Radorth

And not one of them, under threat of torture, death and intense persecution ever once said they were ahistorical. I don't suppose that makes a skeptic like yourself suspicious. Anyone with a rational mind would ask why, and well knows any self-respecting Roman pagan worshiper would switch gods for less.

I know. You have evidence that you must have had evidence of some Christians admitting they were ahistorical, but the Catholics burned every last scrap. It's a great marvel how much other heretical writing escaped the flames, don't you think? Doesn't that make you suspicious?

And of course JM'ers have never explained how you can compare pagan gods with one having four long and detailed accounts of his life on earth, down to what he ate, failed to do, said to his mother and less holy women, preached, etc, along with his disciples' stupid questions.

Which is one of the primary reasons so few unbelievers buy YOUR stories. I suppose real skeptics know gratuitous assertions, rhetorical questions and bad analogies when they see them.

Rad

Fiach

Slainte mhaith,

Fiach

Radorth

Well no, but I thought we were talking about the historicity of Mary, etc. OK, you didn't get the point, so let me phrase it this way. How come not one single apostate ever denied the historicity of Jesus, Joseph or Mary?"Likely" burned the evidence? But apparently missed some or you wouldn't have this shoe to throw in the ring. You have unwittingly supported my case, that they couldn't have burned every scrap, meaning Jesus, etc, must have been historical or some of the many apostates would have said otherwise.

Ah well no, but of course I was asking why one out of multitudes never said anything, which Roman and Jewish historians would have noted and preserved with great diligence I'm sure.

Again I ask. Shouldn't the lack of even one such scrap make a rational and skeptical person suspicious?

But then JM'er theories raise more unanswerable questions than they ever answer.

You have proven the supernatural impossible? Do present your proof one day. (Christian has already dealt with this issue).

How do you know it was epilepsy? Please present that proof as well. Demon possession produces all sorts of similar behavior.

He specifically denied sin had caused blindness in at least one person, and I do not recall him saying otherwise.So we should conclude this was Jesus' first time on a mountain and he was so dumb he did not know he couldn't see the end of even a flat earth. Oh wait, maybe a perfectly rational person could conclude that he was shown everything his eye could see, and he well knew there was even more beyond.

Not that anybody would have the slightest notion of what Jesus was talking about if he did know, or would have cared.

Nice whack at logical thinking, but you ignored too many rational alternatives to win a prize. Guess you don't free-think certain questions.

Rad

Radorth

This was actually a great thread until the JM'ers came to peddle their wares. I'd love to get back to the testimonies, etc whenever they are done.

Rad

Fiach

If you are happy in your Magical Universe, who am I to force you out into the real world where it is scary, and you have to think for yourself instead of copping out to "authority."

Fiach

Radorth

How sadly typical of a the irrational, strawman JM'er argument. Again please present us with four lengthy, detailed gospels of Mithra's earthly life. OK, make it two.

But we know what your theory rests on nothing but other theory

"They probably"

" They likely"

"They must have"

Well at least you left yourself some wiggle room. But tell us plainly now. Does Paul "ever" mention the earthly life of Jesus, or no? Your theory has basically ignored 200 years of the writings of the early fathers as well, along with detailed histories of That was quite a large, tight-lipped bureacracy of liars the Christians began with considering the extraordinary pressure on them. And you have yet to tell us why the extant writings of heretics and apostates only deny your theory. Or did they just burn parts of them?

"OK Justin. Burn this, but cut out this part and keep it."

Ah, so you live by faith as well. Not sure why you would find walking on water "laughable" if you can't disprove it.

Yes and we will continue to await yours, but not holding our breath.

Rad

Fiach

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Radorth
How sadly typical of a the irrational, strawman JM'er argument. Again please present us with four lengthy, detailed gospels of Mithra's earthly life. OK, make it two.

I don't have any as you well know. The areas of Mithraism were conquered by Christians and Muslims. So it is not surprising to me that such are lacking, in realisation of Islamo-Christian intolerance. I will answer this in two posts due to length.

Christianity
Mithra's Contributions

http://www.innvista.com/culture/reli...ies/mithra.htm

"For over three hundred years the rulers of the Roman Empire worshipped the god Mithras. Known throughout Europe and Asia by the names Mithra, Mitra, Meitros, Mihr, Mehr, and Meher, the veneration of this god began some 4000 years ago in Persia, where it was soon imbedded with Babylonian doctrines. The faith spread east through India to China, and reached west throughout the entire length of the Roman frontier; from Scotland to the Sahara Desert, and from Spain to the Black Sea. Sites of Mithraic worship have been found in Britain, Italy, Romania, Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey, Persia, Armenia, Syria, Israel, and North Africa.

In Rome, more than a hundred inscriptions dedicated to Mithras have been found, in addition to 75 sculpture fragments, and a series of Mithraic temples situated in all parts of the city.
One of the largest Mithraic temples built in Italy now lies under the present site of the Church of St. Clemente, near the Colosseum in Rome.

The widespread popularity and appeal of Mithraism as the final and most refined form of pre-Christian paganism was discussed by the Greek historian Herodotus, the Greek biographer Plutarch, the neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry, the Gnostic heretic Origen, and St. Jerome the church Father. Mithraism was quite often noted by many historians for its many astonishing similarities to Christianity.

Have You Heard This Before?

The faithful referred to Mithras (REMEMBER, 4000 years ago!) as "the Light of the World", symbol of truth, justice, and loyalty. He was mediator between heaven and earth and was a member of a Holy Trinity. According to Persian mythology, Mithras was born of a virgin given the title 'Mother of God'. The god remained celibate throughout his life, and valued self-control, renunciation and resistance to sensuality among his worshippers. Mithras represented a system of ethics in which brotherhood was encouraged in order to unify against the forces of evil.
The worshippers of Mithras held strong beliefs in a celestial heaven and an infernal hell. They believed that the benevolent powers of the god would sympathize with their suffering and grant them the final justice of immortality and eternal salvation in the world to come. They looked forward to a final day of judgement in which the dead would resurrect, and to a final conflict that would destroy the existing order of all things to bring about the triumph of light over darkness.

Purification through a ritualistic baptism was required of the faithful, who also took part in a ceremony in which they drank wine and ate bread to symbolize the body and blood of the god. Sundays were held sacred, and the birth of the god was celebrated annually on December the 25th. After the earthly mission of this god had been accomplished, he took part in a Last Supper with his companions before ascending to heaven, to forever protect the faithful from above.

However, it would be a vast oversimplification to suggest that Mithraism was the single fore-runner of early Christianity. Aside from Christ and Mithras, there were plenty of other deities (such as Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Balder, Attis, and Dionysus) said to have died and resurrected. Many classical heroic figures, such as Hercules, Perseus, and Theseus, were said to have been born through the union of a virgin mother and divine father. Virtually every pagan religious practice and festivity that couldn't be suppressed or driven underground was eventually incorporated into the rites of Gentile Christianity as it spread across Europe and throughout the world.

The Lord's supper was not invented by Paul, but was borrowed by him from Mithraism, the mystery religion that existed long before Christianity and was Christianity's chief competitor up until the time of Constantine. Paul's "home-town" was Tarsus, from where Mithraism began. In Mithraism, the central figure is the mythical Mithras, who died for the sins of mankind and was resurrected.

Believers in Mithras were rewarded with eternal life. Part of the Mithraic communion liturgy included the words, "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation."
Originally Mithra was one of the lesser gods of the ancient Persian pantheon, but he came to be regarded as the spiritual Sun, the heavenly Light, and the chief and also the embodiment of the seven divine spirits of goodness; and already in the time of Jesus he had risen to be co-equal with, though created by, Ormuzd (Ahura-Mazda), the Supreme Being [J.M. Robertson, /Pagan Christs/, p. 290.], and Mediator between him and man [Plutarch, /Isis et Osiris/, ch. 46; Julian, /In regem solem/, chs. 9, 10, 21.]. He appears to have lived an incarnate life on earth, and in some unknown manner to have suffered death for the good of mankind, an image symbolizing his resurrection being employed in his ceremonies [Tertullian, /Praescr/., ch. 40.].

Tarsus, the home of Paul, was one of the great centers of his worship, being the chief city of the Cilicians; and, as will presently appear, there is a decided tinge of Mithraism in the Epistles and Gospels. Thus the designations of Jesus as the Dayspring from on High [Luke, i. 78.], the Light [2 Cor. iv. 6; Eph. v. 13, 14; I. Thess. v. 5; etc.], the Sun of Righteousness [Malachi iv. 2]; and much used in Christianity, and similar expressions, are borrowed from or related to Mithraic phraseology.

Mithra was born from a rock [Firmicus, /De errore/, xxi.; etc.], as shown in Mithraic sculptures, being sometimes termed ''the god out of the rock'', and his worship was always conducted in a cave; and the general belief in the early Church that Jesus was born in a cave is a direct instance of the taking over of Mithraic ideas. The words of Paul, "They drank of that spiritual rock ... and that rock was Christ'' [I Corinthians x. 4.] are borrowed from the Mithraic scriptures; for not only was Mithra "the Rock'', but one of his mythological acts, which also appears in the acts of Moses, was the striking of the rock and the producing of water from it which his followers eagerly drank. Justin Martyr [Justin Martyr, /Dial. with Trypho/, ch. 70.] complains that the prophetic words in the Book of Daniel [Daniel ii. 34.] regarding a stone which was cut out of the rock without hands were also used in the Mithraic ritual; and it is apparent that the great importance attached by the early Church to the supposed words of Jesus in regard to Peter -- "Upon this rock I will build my church" [Matthew xvi. 18.] -- was due to their approximation to the Mithraic idea of the /Theos ek Petras/, the "God from the Rock''. Indeed, it may be that the reason of the Vatican hill at Rome being regarded as sacred to Peter, the Christian "Rock'', was that it was already sacred to Mithra, for Mithraic remains have been found there.

The chief incident of Mithra's life was his struggle with a symbolical bull, which he overpowered and sacrificed, and from the blood of the sacrifice came the world's peace and plenty, typified by ears of corn. The bull appears to signify the earth or mankind, and the implication is that Mithra, like Jesus, overcame the world; but in the early Persian writings Mithra is himself the bull [J.M. Robertson, /Pagan Christs/, p. 298.], the god thus sacrificing himself, which is a close approximation to the Christian idea. In later times the bull is interchangeable with a ram; but the zodiacal ram, Aries, which is associated with Mithra, was replaced by a lamb in the Persian zodiac [Bundahish, ii. 2.], so that it is a lamb which is sacrificed [Garucci, /Les Myste`res du Syn. Phrygien/, p. 34.], as in Easter concept of Jesus. That this sacrifice had originally a human victim, and that it later involved the idea of the sacramental death of a human being, is clear from the fact that the Church historian, Socrates, believed that human victims were still sacrificed in the Mithraic mysteries down to some period before A.D. 360 [Socrates, /Eccles. Hist., bk. iii., ch. 2.].

Thus the paramount Christian idea of the sacrifice of the lamb of God was one with which every worshipper of Mithra was familiar; and just as Mithra was an embodiment of the seven spirits of God, so the slain Lamb in the Book of Revelation has seven horns and seven eyes "which are the seven spirits of God'' [Revelation v. 6.]. Early writers say that a lamb was consecrated, killed, and eaten as an Easter rite in the Church; but Easter was a Mithraic festival [Macrobius, /Saturnalia/, i. 18.], presumably of the resurrection of their god, and the parallel is thus complete, in which regard it is to be noted that in the Seventh Century the Church endeavored without success to suppress the picturing of Jesus as a lamb, owing to the paganism involved in the idea [Bingham, /Christian Antiq./, viii. 8, sec. 11; xv. 2, sec. 3.].
The ceremonies of purification by the sprinkling or drenching of the novice with the blood of bulls or rams were widespread, and were to be found in the rites of Mithra. By this purification a man was "born again" [Beugnot, /Hist. de la Dest. Du Paganisme/, i. p. 334.], and the Christian expression "washed in the blood of the Lamb" is undoubtedly a reflection of this idea, the reference thus being clear in the words of the Epistle to the Hebrews: "It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins". In this passage the writer goes on to say: "Having boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which he hath consecrated for us through the veil, that is to say his flesh ... let us draw near ... having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water" [Hebrews x. 19.]. But when we learn that the Mithraic initiation ceremony consisted in entering boldly into a mysterious underground "holy of holies", with the eyes veiled, and there being sprinkled with blood, and washed with water, it is clear that the author of the Epistle was thinking of those Mithraic rites with which everybody at that time must have been so familiar.

Another ceremony in the religion of Mithra was that of stepping across a channel of water, the hands being entangled in the entrails of a bird, signifying sin, and of being "liberated" on the other side; and this seems to be referred to by Paul when he says: "Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage" [Galatians v. 1.].

Tertullian [Tertullian, /Praescr./, ch. 40.] states that the worshippers of Mithra practiced baptism by water, through which they were thought to be redeemed from sin, and that the priest made a sign upon the forehead of the person baptized; but as this was also a Christian rite, Tertullian declares that the Devil must have effected the coincidence for his wicked ends. "The Devil'', he also writes, "imitates even the main parts of our divine mysteries", and "has gone about to apply to the worship of idols those very things of which the administration of Christ's sacraments consists".

In this rite he must be referring both to the baptismal rite and also to the Mithraic eucharist, of which Justin Martyr [Justin Martyr, /1 Apol./, ch. 66.] had already complained when he declared that it was Satan who had plagiarized the ceremony, causing the worshippers of Mithra to receive the consecrated bread and cup of water. The ceremony of eating an incarnate god's body and drinking his blood is, of course, of very ancient and originally cannibalistic inception, and there are several sources from which the Christian rite may be derived, if, as most critics think, it was not instituted as an actual ceremony by Jesus; but its connection with the Mithraic rite is the most apparent.

The worshippers of Mithra were called "Soldiers of Mithra", which is probably the origin of the term "Soldiers of Christ'' and of the exhortation to Christians to "put on the armour of light" [Romans xiii. 12. Compare also Ephesians vi. 11, 13.], Mithra being the god of Light. As in Christianity, they recognized no social distinctions, both rich and poor, freemen and slaves, being admitted into the Army of the Lord. Mithraism had its austerities, typified in the severe initiation rites endured by a "Soldier of Mithra"; and the Epistle to Timothy, similarly, exhorts the Christian to "endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ" [2 Timothy ii. 3.].

It also had its nuns and its male celibates [Tertullian, /Prascr./, ch. 40.]; and one of its main tenets was the control of the flesh and the repudiation of the world, this being symbolized in the initiation ceremony, whereat a crown was offered to the novice, who had to reject it, saying, as did the Christians, that it was to a heavenly crown that he looked. We hear, too, of hymns which could be used with equal propriety by Christians and Mithraists alike [/Rev. Arch./, vol. xvii. (1911), p. 397.]. The Mithraic worship always took place in caves, these being either natural or artificial. Now the early Christians, openly and for no reasons of secrecy or security, employed those subterranean rock chambers known as catacombs both for their burials and for public worship. Like the Mithraic caves, these catacombs were decorated with paintings, amongst which the subject of Moses striking the rock, which, as I have said above, has a Mithraic parallel, is often represented.

The most frequent theme is that of Jesus as the Good Shepherd; and although it is generally agreed that the figure of Jesus carrying a lamb is taken from the statues of Hermes Kriophoros [Pausanias, iv. 33.], the kid-carrying god, Mithra is sometimes shown carrying a bull across his shoulders, and Apollo, who, in his solar aspect and as the patron of the rocks [/Hymn to the Delian Apollo./], is to be identified with Mithra, is often called "The Good Shepherd". At the birth of Mithra the child was adored by shepherds, who brought gifts to him [/Encyc. Brit./, 11th ed., vol. xvii., p. 623.].

The Hebrew Sabbath having been abolished by Christians, the Church made a sacred day of Sunday, partly because it was the day of the resurrection, but largely because it was the weekly festival of the sun; for it was a definite Christian policy to take over the pagan festivals endeared to the people by tradition, and to give them a Christian significance. But, as a solar festival, Sunday was the sacred day of Mithra; and it is interesting to notice that since Mithra was addressed as /Dominus/, "Lord'', Sunday must have been "the Lord's Day" long before Christian times. December 25th was the birthday of the sun-god, and particularly of Mithra, and was only taken over in the Fourth Century as the date, actually unknown, of the birth of Jesus.

The head of the Mithraic faith was called /Pater Patrum/, "Father of the Fathers", and was seated at Rome; and similarly the head of the Church was the /Papa/, or "Father", now known as the Pope, who was also seated at Rome. The Pope's crown is called a tiara, but a tiara is a Persian, and hence perhaps a Mithraic, headdress. The ancient chair preserved in the Vatican and supposed to have been the pontifical throne used by St. Peter, is in reality of pagan origin, and may possibly be Mithraic also, for it has upon it certain pagan carvings which are thought to be connected with Mithra [J.M. Robertson, /Pagan Christs/, p. 336.]. "

I will address other parts of you post next. Please try not to be so nasty. You do represent Christians, do you not?

Fiach

Fiach

But we know what your theory rests on nothing but other theory

I don't deny that. All religion is theory in the common meaning not scientific.

"They probably"

The Gospels probably were written generations after the time of the alleged Jesus.

" They likely"

"They must have"

Applies to Christian writings as others, all hearsay. "Likely" "probable," "possible", and "questionable" apply to all religious writings, especially the last one.

Well at least you left yourself some wiggle room. But tell us plainly now. Does Paul "ever" mention the earthly life of Jesus, or no? Your theory has basically ignored 200 years of the writings of the early fathers as well, along with detailed histories of That was quite a large, tight-lipped bureacracy of liars the Christians began with considering the extraordinary pressure on them. And you have yet to tell us why the extant writings of heretics and apostates only deny your theory. Or did they just burn parts of them?

I know there were lots of other Christian writings, Nag Hamadi, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of James, etc. The church itself under Constantine's rule when the books of the Bible were chosen, many others were reported to be rejected. What happened to all of the Gospels that the Church didn't want us to see? What did they contain?

"OK Justin. Burn this, but cut out this part and keep it."

Could be. Church behaviour rather supports that hypothesis.



Ah, so you live by faith as well. Not sure why you would find walking on water "laughable" if you can't disprove it.

I have been to the North Sea shore, the Pacific Ocean shore, the Atlantic ocean shore, numberous lakes. I have never been able to walk on water. I have seen probably a grand total of 2 million beach visitors in my life, and not a single one walked on water. Therefore, since nobody can find one nor film, nor videotape such an occurrence it remains very strongly against all odds. Therefore any claim is extremely extraordinary, and the claimant must prove it to me. Otherwise I have no obligation to believe it.



Yes and we will continue to await yours, but not holding our breath.

No, don't hold your breath. I know the irrationality of trying to prove a negative hypothesis. I will summarise it as this. I am under no obligation to believe events contrary to natue or against great odds. It is the burden of the claimant to prove a very unlikely event. I know you see it differently, but we must just disagree. I want to emphasise that I am not a Mithraist or a Christian. I am an Atheist. I view Mithra, Horus, Krishna, and Jesus as equally implausible, and I have no obligation to believe any of them.

Rad [/B][/QUOTE]

Try not to hate so much. I disagree with you but do not hate you for our differences. I thought it was Christians who were not supposed to hate "thy neighbour."

Fiach

Radorth

Well about 200 years after the Nicene creed was written, the church didn't even want people to see the Bible, with which the Catholic religion grew more and more incompatible. But I digress. Those works were called spurious by scholars then and they are called so now, even by more liberal scholars. It's quite amazing how many of them weren't known or even written by 325. I don't know what the big mystery is. Well maybe I do. You tend to see a conspiracy under every bush. You confuse cynicism with skepticism. You probably think the U.S government will trade gallons of blood for Iraqi oil although it will never recover the cost of the war and the occupation from the tax on it. Is that a pretty good guess? (I'm against the war for scriptural reasons but this "blood for oil" thing is just cynical and stupid).

One thing we do know for sure. You think it likely the mad Nicene censors would actually burn portions of documents and keep others. I'm sorry, but this is an example of an idea born of pure cynicism, and not any healthy skepticism.

I don't hate anybody. My sarcasm is reserved for your hypocritical statements and ignorance of your own subjectivity. It is not directed at you personally. If I hated you I wouldn't be talking to you. I have no bitter enemies that I know of, unless the Gang wants to claim they are.

I never said you did. I merely questioned how you could laugh at a report just because you haven't experienced it or seen it yourself. Some highly intelligent physicists have postulated a parallel universe, but you find no reason to mock them even though you will never see it from here, etc. How do you know they aren't just making up stories so they can get published? Some scientists think others are total nutballs. Do you agree, and how do you know which ones to laugh at?

Rad

Tercel

Fiach,
Okay, that second sentence doesn't make sense no matter how often I read it, but I think I get the gist. Some points:
* Most importantly the Christian Bible was never chosen. There are multiple Bibles still in use in different parts of the Church.
* The church wasn't under Constatine's rule when any decision regarding any Bible was made. Constantine had nothing, zip, zero to do with the Bible. Constantine's claim to fame was the legalisation of Christianity, and then subsequent summoning of the Council of Niecea (325AD) which among a few other fairly minor points: Declared Arianism heretical (the belief that Christ was a created being, less than God), and wrote the first draft of the Nicene Creed. (It is often claimed by atheists that Constantine was at least partially responsible for the assertion of the council that Jesus was fully God)
* To begin with (ie the first 3 centuries) each church simply used the books it thought best. Where councils later "chose" books they merely officialized the books already in use in their churches rather than magically and randomly choose books out of a list.
* There are about half a dozen surviving lists of "Bible" books prior to the 4th century: No two lists agree exactly, and no list agrees exactly with any list of books in use now. (Though all lists are reasonably similar)
* Eusebius in his Church History (c 320AD) does his best to give a summary of how widely different books are accepted by various churches: With some books he has no trouble because everyone accepts them (eg Gospels, Paul's letters, 1 Peter, 1 John), for others he goes to great lengths explaining that some reject this book while others accept it (eg Revelation) etc.
* The first council regarding the Bible was in 363AD when the Roman church held a local council at Laodicia on the subject of Bible books. The list they produced looked the same as the standard Roman Catholic bibles today minus Revelation. (ie standard OT + Apocrypha + standard NT - Revelation) A second local council in 380AD added Revelation.

They ate them.
Seriously, they didn't think they were of value and so didn't bother to read them in churches or make copies of them. As a result many of them have perished due to lack of copying, though enough still survive today and you should be able to find books containing the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas etc in your local library. (or on the internet) Christians pay them little attention now for the same reasons as they first did: These writings are generally 2nd to 4th+ century forgeries either containing wildly heretical stuff or a bad rehash of what's already in the Bible books. You're welcome to go and read them and make up your own mind though.
The only one that any scholars seem to take seriously is the Gospel of Thomas which a few radicals have suggested might be as old as the 4 canonical gospels. Not that it contains anything startling: it's pretty much a very brief rehash of the canonical gospels tainted a bit with gnosticism.

There were some non-gospel books which aren't in the New Testament but came close and were often recommended by ancient writers as still "suitable for reading in church" despite not being in the Bible. eg Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas etc. Again you should be able to find a copy of those if you try.
Words.