Layman

Let me put it this way, I am only interested in parallels to the extent that they are furthered as an explanation of influence and origins. That is, I'm interested in early Christian history. I'm not into comparative religious studies as much at this time.

TySixtus

Im a taker:

Look at Mithras. Way before Christ. We already know he wasn't born in December, the great Star isn't visible then if you are in the Middle East. Mithras:

Virgin birth
Twelve followers
Killing and resurrection
Miracles
Birthdate on December 25
Morality
Mankind's savior
Known as the Light of the world

Hmmmm....

Ty

Layman

Pretend for a minute that I'm not willing to take your word for this. What are the Mithric sources that tell us these things?

And since Jesus' Decembewr 25 birthdate did not exist for the first few hundreds years of Christianity that one is not particularly persuasive if we are talking about origins.

Nor do I think that "Morality" or being a "Savior" is all that specific of a description.

GakuseiDon

The point is: let's establish that the parallels exist before deciding on what they mean.

If Horus wasn't crucified, between two thieves or not, then there isn't much point discussing the parallel.

Personally, I don't think that uniqueness necessarily confers legitimacy. But let's get the evidence first.

joedad

I guess that's the issue. I don't know what's uniquely christian. Wouldn't it be better for you to list those major aspects of christianity that are unique? What are they, and also state their significance. Isn't that more to the point? Then we can discuss them.

For example, it's often stated that christianity quickly spread far and wide. What's overlooked in such a claim is that wherever christianity arrived some other mythology was already there. So then how would such a claim make christianity unique?

So a list of what is essentially and uniquely christian seems in order, whether deemed significant or not, and is something I cannot provide. You're the christian. Why christian, and not something else?

GakuseiDon

That's one of the stranger requests that I've seen. Without looking at the evidence in the first place, how could I know? Is there a "Doctrine of Uniqueness" in Christianity that I'm not aware of?

I'm not making any claims about the uniqueness of Christianity, only that Horus wasn't crucified. Perhaps you should start a new thread? (I probably won't participate).

Amaleq13

I don't know about any "official" statements, but that is a common claim from Christians.

Justin Martyr considered the Mysteries to be sufficiently similar to warrant an accusation of demonic well-poisoning.

My understanding is that the major difference between the Mysteries and Christianity is the ministry conducted by the living mangod-in-question but we don't find that "fact" actually being used as a counterargument until relatively late (late 2nd?).

Instead, we find "demons creating misleading precursors" or "you've got stories and so do we what's the big deal" type arguments. You have to admit it is a bit odd that it takes so long for a Christian to say "our guy was actually wandering around teaching folks and performing miracles just a few years ago, do you know anybody who hung out with Dionysus?". By the time any Christians get around to using this excellent rebuttal, there is nobody still alive who could claim to have walked with the living Jesus.

spin

Not one piece of primary evidence. The closest in the discussion was my mentioning of Polycarp's letter, which at least can be claimed to be primary. What Eusebius says two hundred years after the supposed events is not in any sense primary historical material. Eusebius was at best a collector of old traditions. But this seems to be too hard a distinction for you to understand. You don't parade a witness who wasn't there as though the testimony was of any value in itself. (And the expert has to be shown to be expert.) Yours is a fundamental historiographical problem. Old doesn't make it primary. The fact that it's being used in translation doesn't automatically mean that it's secondary. As long as the translation adheres to the original content it should be considered as primary as the orignal language, but you need to be able to demonstrate that adherence if necessary. Primary evidence is evidence which comes from the scene of the crime, be it the weapon used, or indirectly, the back transactions showing the motivation for the crime. What the bar tender heard from the garbage collector who took out the garbage of the family of the secretary of the board of reviewers of the books of the company doesn't have much direct bearing on the murder of the director's wife, no matter how literate the bar tender.


spin

Attonitus

You are right. It is a commonplace that Christianity it is a predator of old Religions, and it is a very possible fact, as Renan states in his book 'Marc-Aurèle et la fin du monde antique' (although it is not a primary source ) that if Christianity had been detainee in its growth by some deadly disease, the world would have become Mithraic

"And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn."

Justin, The First Apologie [LXVI]

"The question will arise, By whom is to be interpreted the sense of the passages which make for heresies? By the devil, of course, to whom pertain those wiles which pervert the truth, and who, by the mystic rites of his idols, vies even with the essential portions of the sacraments of God. He, too, baptizes some—that is, his own believers and faithful followers; he promises the putting away of sins by a layer (of his own); and if my memory still serves me, Mithra there, (in the kingdom of Satan, ) sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of a resurrection, and before a sword wreathes a crown.What also must we say to (Satan's) limiting his chief priest to a single marriage? He, too, has his virgins; he, too, has his proficients in continence. Suppose now we revolve in our minds the superstitions of Numa Pompilius, and consider his priestly offices and badges and privileges, his sacrificial services, too, and the instruments and vessels of the sacrifices themselves, and the curious rites of his expiations and vows: is it not clear to us that the devil imitated the well-known moroseness of the Jewish law?

Since, therefore he has shown such emulation in his great aim of expressing, in the concerns of his idolatry, those very things of which consists the administration of Christ's sacraments, it follows, of course, that the same being, possessing still the same genius, both set his heart upon, and succeeded in, adapting to his profane and rival creed the very documents of divine things and of the Christian saints his interpretation from their interpretations, his words from their words, his parables from their parables. For this reason, then, no one ought to doubt, either that "spiritual wickednesses," from which also heresies come, have been introduced by the devil, or that there is any real difference between heresies and idolatry, seeing that they appertain both to the same author and the same work that idolatry does. They either pretend that there is another god in opposition to the Creator, or, even if they acknowledge that the Creator is the one only God, they treat of Him as a different being from what He is in truth. The consequence is, that every lie which they speak of God is in a certain sense a sort of idolatry".

Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum [XL]

Attonitus

I agree. Isis it is a goddess and Horus it was never crucified. Tom Harpur interprets erroneously a text of the suffering servant in Gerald Massey.