunders, in Plato: Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing 1997). Plato. Timaeus, tr. Donald J. Zeyl, in Plato: Complete Works. Plotinus. The Enneads, tr. A.H. Armstrong, in 7 volumes (Harvard: Loeb Classical Library 1966). Ricoeur, Paul. The Conflict of Interpretations (Northwestern University Press 1974). Rudolph, Kurt. Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism, tr. Robert McLachlan Wilson (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark Ltd. 1984). Segal, Robert A. (ed.) The Gnostic Jung (Princeton University Press 1992). Barnstone, Willis (1984 ed.) The Other Bible (Harper San Francisco). Bultmann, Rudolph (1956). Primitive Christianity in its Contemporary Setting (New York: Meridian Books). Fideler, David (1993). Jesus Christ, Sun of God: Ancient Cosmology and Early Christian Symbolism (Wheaton, Illinois: Quest Books). Pagels, Elaine (1975). The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters (Philadelphia: Trinity Press). Williams, Michael Allen. Rethinking "Gnosticism": An Argument For Dismantling A Dubious Category (Princeton University Press 1996). http://www-relg-studies.scu.edu/facstaff/murphy/courses/sctr026/therapeutae.htm from the Religious Studies Department Secr 26 Gender & Early Christiany 64.121.40.153 17:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Giovanni

I challenge the use of Origen and Tertullian to support the idea that mystery religions were incorporated into Christianity. I also dispute the idea that the church hierarchy "emphasized common features to attract followers." For the first few centuries, being a church hierarch was a good way to get yourself killed, tortured or banished; these people were not marketers, in fact much of their appeal came from choosing death rather than compromise of their beliefs. Most surviving records of the mystery religions have those religions being condemned by orthodox Christians, not admired. And as I've said before, the dates suggest that any borrowing was from Christianity into Mithraism. Wesley 17:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

On the Mithraism influence, please see here. KHM03 17:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Couple of points:

1. WP:CITE specifically states "Wikipedia articles should not use other Wikipedia articles as sources. Wikilinks are not a substitute for sources." In other words, Giovanni cannot use WP articles to back up his assertions, although he can use sources cited in other articles.

2. "The Essenes were a religious sect of Judaism, of which it is Jesus was thought to be a member of [sic], and which John the Baptist is widely regarded to be a prime example of an Essene. Where to begin, apart from this being atrocious grammar. First, "was thought to be a member of" and "widely regarded to be" — by whom? Unatributed speculation is no basis for concluding that this is historical fact. In fact, there is NO historical evidence that either Jesus or John the Baptist was an Essene. It's an interesting hypothesis, but basically speculation based on some ritual and theological similarities. JHCC (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

False claim. There is historical evidence. Its a fact that John the Baptist is widely regarded as an Essene. By whom, you ask? By scholars looking at the evidence. Just go check any other encylopeida and it says as much. For example, the entry for JOHN THE BAPTIST in the respected Jewish Encylopedia [1] (article by the esteemed scholar Kaufmann Kohler) describes him as an "Essene saint and preacher; flourished between 20 and 30 C.E.; fore-runner of Jesus of Nazareth and originator of the Christian movement. Of his life and character Josephus ("Ant." xviii. 5, § 2)..." The Encylopeadiea Britannica states, "As a young man John lived...as part of a Jewish monastic community such as the Essenes."

"John the Baptist, Saint." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. 20 Jan. 2006 You yelling there is no historical evidence doesnt make it so. Can you site a respected source that makes such a false clai as you contend? As for supporting my claims, that is easy do do and refutes your innacurate statments here.

John the Baptist – B. Witherington III writes[38] a list of points connecting John the Baptist with the Essene community at Qumran. The Essenes frequently adopted orphans[39]; it is likely that John was orphaned at an early age. John spent his adolescence in the Judean wilderness; the Essenes were locally based at Qumran in the Judean desert. The Baptist and the Essenes had a shared interest in priestly matters and a priestly Messiah[40] and a shared focus on Isaiah 40:3[41]. Both parties adhered to Spartan diets and ascetical behaviour[42]. Similar interests in sacramentology also link the Baptist to the Essenes (in that John’s water rite was comparable to Qumran ablution rights). Of the three main Jewish sects, John the Baptist’s eschatological orientation is closest to the Essene position. ---citations 38] See B. Witherington III’s article on John the Baptist in the “Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels” IV[39] Josephus, War 2.120; [40] 1QS 5.2; [41] 1QS 8.14;[42] Damascus Rule 12.13-14 specifies how to eat locusts and honey."

The Essene-Christian Faith (1989, 273 pp.) by Larson is a thorough and scholarly review of the development of the Essene movement within Judaism, of the Teacher of Righteousness (ca. 95 - ca. 69 B.C.), and of his close parallel, Jesus, who he is states is also probably an Essene.

“The Essenes were Pythagoreans who encased their pagan religious synthesis, which Jesus absorbed, in a Jewish entegument, which he rejected, although He considered Himself one of the prophets of Yahweh; but he incorporated a definitely Buddhist element, not found among the Essenes. In the Gospel, therefore, we find a synthesis of Osirian-Dionysiac soteriology, Zoroastrian eschatology, Buddhist ethics and renunciation, Pythagorean communism, and the Essenic Parousia. (416-17)”

I also cite the following sources of scholarhsip:

Francis Legge, Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity, From 330 B.C. to 330 A.D. (1914), reprinted as two volumes bound as one, University Books New York, 1964. LC Catalog 64-24125.

The Therapeutae and Christianity http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0120PhiloJudaeus.html Vermes, Geza and Martin D. Goodman, eds. The Essenes according to the Classical Sources. Sheffield: Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies and JSOT Press, 1989.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/asbook.html Dr Constantine Scouteris, "The Therapeutae of Philo and the Monks as Therapeutae according to Pseudo-Dionysius": comparing the Therapeutae with the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy Golb, Norman. 1985. "Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? The Search for the Secret of Qumran". Scribner Sanders, E.P., 1992. "Judaism: Practice & Belief 63BCE - 66CE" Minneapolis: Fortress Schiffman, Lawrence H. 1991. "From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple & Rabbinic Judaism". Ktav Publishing House Smith, Enid S., Ph.D., 1959, The Essenes Who Changed Churchianity The Essenes are an important part of H. Rider Haggard's Pearl-Maiden: A Tale of the Fall of Jerusalem.

And there is a lot more. Am I the only one providing references and citations to back up my claim here? It would seem so. 64.121.40.153Giovanni

JHC, I agree with you on the use of Wikipedia articles. Another WP article might be just as flawed as Giovanni thinks this here is.

And in regard to Essenes, I have run into a disagreement on another article, and from what I hear (I haven't yet been able to look into it) this article is not quite up to standard. Certainly the passage Giovanni quoted is at least very POV.

Str1977 19:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I will be a able to address all these points later today, and further make changes to the language to reflect consensus. Sorry, I've been a little too busy to take care of this yesterday.64.121.40.153 23:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Its funny that scholars which are known and respected are cited they said to be not good sources, yet no backing of these false claims are given. The same was done with Gibbon, whose autoritative resarch is very well respected and has not be discredited in the least. But I understand why: As Dr. Larson writes, "Christian have always held that their creed was a single, unique, miraculous, and supreme revelation without predecessor or outside contributor. But the fact is that nothing could be further from the truth; Christianity is a composite of doctrines, teachings, and ideologies which have forerunners in previous religions, with a proximate source in the Essene cult. If these facts were widely known, the authority of the Church or the churches would be drastically reduced. For this reason the reigning churches are determined to show that there is little or no similarity between Essenism and original Christianity. Or they prefer simply to ignore the whole thing as if it did not exist It would be virtually impossible to do this if all the Scrolls were published.

We know also from the Scrolls as well as from many passages in the New Testament that both the Essenes and Jesus were bitterly opposed to the Jewish authorities, especially the religious. There can be little doubt that the Scrolls now crumbling into dust include many passages in which the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Scribes are excoriated in the most bitter terms and that the tyranny exercised by them over the dissident Essenes is described in full detail. We know that about 104 B.C. the Essenes became a secret cult, went underground as it were, and forbade its members to discuss any of its beliefs with outsiders. We know also that about 70 B.C. the Teacher of Righteousness, the Essene leader, appeared in the temple in Jerusalem, where he denounced the authorities, and that, as a result, he was executed, probably by crucifixion; and that his followers therafter declared that he had risen from the grave on the third day, ascended to heaven, and would send a great messiah before the end of the generation to conduct the Last Judgement and inaugurate the Kingdom of the Saints on earth."

This is taken from "An Update on the Dead Sea Scrolls by MARTIN A. LARSON (Paper Presented to the Eighth International Revisionist Conference) Vol. No1 2001 64.121.40.153 01:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Giovanni

I move the contentious paragraphs here, as they are not only inaccurate and heavily POV, but also out of place in the current structure of the section:

The early Christians heavily relied on the Koine Greek Alexandrine text of the Hebrew Bible commonly refered to in the West as the Septuagint. While initially Christianity grew out of Judaism (using Jewish scriptures as justification of their own teachings and scriptures), the major Christian doctrines are believed to have also emerged out of the mystery teachings that existed in Greece and the Middle East around 2000 years ago. Early Christian fathers such as Clement of Alexander and Origen mention the continuity between Greek philosophy, especially Plato, the inner mystery teachings, and Christianity. Other scholars such as Camille Paglia have noted that Christianity was a development of the Dionysian mystery religion.

In its early years, what came to be called Christianity may have existed as a variety of mystery cults, limited to a small number of people and expounding esoteric teachings. Most scholarship believes these to included the Nasseni, Essenes,Therapeutae, Gnostics, Dionysus, and while there is much speculation that Christian beliefs were influenced by Mithraism which was assimilated by state-sponsored Christianity before being diposed of in name, according to Martin A. Larson, in The Story of Christian Origins (1977), Mithraism and Christianity derived from the same sources, originally from the savior cult of Osiris.

The basic church hierarchy developed in the first century and it is fairly probable that they emphasized common features to attract followers. In doing so many of these mystery teachings were brought out into the open, and redressed with often a literal interpretation. Such a veritable potpourri of religious ideas combined from Judaic monotheism, Persian dualism, eastern otherworldliness and asceticism, and the various mystery teachings makes the origins of Christian doctrine one whose complexity continues to shroud it in mystery.

Str1977 11:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, in doing some research, Larson's book (which is hard to find nowadays) is largely discredited by mainstream historians. Not a very authoritative or well thought of source for information. KHM03 12:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You say he "is largely discredited by mainstream historians" I challenge you to back up your claim, or else withdrawl it. The same goes for those who smeared Gibbon. Also, this particular book of his is not hard to find at all, just out of print. You can get it at Amazon. But, it is well-researched, relevant, interesting information. It is also cited in other similar studies, by other scholars.

A bit about him since you tarnished his name. Martin A. Larson (March 2, 1897 – January 15, 1994) was an American populist freethinker and religion scholar specializing in theological history and the Essenes. Originally from a fundamentalist Evangelical background [1], his writings ranged from...to a disquisition on the similarities among the cults of Osiris, Dionysus, Mithras and Jesus. He earned a PhD from the University of Michigan with a thesis on the unorthodoxies of Milton, whom he found to have rejected the doctrine of the Trinity [2].

Larson's lifelong body of work reconstructs a complete story of Christian origins and its theological controversies, detailing Christian evolution from beginning to now. This includes the synthesis of ideas, deities and personalities that historically gave favor to Christianity against religious competitors such as Mithraism, which lacked a human founder and barred the general public, or Manichaeism, which lacked a deified founder. He summarizes the exposition of this story..." 64.121.40.153 00:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I found a quote from Paula Fredrikson saying Jesus was not an Essene (or Pharisee, or member of several other groups), and another bit by Jaroslav Pelikan simply discussing his role as a Jewish Rabbi here. I still wonder, have you mentioned a citation where Origen or Tertullian connect Christianity with the 'inner mystery' religions favorably? I may well have missed it in the bulk text above. Wesley 03:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Wesley, I don't believe that Jesus was an Essene either. At most I said he was influenced by them, and that John the Baptist is widely regarded to have been an Essense. This is all I said, so I agree with your Fredrikson quote. Also, my contributions never even made the claim that any one in particular was an Essense per se, only that the Essene mystery teachings were among these mystery cults which influenced the development of what emerged as Christianity. And, I said this is widely accepted.

The Essenes are no mystery cult and any influence on Christianity (sure various Jewish sects influenced each other) mut be before the year 66. And remember, you did not claim "influence" but you claimed "may have existed as a variety of mystery cults" (in the newest version).

Regarding, Origen, (one of the more open minded fathers) he wrote hundreds of books trying to harmonize Christian thought with Greek philosophy, to create a synthesis of Christianity and Platonism basically. Allegorical interpretation of scripture and parallels drawn from Greek mythology was his method. Proof of the resurrection came from pagan antecedents, other heroes "risen from their graves." He said Jesus had been invisible, except to the few with "powers." Ofcourse, we know he was excommunicated and condemned as a heretic. Do you need references for these widely known facts? I never made any such claim about the hardliner, Tertullian, who by the way defected to the Montanists cult and was thus branded a heretic himself. I did mention, Clement of Alexandria who had a pagan background and was also strongly influenced by Greek philosophy and succeeded by Origen.

That might be the case (though "open minded" is no useful concept here), but it in no way supports what you wrote. Yes, Origen and Clement pointed out similarities (but also differences) to Greek culture and philosophy to make Christianity respectable. In a way, theology in the original sense is Greek philosophy applied to the revealed sources of faith.

BTW. Origen was branded a heretic not for those things you mention here, and in fact this verdict became universal only centuries later.

I noticed there was a changed made my Mika responding to one of your objections. Specifically that the church heiarchy was established already in the 1st century. Can you support this? I don't think its true. Maybe not until the 4th century with Christianity becoming the State religion would I say that it had its orthodoxy formulated.

Read the New Testament (Matthew, letters to Timotheus, to Titus), read the letter of Saint Ignatius. The church hierarchy is clearly visible throughout the second and especially the 3rd century.

Let me explain fully my understandings, in a synopsis, if you will. This might be long but please bear with me. Do you deny that the first three centuries there was a plethora of Christian "cults" that vied with each other and their pagan adversaries?

Yes, I would deny that. Yes, Christian congegrations existed apart from one another and hence there were some differences. There were also other groups who claimed Christ and held various doctrines, e.g. the Gnostics but then it's the issue how broad Christianity should be defined.

Also, that in doing so they adopted many of the others beliefs and doctrines, even as they destroyed them, afterwards? There is no contradiction between the two notiong. The theological controversies you could say had a "polluting effect." The Apostasy as a very gradual process; in process of defending the received "truth," the Church became sullied by the engagements with its opponents both outside and within the Church. To reject errors, specific arguments were designed which were effective against the opposition but which contained imbalances and exaggerations.

Sure there were influences - but they go both ways: one can emphasize similarities or differences. But that is not what you claimed.

This is because the relious movments were part of the political landscape. For example with the defeat of the Jews in 135 everything Jewish to be distanced.

Nonsense. The disparagment of things Jewish by Romans authorities will hardly lead to a de-judification by another groups persecuted by the same authorities. The reason for the growing gulf is the relative numbers of Jewish and Gentile Christians and the formation of Rabbinical Judaism as definitely apart from Christianity. Hence, people had to choose.

Christian writers in the empire scrambled to use Greek logic and the style of the sophists to defend Christianity. The Jewishness of the faith was purged and they took comfort in noting similarities between their own ideas and pagan myths. So while the Church defeated paganism, but it could be argued that in the process it became subtly sympathetic with the opponent, and susceptible to incorporating attitudes and traditions which may have foreign to the biblical faith at one time.

Believers coming from a Greek background, such as Justin Martyr, used their intellectual heritage to explain the faith. The result is theology. It is utterly inadequate to put this into a narrow X vs. Y framework. Christians didn't become pagans by doing theology.

Similarly for the early battles with Marcion and Valentinius and Montanus, perhaps even as early as Simon Magus. This corruption was not always necessarily intentional; although, in some cases, it was and teachers of "error" brought in these "pollutions deceitfully in order to escape detection.

Yeah, but these four fellows were excomunicated sooner or later.

Eventually one particular faction insinuated itself into the political establishment the instituted obedience of Church leaders and a conformity of thought. But this was closer to teh 4th century than the 1st, no?

And what "faction" should that be?

Blind faith, which renders the impossible possible (Mark ix. 23, 24), produced a thnking that deprecated learning, as was shown by Draper ("History of the Conflict between Science and Religion") and by White ("History of the Warfare of Science with Theology"). A craving for the miraculous and supernatural created ever new superstitions, under the form of relic-worship from old pagan forms of belief. In the name of the Christian faith reason and research were condemned, Greek philosophy and literature were exterminated, and free thinking was suppressed.

We have heard this song before, only it doesn't become truer by repition.

This medieval Christianity tended to find bliss in ignorance, because knowledge and belief seemed incompatible (Lecky, "History of European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne," ii. 203-210; idem, "History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe," i. 1-201).

Oh, Thomas Aquinas had some other thoughts on this.

Quite true (though I personally am not in total agreement with the "Great Ox" on this point). KHM03 13:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Many cardinal "Christian" beliefs, including belief in a sacrificial Jesus, had been widespread for centuries before the Christians appeared. The evidence shows clearly that the Christians took over pre-existing beliefs and sacraments rather than introduced new ones.

Belief in Jesus widespread before Jesus? Concepts in mystery cults and in Christianity are incompatible, these other "sacrificial lambs" were never historical person. And your clear evidence is contentious at best.

Many early Christians migrated to Rome in the wake of the Jewish war, including Valentinus, Marcion, and Cerdo, established a school in which the new theology was taught. These were regarded as the gnostic leaders, who openly proclaimed that all things Jewish should be discarded. Having jettisoned "Jewish practices", familiarity with the Greek "mystery religions" led the Gnostics to copy their style. Within an inner circle of adepts a secret "higher Wisdom" was passed orally from Master to Initiate. Their claim to authority rested on earlier holy men, apostles and sages, who, it was said, had entrusted arcane knowledge to their favourite disciples, the founders of the gnostic sects, hence being a mystery cult religion.

That is all true for the Gnostics. Whether they should be considered a Christian heresy or some pre-Christian religion putting on Christian clothes is debated. But nonetheless they were fought by the Church and denounced as unchristian. And Christianity as we have it is what came to us through the Church.

Ah, and "Many early Christians migrated to Rome" - yes, but many early Christians already were in Rome ... and they reacted sooner (Valentinus) or later (Marcion) to these heresiarchs ... and not in a positive way.

The cults vied with each other for acolytes, with some groups committed to asceticism and the denial of all "pleasures of the flesh" and others to indulgence, in which sex, revelry, etc were encouraged. The exclusivity of mystery cult meant that gnosticism was intrinsically elitist, but they marketed themselves also for the uneducated masses in vulgarised versions of gnostic doctrines dressed up in allegory. These were written down and circulated, and subsequently enacted in pageants and plays. These Christian leaders of the mid-2nd century concocted fables, each styled the "one true gospel of the Lord", with which they made a bid for a more universal leadership. The more ambitious strove for an independent, even millenarian church; some achieved high position within the Catholic hierarchy. Gnosticism's free spirited speculations on the divine had thrived in the Pax Romana of the Antonine emperors.

Other Christian sects, opposed to them, who argued for unquestioning faith and a blind acceptance of dogma, also were political sought sought accommodation with the caesars. Increasingly they compromised with traditional paganism and expropriated its iconography. They also further vulgarising and literalising bits and pieces from the wash of gospels, parables and 'wisdom' statements, much of which had originated within the Gnostics; they torched the rest as heresy. The losers, exiled and persecuted, with their property taken, their sacred literature banned and destroyed, were condemned as heretics. A sample of that scripture was preserved in a cave at Nag Hammadi. See J.M. Robinson (Ed.), The Nag Hammadi Library (Leiden, 1984) During the 1st century CE there were at least three distinct divisions within the Christian movement: the Jewish Christians, Pauline Christians (followers of St. Paul), and Gnostic Christians (people who believed that salvation came through secret knowledge). Each believed themselves to be the true church, and were highly critical of the other two.

Very nice "free spirited gnostics" vs. the blind faith. I never knew that faith was blind. Or that wild speculations were a good thing.

Back to my original point, there is overwhelming scholarly work extant that demonstrates the incorporation of these ideas of the Christians from Gnosticism and from various amalgamations of Jewish ideas in combination with Stoicism, Orpheism and Dionyseanism Gnosticism which all were in development as well at roughly the same time as Christianity. Many followers of this movement (Valentinius being one of the most well-known) were also Christians, and taught a synthesis of the two belief systems. This of course resulted in major controversy in the early church.

There are scholarly works and debate on a influence of Christianity by mystery cults and vice versa. But what you claim as consensus is an extreme position.

And, Christianity was not the only religion seeking and finding converts in the 1st century. Modern historians of the Roman world give interest to the mystery religions or mystery cults beginning in the last century of the Roman Republic and increasing during the centuries of the Roman Empire. Roman authors themselves, such as Livy, tell of the importation of "foreign gods" during times. Judaism, too, was receiving converts and in some cases actively evangelizing. The New Testament reflects a class of people referred to as 'believers in God' who are thought to be Gentile converts; Philo of Alexandria makes explicit the duty of Jews to welcome converts.

Sure Christians were not the only one. No one claimed that. Mystery cults certainly are an interesting subject, but what is contentious here is the extreme claim that "Christianity began existing as a variety of mystery cults". Practically every word in this sentence is contentious on its own and utterly false when combined.

After the decree of Theodosius in 391, and subsequent suppression, many Mithraeums were converted into Christian churches (such as Notre-Dame du Taur, and the Church of San Clemente); these were often dedicated to the archangel Michael.

In what way does that relate to our issue. Not at all.

In the second century conventionally educated converts began to produce two kinds of writings that help us understand the developing shapes of Christianity - works aimed at a broad audience of educated non-Christians and works aimed at those who considered themselves inside the Church. The Apologists made a presentation for the educated classes of the beliefs of Christians, often coupled with an attack on the beliefs and practices of the pagans. Other writings had the purpose of instructing and admonishing fellow Christians. Many writings of this period, however, succumbed to destruction from the Early Catholic Church as heretical.

You are right about the writers, but not "many writings of this period, however, succumbed to destruction from the Early Catholic Church as heretical" - the most of what is lost was just lost and not intentionally destroyed. Origen, yes, was frowned upon, but you can't generalize.

It was during this period church government began to take on a hierarchical form that matched the Roman government.

There was a Church hierarchy in the first century (at least in some places).

The Emperor Constantine I was, like emperors before him, high priest of the Mithraic religion.

He was, as all Emperors before him, head of the Roman state cult. Since Aurelian there was also the cult of "Sol invictus", which can be described as a slimmed down version of Mithras. But how do these official functions (which were more or less dropped in the following years) have to do with Christianity.

However, he was also interested in creating unity for the sake of ease of governance, and to this end involved himself in a dispute between Christian groups over Arianism, summoning the First Council of Nicaea; this Council produced the Nicene Creed.

True, but nothing sinister here. Why did he choose Christianity to create unity ... and why did he stick with it despite the rising Arian conflict?

Constantine mitigated some differences between orthodox Christianity and its main competitor, the official religion of Sol Invictus.

Nonsense. Sol invictus was no "main competitor" - it was Aurelian's attempt to create such unity through a slimmed down Mithras. But it did not yield success. And differences needed no mitigation.

For example, he moved the date of celebration of Jesus' birth to December 25th (since this was the celebration date for the birth of Mithras and Bacchus, and also the date of other winter solstice festivals such as Saturnalia).

In fact, Constantine was quite uninvolved in any Christmas date. Eastern and Western Churches still disagree on the proper date (25 December or 6 January). The December date was a reference to the winter solistice symbolism. There's nothing Mithraic about it. Both usages of the date go back to the natural fact of the solistice. There are even recent theories that the date was originally Christian and copied by paganism. I don't believe that but it illustrates the difficulties in finding causation.

In addition, Constantine instituted use of the Chi-Rho symbol, representative of Christianity, also alleged by some scholars to have had use as an obeloi for "auspicious" thus serving both Christian and non-Christian purpose simultaneously. Thus, we can see the effect of Mithranism on Christianity directly, in this regard.

Note, you just said "alleged by some scholars to have had use as" and then you turn it into "we can see the effect of Mithranism on Christianity directly". How about XP being the initial letters of XPISTOS? Too absurd a theory? Str1977 13:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Further refences:

Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy Jesus and the Goddess (Thorsons, 2002) J.R. Porter, The Lost Bible (Duncan Baird, 2001) Maxwell Staniforth, Early Christian Writings (Penguin, 1978) L. Boyle, St. Clements, Rome (Collegio San Clemente, 1989) Jean Ritchie, The Secret World of Cults (Harper Collins, 1991) John Riches, The World of Jesus (Cambridge University Press, 1990) Colin Wilson, The Occult (Grafton, 1988)

What is striking is the sheer variety of Christianities that proliferated from the very earliest date and a far from universal set of beliefs, including very basic things such as either in a human Jesus or a resurrected one. The evidence of Jesus's 'human existence', far from being confirmed and agreed by early Christians, was a matter of ferocious contention. Many Christians between the 1st - 4th century had NO belief in a flesh and blood Jesus; it was offensive to some particular interpretations of the divine.

This is indeed striking: There is evidence for the historical (yes, human) existence of Jesus. It is established beyond any reasonable doubt and only a few extremists still deny it. Certainly the existence of Jesus was not contented (let alone "ferocious"ly) in antiquity. True, Gnostics and Docetists considered him a spirit "undefiled by matter" but how far must a modern man stretch to use this as a basis for doubting Jesus' historicity, and how it such "evidence" able to refute the evidence from historical person who historically state that they historically spoke with a historical Jesus. And again, it is contentious whether these who "had NO belief in a flesh and blood Jesus" should be considered Christians at all.

To be true to what you said earlier about paganisation and de-judification you would have to consider those that didn't think a "flesh and blood Jesus ... offensive" as closer to the original. But somehow you don't. Str1977 13:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thomas William Doane, 1882, Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions, is a bit outdated but a classic revelation of pagan antecedents of biblical myths and miracles. Edwin Johnson, 1887, Antiqua mater. A Study of Christian Origins. English radical theologian identified the early Christians as the Chrestiani, followers of a good (Chrestus) God who had expropriating the myth of Dionysos Eleutherios ("Dionysos the Emancipator"), to produce a self-sacrificing Jesus. Gerardus Bolland, 1907, De Evangelische Jozua. Philosopher at Leiden identified the origin of Christianity in an earlier Jewish Gnosticism. In 1907 Pope Pius X took action and condemned the Modernists who were "working within the framework of the Church". An anti-Modernist oath was introduced in 1910. Arthur Drews, 1910, Die Christusmythe (The Christ Myth). 1910, Die Petruslegende (The Legend of St Peter). 1924, Die Entstehung des Christentums aus dem Gnostizismus (The Emergence of Christianity from Gnosticism). Alexander Hislop, 1916, The Two Babylons. Exhaustive exposure of the pagan rituals and paraphernalia of Roman Catholicism. Edward Carpenter, 1920, Pagan and Christian Creeds. Elaborated the pagan origins of Christianity. John J. Jackson, 1938, Christianity Before Christ, Drew attention to the Egyptian precedents of Christian belief. Herbert Cutner, 1950, Jesus: God, Man, or Myth? Mythical nature of Jesus and a summary of the ongoing debate between mythicists and historicizers. Pagan origins of Christ discussed. Georges Ory, 1961, An Analysis of Christian Origins. Guy Fau, 1967, Le Fable de Jesus Christ. John Allegro, 1970, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. 1979, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth. Max Rieser, 1979, The True Founder of Christianity and the Hellenistic Philosophy. Christianity started by Jews of the Diaspora and then retroactively set in pre-70 Palestine. Christianity arrived last, not first, in Palestine – that's why Christian archeological finds appear in Rome but not in Judea until the 4th century. Gerd Lüdemann, 1998, The Great Deception: And What Jesus Really Said and Did. 2002, Paul: The Founder of Christianity. 2004, The Resurrection Of Christ: A Historical Inquiry. After 25 years of study German professor concluded Paul, not Jesus, started Christianity. Alvar Ellegard, 1999, Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ. Christianity seen as emerging from the Essene Church of God with the Jesus prototype the Teacher of Righteousness. Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy, 1999, The Jesus Mysteries. 2001, Jesus and the Lost Goddess : The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians. Examines the close relationship between the Jesus Story and that of Osiris-Dionysus. Jesus and Mary Magdalene mythic figures based on the Pagan Godman and Goddess. Burton Mack, 2001,The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy. Social formation of myth making. Tom Harpur, 2005, The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light. Canadian New Testament scholar and ex-Anglican priest re-states the Christianity, it was clear, had not fallen from heaven but was a man-made production. 64.121.40.153 11:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Giovanni

I've made serveal changes to the contentious elements in the passage, and have reposted it. Please do no revert without talking aobut my latest changes, and contributions here in the talk page. Giovanni33 12:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't seem to find Larson or his book on Amazon.com...could you provide an ISBN number? It could be that I'm just not searching properly. I still see that his work was way out of the mainstream and not accepted by most mainstream scholars. Could you "back up" his claims from other, more accepted/mainstream/acknowledged authorities? Justo Gonzales is a pretty good "recent" authority, pretty well respected. Alister McGrath is a good one, too, though he's more "theology" as opposed to "strict history". There are others, of course. Citing some mainstream figures might help, though. KHM03 03:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Alister McGrath, having read one of his books, and I was not impressed by it. For those who don't know he is the Director of the Oxford Centre for Evangelism and Apologetics at Wycliffe Hall. He is one of the most widely read and influential Christian writers of a conservative bent, but his bias gets the better of him in many cases. How about a mainstream secular historian on these questions? I have provided already too many above, which do support my claims. About the Larson book, try again. You should be able to search for author and you can see all his books, along with reviews. Giovanni33 13:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I can read, most of the additions are "contentious". It's also way too long; there is a History of Christianity article which deals with this stuff in greater detail. I edited out most of the controversial/disputed elements, incoroprating the rest into the text. If we want to expand more than a very basic overview (particularly with material which is disputed in academia), we ought to revisit the main history article, and not go overboard here, on an article which seems to always threaten to be too lengthy. KHM03 13:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Its ok if there are things which are contenttious among scholars. One need only mention that fact, not exclude it all together, esp. when its vaulable. I'll take a look at the section again and I did see opportunities to make it shorter. Also, state which parts now exist in the seciton that you think is in dispute among scholarship with some citations that show this. That would help and we can make the appropriate language adjustments to reflect that. Giovanni33 14:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)