Magdlyn

Too late. I can't make head or tails (or sense) of your posts! :huh:

Later, dude.

EssEff

That's what I don't get about people who believe the early Christians couldn't have been conned. Look at all the examples of current cults sucking in people based on thin or no evidence. It's entirely possible the whole Christian myth was made up.

Seeker630

I think you're right--------Mithraism was older than Christianity, was popular in the same geographical area, and reads almost word for word the same in it's basic tenets.

Roger Pearse

True, except that there was no such thing as Mithraism, the Roman cult of Mithras is not recorded before around 80 AD, was generally popular among soldiers rather than slaves, and didn't have "basic tenets"; there was no set of statements whereby people agreed to believe in Mithras.

Not your fault, of course -- I realise that you're repeating something you read. But it's all a myth, and one that some of us in this forum have probably heard a few too many times.

The links between the two really reduce to a couple of ritual practises such as ritual meals and initiations -- probably shared, if defined loosely enough, by half a hundred mysteries -- and a comment or two by Justin and Tertullian.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

Of course!

Now, I have no experience presenting Syriac, but I can work something out if you get it transcribed.

Thanks!

Ben.

Roland

Several others beat me to my counter-argument, but I think it can use re-iteration.

How long has Mormonism been around? How long The Unification Church? Seen in that light, Christianity's growth doesn't strike me as being particularly unprecedented or phenomonal.

Minimalist

If history should have taught us anything it is that people will believe all sorts of silly shit. In many cases the result of that belief has been directly opposed to their own obvious self interest ( i.e., sacrificing their children.)

Compared to that, xtianity is rather tame if no more believable.

Clouseau

I don't think that is so, as far as the intelligentsia of any society are concerned. Such people will say they believe all sorts of nonsense, which is an entirely different thing. The intelligentsia (who are intelligentsia by virtue of economic power) then brainwash (or coerce) the poorer people into agreeing with them.

As it happens, the USA is unique in the history of the world in this respect*, and Americans of all people should be aware of how this has occurred. The USA is home to four great attempts to overcome Biblical truth- Catholicism, Calvinism, Creationism and KJVOery, all of them perfectly lunatic of derivation. It has also spawned a great number of lesser 'Christian' cults- Mormonism, JWism, SDAism, Christian Science, the list is long. Methinks the lady doth protest so much that there can be no doubt about her self-perceived guilt.

*Never have so many wealthy people been so apparently stupid in the face of such abundance of knowledge; the medievals at least could claim comparative poverty of both wealth and information.

Johnny Skeptic

You take your scholarship, which I admit is impressive, too seriously. If a God exists, I doubt that he would use ancient written records as his primary source of communicating information about his existence and will to humans. History has adequately proven the disadvantages of using such a method. For example, even Christians themselves have killed each other over what they believed the Bible means.

If you had the power to do anything that you wanted to do, if you wanted people to believe that you exist, and to know what you wanted them to do with their lives, you most certainly would not trust that task to ancient written records. You would easily be able to accomplish that task much more efficiently yourself, tangibly, in person, in front of everyone in all generations.

Surely, there is no substitute for "the real thing." What I mean is "the tangible, personally available real thing."

If you had been raised in China in 150 A.D., it would be interesting to know what your beliefs would have been.

GakuseiDon

Johnny, can't you see that you are driving threads off-topic by continually re-introducing these questions? If you want someone to address one of the many threads you've started, how about just issue a challenge and then a link back to that thread? We all have our hobby-horses, and I'll admit to doing it occasionally as well, but you do it far too often. I'm not saying don't post, just try to be a bit more sensitive about the topic in the thread. If you want to introduce a tangent, start a new thread or link to an old one. (Yes, I will grant the irony of my making an off-topic post in order to complain about someone making off-topic posts).