David B

While I don't have a problem with the working assumption that there was a historical Jesus, I'd be grateful if you could point any extra biblical sources of his existence. I know of none - though there are non contemporary extra biblical sources mentioning the existence of Christianity.

....Well done!

One of the things that really bugs me is the contempt for truth shown by those Christians who should know better asserting as a matter of fact that Christmas day is Jesus' Birthday, hence giving a false historicity to Jesus.

David B

angela2

Any supporting evidence for any of this?
Oops. Scripture does not say they went to Herod. It says Herod summoned them when he heard about their question.
Lots of places are east of Bethlehem. Including Arabia which includes Sheba which is also mentioned in what is considered OT prophecy. Justin, in AD. 160 wrote in his Dialogue, 'Magi from Arabia came to him. (that is Herod)' In AD. 96 Clement of Rome wrote in his first letter to the Corinthians that he associated frankincense and myrrh with 'the districts near Arabia.'

angela2

Well, since you don't have any problem with my assumption, let's save ourselves the argument over historical sources.
I had imagined everybody knew better. Of course, I shouldn't point fingers. I too get carried away sometimes and forget that God doesn't need me to defend him.

Roger Pearse

I'm sorry to tell you that nearly all of the above is not in fact correct. There is a great deal of nonsense talked about Mithras online, although you can find better if you look.

The Roman cult of Mithras is not of Persian origin and is not related to the ancient Persian cult of Mitra. The idea that they were identical is a mistake by Cumont ca. 1900. But Mithras is best known from the very distinctive underground temples of the cult. None of these exist in Persia, which tells us that this is not a Persian cult. The archaeology points to a Roman invention, ca. 50 AD, in Rome. The only reference to Mithras existing before then is one in Plutarch (2nd century), which alleges that the Cilician pirates suppressed by Pompey (in 68 BC) worshipped Mithras. Given the archaeology, Manfred Clauss in "The Roman Cult of Mithras" suggests that Plutarch got confused with the similar-appearing Perseus.

Little is known about the mysteries of Mithras. It was not a standalone religion; merely the worship of yet another pagan deity within the structure of ancient paganism, and in no sense exclusive of them -- indeed Helios is routinely depicted in bas-reliefs.

The Magi are the Persian worshippers of Mazdaism. These persecuted the church under the Sassanid dynasty, as is recorded in the Chronicle of Arbela and also in various Armenian texts. But at the time of Christ this hostility lay in the future.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Malachi151

Linking Christianity to "paganism":

A lot of the efforts to link Christianity to paganism are very misguided.

Much of this was initially done by the Protestants early on, as they, sometimes correctly, pointed out various aspects of Catholicism that were tied to paganism, such as the date of Christmas for example.

People ran with this theme, and by the 19th century and early 20th century, many people were trying to explain every aspect of Christianity via "paganism".

Much of this is spurious and sloppy work, and in reality the works of the Bible are not heavily influenced by "paganism", they are quite well rooted in the Hebrew scriptures and practices. The first place to look when trying to explain some aspect of Christianity should not be "paganism", or any other of the various religions, but rather Judaism itself and the various aspects of Hellenistic Judaism and the midrash.

True, many aspects of Church doctrine have "pagan", or non-Jewish, roots, but that isn't so much the case for the scriptures themselves.

David B

What about the OT? Don't the flood myths of the OT, for example, have roots in other writings?

David B

Malfunc

Hi,
a brief note - the Bible doesn't say there were 3 wise men. It could have been 2, or it could've been 200 hundred. I don't know why christians assume there were 3.

Malfunc

Chaupoline

The birth of Jesus corresponded with the Vernal Equinox (March 20),and the beginning of the Age of Pisces (AD 1 -2150).

Pisces is the symbol of the fish, also representative of Jesus Christ. The Age of Pisces is very close to the year Christianity emerged up to the present.

The Wise Men would be in search of the one that would define the Age. I don't know how they tracked the Constellation to the manger though. I guess it just shows how wise they were.

CalUWxBill

Interested by your statement I had to look it up. Sure three gifts, not necessarily three magi.

Anyway, on a side note I have the NIV study bible. Wow, the note for Matthew 2:11 is utter BS. In order to maintain that Jesus was born in a manger (as in the Gospel of Luke), they claim that the magi visited Jesus months after Jesus was born at his home. Matthew 2:11 happens to mention that the magi visited a house not a manger, in fact there is no mention of a manger in Matthew. Is there? So they do reconcile it. But it's not even close to a satisfactory job, because it was obvious the magi went to Bethlehem, as that is where Herod had the boys murdered, just after the magi outwitted him. The contradictions are one thing, but the NIV trying to work around them is another.

gstafleu

Actually, although I can't back it up yet, I suspect that that was going on all the time. The Sun dies and is reborn both on a daily and yearly basis, the rebirth ensuring that life can go on. Notice that the Sun doesn't need any help in either dying or being reborn, it does that all by its little self. Nature dies on a yearly basis. In frigid climates in winter, in hotter ones in the summer when the vegetation withers. But nature comes back, and life goes on. Again, nature does this all by its little self. I rather suspect that God sacrificing himself so that things will turn out allright should be seen in a similar, err, light.

Gerard Stafleu