Evoken

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

The Magi simply reconized Jesus as the king of the Jews and you have to remember too that Zoroatrianism allowed other gods and sought to form a sort of allience of good gods to prepare for a final confrontation between Zoroatrianism and its 'allies' against the forces of evil. This same event happened back on the time of the exile at around 580 BC. As in the past Yahweh was one of the good gods.

Here is a good article about it:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/3magi.htm


Sure but his virginity has no relevance to his doctrine and it is not even mentioned. So trying to link Mithra's "virgin birth" with Jesus is invalid. And besides the sexual intercourse between a supernatural being and a mortal woman was among the basic tenets of the mystery religions and like I said before I know and admit that Christianity is a mystery religion.


Similarities do not equals borrowing. Also I do not think that the logic you are using to find the pagan elements in Christianity is accurate or fair. If you just group all of the mystery religions and clash them against Christianity then it is obvious that you will find a parallel for almost everything in Christianity if not in one mystery in another.

Also what evidence do you have to back up such claims?

I didn't single out pagan gods nor deny anything. What I said is exactly what you just said, trying to build a parallel between Jesus and other pagan gods will fail because like I already said too, Christianity was not formed out of bits and pieces here and there overnight like some sort of conspiracy. Christianity is a jewish adaptation of the greek mystery religions. So it is obvious that you will find similarities between Christianity and the mystery religions because Christianity IS a mystery religion.

ichabod crane

Firstly, it's not just that I "claim" that a cave isn't in the Bible, it's just a fact that it isn't in the Bible. Please give me a reference if you think otherwise.

Secondly, I've been to the cave in the Church of the Nativity. The problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus was born there. Like many holy sites in Israel, the Catholic Church came along much later and just decided where certain things happened without any historical evidence at all. If you have evidence that this cave was indeed where Jesus was born, I'd be most interested to see it.

Biff the unclean

If you ignore tradition and only use the bible as a source...that there are NO outside sources...then that points squarely at it being a work of fiction.

I've been there too and the site was one of the ones that the "angel" pointed out to the aged Augusta, Saint Helena.
There is no evidence that Jesus was ever born. While that is simply a lack of evidence this Pagan god stuff is damningly negative evidence that strongly suggests that Jesus is pure fiction.
The "Catholic" chuch was THE Christian church at the time, or have you forgotten? I have no evidence that Jesus was ever born anywhere. I have no valid reason to even consider that he might have been born at all.

Biff the unclean

The Zoroastrians saved the Jews from exile. In thanks for doing that the OT condemns them for worshiping a false God. The Jews hated the Zoroastrians.
Magi never went to the birth of any other Jewish King. In fact in the Jesus story the Magi double cross a Jewish King.

Am I being too vague or do you have a reading comprehension problem? No one said anything about him being a virgin. Only that HIS birth was acheived without sexual intercourse.
Linking any demigod who was concieved sans intercourse is valid.
You really need to read something about Mithra beyond a short article on a web site.

No they don't because borrowing implies that you intend to return what was taken. This taking did not go unnoticed by the Mithrains by the way. We all know the strange reply Justin Martyr made to them

You mean them being the same stories or the fact that the Christians never took the Pagan Goddess' name off of their high holy day?

What are you talking about? They are the same F***ing stories. Only the older versions the Christians say are lies, and the new version of the same story they say is true.

Really? Then why did the Ecumenical Councils need to vote on what was cannon?
You ignore that the Jews are the bad guys in these stories. You ignore that Jesus doesn't behave like a Jew. You ignore that some of the stories not only pick up the plot of Hellenist stories about Gods they actually pick up the dialogue

CX

Firstly, this is not original material and as such a reference should be cited. Secondly at least with respect to Mithras the source is wrong. Mithras was worshipped by the Roman Cult in the first few centuries of the common era and virtually none of the things attributed to him above are true. Secondly although the Perso-Iranian system of Zoroastrianism had a minor deity named Mitra, modern scholars reject the notion (originally promulgated most vociferously by Franz Cumont) that Mithras was an evolution of Mitra or that there is any connection other than name borrowing. Mithras was a thoroughly new invention in the 1st century and scholars do not see any evidence of direct borrowing in either direction between the Roman Cult of Mithras and Xianity. Additionally even considering the persian Mitra the claims made above are mostly false and there is absolutely no evidence of any connection between the persian Mitra and Xianity. Lastly the whole thing is mostly likely wrong and sounds remarkably like the nonsense promulgated by Kersey Graves.

CX

Constantine was not a member of the Roman Cult of Mithras as far as I'm aware. He was a member of the Cult of Sol Invicti. Roman Mithraism conflated Mithras with Sol Invicti which is what creates the confusion I think.

CX

One should be very careful in accepting the work of Ulansey uncritically. His theory is basically ignored by every serious scholar of Mithraic Studies. One is much better off looking at the work of Manfred Clauss. Also someone mentioned Cumont. His book is a hundred years old and completely outdated his connection between the Roman Cult of Mithras and Perso-Iranian Mitra is now completely rejected.

CX

I am afraid you are misinformed. None of the elements of the infancy narratives align at all with those of Mithras. Additionally scholars have completely rejected the idea of any influence in either direction between the Roman Cult of Mithras and Xianity since the late 70's. Franz Cumont's work is a hundred years old and considered completely outdated. Further, there is no evidence at all of interaction between the mythology surrounding the persian Mitra (who is not equivalent to the Roman Mithras) and Xianity.

Biff the unclean

CX Unlike today's religion it was very rare for a Roman Patrician to only belong to only a single religion. His Mithraism had it's base on his commanding the Legions first in Gaul and later Gaul and Britian. Religion was a political expediency.
You'll note that I did not parrot Cumont's conclusions, which are tainted by his devote Roman Catholicism, but referred to the myths themselves which he presented and which are not discredited. That a deity evolved into several conflicting religions (as Jesus himself did) does not make the origin stories disappear.

Nor does it change the Christian story of Magi, and not Rabbis, saving the "Christ" from the evil Jews.

Biff the unclean

[QUOTE=IAsimisI]There were any number of "messiahs" that the Romans kept quite complete records of. That is one of the arguments against Jesus being historic as they kept no records of him which is contrary to procedure

That is simply not correct. Magi is a quite specific term. They were astrologer priests of Zoroaster and Mithra…the Ahura Mazda religions.

Since they were watching the zodiac for signs of a miraculous birth and since they specifically brought with them gold, frankincense and myrrh they are obviously looking for the second coming of Mithra.
This birth story is pure fiction. The question remains, why does the author make Mithrains the rescuers of Jesus and the Jews his would be assassins?

I can only know what you write. It would be presumptuous to put words in your mouth.

You can't pull this "taking out of context" business because it is not taken out of context but is used in the specific context it was written in.
Also if you claim that Christians "borrowed" sections of Pagan religions that these Christians themselves claimed were lies from Satan then you are accusing the early church of being willful liars. Are you sure you want to do that?

You can only pick one or the other. Either there were valid Christian beliefs in the early church that were not those of Roman Catholicism; or there was only Catholic and Heretic. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The first Jew we see in the story won't let a woman in labor into his inn but kicks her out to give birth in a muck-filled stable. The first Jewish authority we see sets the tone for every other Jew of rank in the book by attempting to assassinate the hero. He slaughters all the male babies so there can be no doubt of his character development. Nor can there be any doubt of the author's anti-Semitism.

You keep harping about "the Mystery Cults." Christianity "borrows" none of the secret mysteries, it steals the public parts of these religions. And not just from "Mystery Cults" but ordinary religions too. As for what plot…the parts starting at the Virgin Birth and up to and including Saul's conversion (which you can find in Euripides Bacchae) are taken from other, older, religions. The whole thing is just a rehash.