Anti-Creedance Front

The arguments that Mithraism influenced Christianity are in that it predated Christianity by 200 years (or more)... Paul himself came from Tarsus, a center for Mithraism and other mystery religions in the area, and remember he originally MOCKED Jesus and later on converted to follow him. There is also the status of Mithraism as a state cult, which you are trying to debunk. Once again, sources, sources, sources please. I don't want to sound like a Bible banger, but I need them.

As far as Mithra being a yazata, I don't know about that. This page (<a href="http://www.richredman.ws/games/helmand/religion.html" target="_blank">Religion</a>) argues that he is an intermediate deity in Zoroastrianism. This page says people would cry out to Mihr (Mithra) for justice, much like Jesus. (<a href="http://essenes.crosswinds.net/angelZara.htm" target="_blank">Zarathustra Angelology</a>)(second column, number 16)

Many do argue he was a yazata. Even so, he was one of three judges (Mithra, Shraosha, Rashnu). Then again, the Mithra argument does not even depend on the Mithra cult being linked to Z-ism.

The worship of Mithra was exercised alongside Varuna by the Hurrites of Asia Minor who established the kingdom of Mittani. If Mithra spread through there, he would have come almost directly from the Vedas. Then maybe the Romans added his whole mythology, but it's unlikely to have been that different without other outside influence. This page is a good pro-Mithra/Christ argument source. That's where I got this information.(<a href="http://www.geocities.com/spenta_mainyu_2/mithras.htm" target="_blank">Spenta Mainyu</a>)

By the way, I should have stressed that I was not being argumentative with the things about the blood of the bull and fiery chariot, merely stating other's opinions on the subject. It was Elijah that was taken up in the fiery chariot I found out.

As I said, many skeptics and nontheists are coming to believe that Paul was a TRAITOR to the "true church of Jesus Christ". Most of the church today relies on Paul's theology. The argument is that his theology won out over Peter's. As the saying goes, "to the victor go the spoils of war". What if the theologies of some of the other writers are lost to us forever?
We'd never have anything to contradict Paul's work.

I'm sorry, but I do NOT think the complicated mythology formed by the Abrahamic religions comes from nowhere, or comes naturally. The Bible itself is so garbled that fundamentalists are often in denial, as I'm sure many of us know. The god of the OT is undeniably a pagan god. I've been studying Genesis recently, actually reading it through like a book, and Adam, Cain, Abel, Noah, and others make sacrifices to YHVH, which he accepts with great happiness. These weren't just vegetables, they were animals and other things. Anyway, I think I'll stick around for this thread. Looks like it's going to be interesting. I soooo should have joined forensics in high school. *bonk*

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Anti-Creedance Front ]</p>

Jackalope

What "Great Mother"? Unless you buy Marija Gimbutas' and Margaret Murray's ideas, there was no one mother goddess. I'd suggest you read through Ronald Hutton's Triumph of the Moon and then perhaps The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles, Their Nature and Legacy. Hutton's books are probably the most readable accounts of what gave rise to the notion of a "Great Mother Goddess." It's mostly a product of edwardian society.

The cult of Mary is indeed a way of filling the gap left after all the goddesses were banished, but there's no evidence of any one particular goddess who's place she took.

--Lee
[edited because I left a word out of the last sentence]

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Jackalope ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

Could you give me a better sense of what you mean by this?

LuckyCharm

Fenton Mulley:
The life of Jesus of Nazareth, of course.

Vorkosigan:
So if I could draw comparisons between King Midas and George Bush, you would begin to doubt the existence of George Bush?

CX:
Thank you, CX.

~~Cheryl

Yellum Notnef

I suspect that Cheryl didn`t see the word "mythological" in CX`s post.

Anti-Creedance Front

Just that. As in, he was a polytheistic cult god. I believe strongly that YHVH is actually the Canaanite chief god El. All evidence I've seen supports it. El is a component of so many things in Isra-EL's culture, such as several names for "God", all the archang-EL's names, some demon's names, many Hebrew first names, etc. But this isn't the topic for that, so we'll discuss it some other time.

LuckyCharm

Actually, Fenton, it doesn't even make any difference. I had considered, before writing my post, mentioning that most ancient belief systems shared common themes surrounding the creation of the universe, a global flood, etc. I'd go look up the references, but suspect you know them better than I do.

Does this mean that any of them copied from the others? Highly improbable. The most likely explanation, in fact, is that something did really happen to inspire those legends.

But all legends aside, does it logically follow that a similarity to a myth or legend would necessarily cast doubt upon the authenticity of a historical report? We could draw a few similarities between the Tower of Babel story and 9-11 if you wish -- assuming you consider the Babel story mythical, would you then distrust the reports of a real tower falling, solely on that basis?

Not a very solid line of logic there, I'm afraid...

~~Cheryl

LuckyCharm

Mille pardons! I just now found the "Reply with quote" button. Next time I'll quote the person I'm replying to -- apologies for any confusion!

~~Cheryl

Yellum Notnef

Well if the common story of a resurrected godman is based on a shred of fact,it certainly took place LONG before anybody ever heard the name Jesus.


I assume the "historical report" you`re referring to is about Jesus again.
I`m sorry to break it to you especially on his "borrowed" birthday and all,but the biblical story of Jesus is not a historical report.

Maybe there really was a historical guy named jesus and maybe there wasn`t. It doesn`t much matter since the bulk of what was written about the guy is pure fiction inspired by the many other religions around at the time.

Yeah it`s much more logical to assume that it`s all fiction when other godmen do these things,but when Jesus does the same things later it`s all real and original.

What similarities?
This has to be the worst attempt at apolegetics I`ve ever seen.

[ December 25, 2002: Message edited by: Fenton Mulley ]</p>

LuckyCharm

Only if you believe that the human spirit is incapable of vision beyond what we can see with our eyes, and of apprehending truth that hasn't yet become "reality." How many thinkers postulated that matter is composed of miniscule particles long before the atom was discovered by science? Is it so impossible to believe that, if God were to come to earth as a Man at some particular moment in history, that great souls and seers throughout the ages wouldn't have caught a glimpse of this cosmic event long before it occurred within time as we know it?

I am quite well aware that Dec 25th is not necessarily the exact date of His birth, but it is the day that Christians have set aside universally to honor the Incarnation, and that suits me just fine. I don't mind celebrating my own birthday on a different day that might be more convenient, after all.

That said, however, I find little to respond to here. You make a lot of broad assertions, but fail to even attempt to show how you arrive at them logically.

No, it's not logical to assume anything. Logic demands that we examine any account on its own merits first, then compare it to what we already know, and to other accounts, to determine its validity. That's how we do it in military intelligence, anyway. It wouldn't do to simply dismiss a report of a conspiracy, for example, by saying that lots of people have made up conspiracy stories, and therefore we can't believe anything this guy is telling us. Just this once, you know, it might be true...

Oh, come on, is this a serious question? You can draw similarities between any two things if you try hard enough. I could probably draw enough similarities between you and a possum to convince an alien that you were one and the same thing. ToB vs. WTC? Let's see, they were both huge, they were both monuments to man's ingenuity, men of many nations were involved with each, they both reached toward the heavens, they both came crashing down suddenly... See what I mean?

I'm sorry if I've confused you. I haven't even begun an attempt at apologetics. I have made no assertions thus far -- all I'm doing is trying to point out the logical fallacy here. If a lot of little children imagine there's a man outside their bedroom window, is it safe to say that there cannot therefore possibly be a man outside this child's window, just this once? You'd be foolish to make that assumption -- it has happened, you know.

~~Cheryl