Metacrock

YOu need to read the thread more carefully. I've answered that about Justin Martyr and numerous other V birth stories. Most of them time they weren't virgins, they were having sex with a god. And in the case of Osiris his mother was a god too.


Mary and God did not have a sexual encounter.

lpetrich

First, I will concede the Mithraism and Xtianity do not have much in common doctrinally; what similarities they do have are most likely a matter of common mystery-religion practice and mythical motifs, like a sacred meal and a miraculously-conceived hero.

Metacrock:
YOu need to read the thread more carefully. I've answered that about Justin Martyr and numerous other V birth stories. Most of them time they weren't virgins, they were having sex with a god. And in the case of Osiris his mother was a god too.

To me, that's hairsplitting; the most that such comments "prove" is that "virgin birth" is a misnomer, and that "divine impregnation" or "miraculous conception" may be better terms.

Mary and God did not have a sexual encounter.

So Metacrock believes that

The Christian God did not have sexual relations with that woman, Mary

Sorry, I could not resist.

Metacrock

Meta =>Vrigin birth is a misnomer The actually name of the doctrine is virginal conception



ahahhha going for the big yuch?

lpetrich

LP: The Christian God did not have sexual relations with that woman, Mary

Nice to see that Metacrock has a sense of humor.

Infidelettante

Meta =>pretty good.
quote:JTVrocher
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now explain the 3% that isn't verbal or plenary. And while you are at it where did you get the 97% figure because I think that may be a little high. Just a little.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meta => I think you may be confused. I am opposed to verbal plenary inspiration.

Here is a link to my theory of inspiration: dialectical retrieval.

Metacrock,

I was wrong. Please accept my apologies.

JT

Aerik Von

Actually, it makes perfect sense for a ripoff. You take the story of the other peoples Gods, and make your successful - it makes your God look so much better than theirs!

Sojourner553

Sorry, I have been busy -- and in fact, I will have to be brief today. (Should have more time this weekend.)


I will focus on your point here: Mithrism Emerged in the west only after Jesus' day.

or fully expanded:

"Mithrism could not have become an influence upon the origins of the first century, for the simple reason that Mithrism did not emerge from its pastoral setting in rural Persia until after the close of the New Testament canon. (Franz Cumont, The Mysteries of Mithra (Chicago: Open Court, 1903), 87ff.) No one can be sure that the meaning of the meals and the ablutions are the same between Christianity and Mirthrism. Just because the two had them is no indication that they come to the same thing. These are entirely superficial and circumstantial arguments. (Nash, Christian Research Journal winter 94, p.8)".



Response:



If I read your sources correctly--I think their REAL point is that both dogmas developed around the same time. Therefore, it cannot really be ABSOLUTELY proven (in either direction) which dogma developed first.

General comments:

#1: I might point out that Christianity was a small obscure sect in the first century AD, and

#2 There was if anything more variety in dogma among the early Christian sects then there is today....

This makes it less probable that it would have had such an effect on other pagans:

Indeed, one would think if Christians were so influential or novel (to be influencing other religions) that there would have been some contemporary 1st century AD Roman historians who would have mentioned Jesus. {There was Josephus --but he was a Jew and focusing on the local history leading up to the Jewish/Roman wars.}

Indeed, the earliest known Roman reference to Christians is from the second century writings of the historian, Tactitus, who paused on a narrative of Nero to reflect on the founder of Christianity and speak of the spread of Christianity to Rome in most unflattering terms,

"Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue."

To me, the more powerful proofs as to cause and effect can be seen by arguments of CONSISTENCY:


ie, Since Christianity is (in theory) a successor of Judaism -- and the Old Testament is considered a sacred Christian text-- then one should see some signs of a continuum in theology, if there is no pagan source. On the flip side, if Christians shared dogma with known earlier pagan views, this could be seen as proof that there was at least some pagan influence.

EXAMPLES OF INCONSISTENCY???

(1) Holy days -- the Old Testament has strict commandments on worshipping on the seventh day of the week. This is Saturday. Even in the New Testament, there is no authority given to change this.

Mithra was worshipped on Sundays.

Mithra's birthday was December 25, which was during the winter solstice (commonly worshiped as having a divine meaning of the "return of the son/sun")

Got a scriptural reference where Jesus was born on December 25? How about any reference the first century Christians worshipped on Sundays?



Would you argue that Mitrhaism also took Sunday worship and December 25th from the early Christians? If so, on what source did the early Christians switch from the OT/NT????

Of course Seventh Day adventists agree with the above, and therefore worship on Satuday, do not celebrate Christmas. Therefore they would not have to respond to the above.


(2) Heaven:

In the Old Testament, a good person was rewarded with a good life on earth. There was NO EXPECTATION of heaven in the sky that any person could reach AFTER DYING first. {Note this excludes Elijah} There is no prediction describing a FUTURE HEAVEN FOR PEOPLE at some future date after a human sacrifice by a divine offspring from God. {Contrast this with the Jewish concept of Sheole found in the EARLY books of the OT!}

In contrast, pagan literature (that IS without doubt OLDER THAN CHRISTIANITY) is fully of such references. As one example, in Plato's REPUBLIC, there is a reference to the teaching sof Orphism/Pythagoreanism, with its belief in an immortal soul trapped in a mortal body and of wandering religious teachers preaching mysteries for the expiation of sin and the attainment of an afterlife. Other religious Orphic texts speak of such concepts as "I am a child of Earth and of starry Heaven, but my race is of Heaven (alone)."


(3) Blood Rites and Eating Bodies were Seen by Jews as very Pagan/abhorrent:

I speak of course of the rite of the Eucharist or Last Supper where the believer is stated to be drinking the blood/eating the flesh of the Christ. There is no Jewish precedent for blood being a bond of religious worshippers. [look even at the OT laws on woman being unclean during her minstral cycle] Jews find this emphasis on blood to be VERY pagan to this day.

Not true in pagan religions. In Mithraism there are inscriptions that state such lines as

"you saved us after having shed the eternal blood".

Mithraism also is thought my many to have a version of the Eucharist.

(4) Trinity/Son of God.

Judaism taught monotheism. God was the source of good and evil in the EARLY books of the NT.

Pagan religious had multiple gods. Sons of gods were common. Trinity godships were frequent.



**Gotta keep this short tonight.

Maybe you CAN respond first to the above items I listed above.

[ btw -- here is another source that also quotes Cumont (among others) but shows the similarities with Christianity and Mithraism -- we can go more into that at some later date, if you like]

http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/e...Fingrut**.html


Sojourner

GakuseiDon

You make it sound like there were a large number of contemporary 1st century Roman historians. Which of them should they have mentioned Jesus, and why? I.e. did they talk about other Jewish miracle workers? Did they talk about Jews at all?

No... and that's a point against you!

Remember, the argument isn't that Christianity wasn't affected by paganism (it was), it is that Christianity was actually *copied* from pagan religions - and copied to such an extend that there was no historical Jesus.

So, to get back to your points: if those ideas predated the NT by decades/centuries, why *isn't* there a mention of a 25-Dec birth date, or explicit Sunday worship, in the NT?

In fact, we can see that it took a few hundreds years before Christianity adopted the 25-Dec date. It was controversial because the early Christians *knew* there was no tradition for it. So why wait 200 years to adopt that date, if it was supposed to have been copied from pagan sources that existed pre-Christianity? Why did the early Christians resist it?

Yes. Mithra kills the Cosmic Bull. Other than "blood", where is the similarity?

Really? What is the similarity? Please give details, not just bullet points.

That was written by a high school student! Not that that means it is wrong - a lot of the general information is correct. But the author cites Cumont, without pointing out that Cumont rejects the "copying theory" himself. At the bottom of that page, there are 2 links to other sites abut Mithraism, which I suggest you read.

Here are some of the claims by Fingrut:

Mithras was born of Anahita, an immaculate virgin mother once worshipped as a fertility goddess before the hierarchical reformation.

Mithra was formed from a rock. Anahita was a Persian goddess who was not known as a Virgin Mother, and certainly not as the mother of Mithra.

The largest near-eastern Mithraeum was built in western Persia at Kangavar, dedicated to 'Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithras'.

People have looked and not found that inscription. There is a temple dedicated to Anahita in Kangavar, but I believe that it isn't a Mithraeum and it doesn't mention Mithra.

Name 6 sets, other than Christianity. Don't just mention 3 gods! Moe, Larry and Curly were a group of 3, but that didn't make them a Trinity. In what way were those godships similar to the Christian Trinity?

lpetrich

I agree that attempts to find similarities can be taken too far.

The doctrines and practices of Mithraism and Xtianity do not have a lot of resemblance, except for what they share with other religions/sects of their place and time. Like:

* Miraculously-conceived heroes
* Sacred meals
* Secrecy (a common mystery-religion feature; though generally lacking in Xtianity, the Gospels have a few traces of it)

There are lots of interesting differences:

* Who could join. Xtianity: both sexes; Mithraism: male-only

* Astronomical/astrological symbolism. Xtianity: very little; Mithraism: very important

* Levels of initiation. Xtianity: one (baptism); Mithraism: seven, one for each "planet"

Sojourner553

Here are some famous Roman historians from this time period:

* Pliny the Elder (died in 79 AD at the Vesuvius eruption)
* Titus Livy (59 BC to AD 17)
* Suetonius (69-122 AD)
* Tacitus (already mentioned had one small, derogatory reference)

If you reread the context – that is exactly my point. That if Christianity was so influential towards Mithraism – surely it must have been reported on in the Roman world during early Christian times.

Also don't you think their silence was surprising--with all the “miracles” going on that would have gotten people curious. You know (if you read your Bible how…)


* upon Jesus’ death, Jerusalem was hit by an earthquake: "...the veil of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split; the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many." (Matthew 27:51-3)

* According to Luke and Mark, there was "darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour". [I would presume this was during normally expected daylight hours]

Maybe they were confused this was due to Jesus. But one would think they would record the event itself?





My argument IS that Christianity’s doctrines were materially affected by paganism. I do not have to show 100%.
On the flip side you do not have to show 0%. But you should be expected to show this was no more than a small percent.

BTW: I have always maintained there was a historical Jesus on this board and elsewhere!

Please don’t make up my position. You are of course free to make YOUR own position up. But don’t make up details of what I do and do not believe without displaying the common courtesy of asking me first . Thank-you.





What was there to resist? Was there any resistance (except for Christian sects to fight -- especially each other?) There has always been a wide variety of sects, as opposed to one uniform religious voice. Indeed, the early Christian sects were more diverse in doctrines than what has come down today. Need some examples?

You are very unclear as to what your case is here. Clearly this is a pagan rite. Can you explain how else it entered into Christianity? Why would it not have been easy for other pagan ideas to have entered the same way?
Ever hear of Easter eggs as part of any religious rite (true for children) in the Bible?





It is the cosmic themes that are the same : I will take this theme up in my next post as there is a lot to expand on here.
Of course the form the magical rite takes (here cross vs bull) varies from religion to religion…
Ever read Joseph Campbell?





Yes, I did not claim Mithra was born of a virgin. At least that does not appear to be the most common version, so I did not think it worth pursuing. I cover virgins in a different manner. This needs to be another post for later.



Why is 6 some magic number?????????? They WERE frequent:

(1) Babylonians had a powerful Trinity comprised of a father, mother
and messiah child.

(2) In Brahmaism, the highest God Brahm is conceived of as a Trinity consisting of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva. Brahma was considered the creator of man. He produced the soul first, taking it out of his same being. Then he clothed it with a body. (This is in reverse order from the Hebrew account, where God forms the body first, and then secondly breathes the breath of life into the body, creating a living soul.)

(3) In Buddhism, there is reference to the three jewels representing the Buddha himself, the good law, and last the Buddhist brotherhood or Church.

(4) Gnostics perceived God in the form of a Trinity. As gnostics began to convert into Christianity, their earliest views of a Trinity consisted of a father, mother, and child. The gospel of the Egyptians found at Nag Hammadi speaks of a Trinity composed of a Father, Mother, and Son. One reference prays to both a divine Father and Mother couple: "From Thee, Father, and through Thee, Mother, the two immortal names, Parents of the divine being, and thou, dweller in heaven, humanity, of the mighty name." (Elaine Pagels, GNOSTIC GOSPELS, p 59)

(5) the concept of a Trinity appears in the mystery religions that surrounded the Egyptian deities of Serapis, Isis, and Horus. "Thus from one god I became three gods", says Osiris in describing his creation in a papyrus that has been dated twelve years after the date of Alexander the Great. (Budge, "Payrus of Nesi-A,si." p 442)

[ie there are multiple spin offs here, I could branch off too—IF THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT???]




Interesting notes on Christian Trinity:

During the early development of the Christian church, the concept of a mother God member of the Trinity was rejected. The term Logos was identified with the son member of the Trinity, and the term Pneuma or Holy Spirit was retained for the third person (usually held to be of "neutral" sex).

The Eastern version of Christianity appears to have retained the concept of the Trinity as a divine unity of Father, Mother, and Christ-child longer than the Western Christians (centered in Rome). The Koran which referred to the concepts of Christianity taught in the East, represents the Christian Trinity as one comprised of God, Christ, and Mary. This Gnostic tradition
proved strong enough to add the devotion of the Mother Mary within the Roman Catholic Church, almost on an equal footing with the worship of the Trinity itself. In the minds of some adherents, the power of Mary's personage replaced the Holy Ghost element itself as the third member.

Belief in the Holy Spirit as a distinct and equal member of a three-personage God was NOT declared an article of Christian faith until the Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E.. It was at this council that the following words were added to the Nicene Creed:

"... I believe in he Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, Who with the Father and Son together is worshipped and glorified. Who spake by the prophets."

This orthodox view, looked to John 5:7-8 for its official definition of the Trinity:

"For there are three that bear record (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and the water and the blood; and these three agree
in one".

Interestingly, this verse is missing in the earliest Greek mass, and many biblical scholars believe that this verse is an interpolation. For this reason, these verses are omitted in the Revised Version of the Bible.

None of the synoptic gospels even mention the "Trinity" with one exception: Matthew 28:19, quotes Jesus as saying:

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Many scholars believe the difference in tone and style of this passage makes this also to be a possible interpolation by a later Christian editor. According to Acts 2:38, the early Christian baptismal formula was "in the name of Jesus the Messiah". Also, when Eusebius (third century C.E.), quoted this verse by Matthew, he wrote "make disciples of all nations in my name."
(Randel Helms, "Resurrection Fictions", FREE INQUIRY, (FALL 1981, Vol 1 No 4 p 39)