David Bowden

(One wonders whether the basic flaw in such reasoning is presuming that any claim regarding dying and resurrection figures ought to be taken seriously in the first place. But that's fodder for another thread, which I don't have time for...)

Apologists often imply that because Christianity's savior is portrayed differently in certain respects from other saviors, Christianity is true. But distinctness doesn't imply truth. If anything, it implies that Christianity was the first to create and write (and believe) myths about a particular combination of supernatural traits/events.

Any author of fiction would attest that creating a distinct new character (or fictional attributes for a historical figure) doesn't give the fictitious character (or the fictionalized historical character) more of a factual existence.

To me it's not so terribly important that another religion tell of a clear prefigure of Jesus Christ. If a more ancient religion offered the gospel's unique package of dying-resurrection data then it would clearly be the precursor to Christ (non-Christians would agree), but Christian apologists would just switch to other means for excusing their faith.

Let's allow for the sake of argument that some such precise duplication might be demonstrated. It makes no difference; Christianity would go marching on, denying the relevance of such an exact mythical precursor, or blaming the similarities on diabolical mimicry.

Does the lack of a clear precursor demonstrate the historical truth of any religion's claims? Of course not. If it did, then Christians would be compelled to believe (for the sake of intellectual consistency) that Zoroastrianism is true to whatever extent it is unique from whatever went before it.

But would Christians allow that the distinct elements in Zoroastrianism are true? Of course not. Let's change the variables: If Christianity has distinct elements, should skeptics or anyone else allow that Christianity is true in those respects? Of course not. Distinctness in a tale does not imply the truth of that tale.

Look at all the various savior traditions without trying to relate them to Christianity: each of them is quite unique; many are interesting tales, and most offer ethical guidance and pathways to a life-beyond-this-one. Let's allow that very few of the elements in the extant savior myths can be traced to deliberate or subconscious borrowing from earlier traditions. Does this make any of them true, in any respect? No.

The story of Jesus belongs with the other myths because of its overall characteristics in common with myths (miracles, ghosts, healings, divine intervention in human history, etc., in addition to what I mentioned in the previous paragraph), not because it draws upon specific other myths. A consistent evaluator needs more trustworthy evidence than a religion's own propaganda in order to judge that its claims are more than myth.

Where Christianity is concerned, no such trustworthy evidence has ever been forthcoming, and none appears to be waiting in the wings for those of us who are ready to examine it.

-David

Metacrock

Meta=> That's not the point. I didn't raise this issue to try and argue that Christianity is unique so it must be true. Others are arguing Christianity is a direct copy so it must be false. But the traits they think are copying aren't really there.


Now I'm willing to admit that there are similarities. But the point I make is that similarities are exaggerated by the Jesus Mythers, and that they are not the result of conscious barrowing but of psychological archetypes




Meta=>I'm not bothered by the idea of a "precursor in the sense of psychological archetypes. Because God is God of the psyche too. The only thing that matters here is that Jesus of Naz was not invented out of a pattern of pagan gods.





Meta=>why shouldn't it? why should all religions get a break as valid examples of human experience, except this one? This one is so evil that it has to be stamped out ?





Meta=>I wasn't arguing that it did. Rather, the mythers argue the converse. But by the same token of your arbument, seincratism doesn't make it false either.



Meta=>sorry, you have misapprehended what this argument is about.








Meta=>More skeptical reading comprehension problems. The whole point was that I was not using Christian sources (some, but not many). Mostly I used neutral sources who wrote their books only to talk about the myths, not to prove a point. Those books don't include any of the details of similarity the Jesus mythers say are there!


not christian propaganda, it's scholarship! they aren't even christians as far as I know. Meyer is a source used by the Jesus mythers too!!!








Meta=>Are you going to paint the side of a barn with that brush? It's wide enough. That is an absurdly biotted statment that has no substance at all. It's meaningless. What you are essentially saying is if anyone attaches the term "christian" to a fact it ceases to be a fact!
:banghead: :banghead:

Sojourner553

Metacrock: I don't see you going into details to prove your general thesis. And I do think you have it all backwards.

Got anything to refute these notes?

Mithraism

http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/GREEK3.TXT
http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html

Sojourner553

Many of the gospel stories have similarities with earlier religious stories.



I have selected to quote only one example: This story of Peter walking on the water is similar to a Buddhist legend which was told by Buddhist missionaries in Syria and Egypt as early as the second century B.C.E.:

For more examples go here:

http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/MIRACLE.TXT

http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html

Sojourner553

Here I focus only on virgin birth stories:


In the Greco-Roman world, sexual relations between the "gods" and a "human" woman were believed to be fairly common occurrences. The Roman historian Livy (who died a few years before Jesus' ministry) wrote an extremely popular history of Rome whereby the twin founders--Romulus and Remus--were born of a virgin. Their mother Silvia was a Vestal Virgin who was fathered by the Greco-Roman god Mars.( For this reason, it has been suggested that early Christians, knowing of the great legend of pagan Rome's founding, would naturally expect as miraculous a beginning for their Christian founder, Jesus).

There were many other role models within the Greco-Roman pagan literature of women being impregnated by gods: Zeus reportedly fathered the Greek heroes Hercules and Perseus. The god Aesclepius had fathered Aratus of Sicyon, while in the disguise of a serpent. Real, historical figures were also purported to have been fathered by the gods. Alexander the Great was said to have been fathered by Zeus. Pythagorus, Plato, and even the first emperor Augustus were believed to have been fathered by Apollo, the Sun God.

The terms "son of God", "savior", "gospel", and "magi" were not unique to the early Christians, but instead were common terms that can be found throughout Greco-Roman literature, as can be seen in the following examples:



-- On a marble pedestal from Pergamum, was carved the following words:
"The Emperor Caesar, son of God, god Augustus.
(DOCUMENTS FOR THE STUDY OF THE GOSPELS, ed David R. Cartlidge and David L. Dungan (Cleveland: Collins, 1980), pp 13-14)

-- When the eastern ruler Tiradates came to pay homage to Nero, he "brought magi with him". Approaching Nero, "He knelt upon the ground, and with arms crossed called him master and did obeisance." (Dio Cassius, ROMAN HISTORY, 63,2, trans. Earnest Carey (London: Heinemann, 1914)

-- The Emperor Augustus was described as being sent to this world as a "savior" (Note: Augustus was the first emperor of Rome-- and the Roman Senate had set the precedent of claiming Augustus "divine" while he was still alive.)

"Whereas the Providence which has guided our whole existence ... has brought our life to the peak of perfection in giving to us Augustus Caesar, who it filled with virtue for the welfare of mankind, and who, being sent to us and to our descendants as a savior, has put an end to war and has set all things in order; ... and whereas, finally that the birthday of the God (ie Caesar Augustus) has been for the whole world the beginning of the gospel concerning him, (therefore let all reckon a new era beginning from the date of his birth)." (IBID)

-- Again according to the historian Seutonius, "a public portent warned the Roman people some months before Augustus' birth that Nature was making ready to provide them with a king; and this caused the Senate such consternation that they issued a decree which forbade the rearing of any male child for a whole year." (Ibid)

An " astrologer, hearing at what hour the child had been delivered, cried out, 'The ruler of the world is now born." (Seutonius, THE DEIFIED AUGUSTUS, 94 trans. JC Rolfe
(London Heinemann, 1914)

-- According to Plutarch, Alexander the Great's mother dreamed that she conceived when a thunderbolt struck her womb.

-- Also, according to Plutarch: "The fact of the intercourse of a male god with mortal women is conceded by all." (Plutarch, CONVIVIALDISPUTATIONS, viii, 1,2, quoted by Randall Helms, GOSPEL FICTIONS, p 48)


-- Again, per Plutarch, "There was a woman living in Pontus who claimed that she was pregnant by Apollo. Naturally enough many people doubted her story, but there were also many who believed her." (PARALLEL LIVES, Lysander,26)

-- According to a biographer of Plato, Plato's father "had a vision in which Apollo appeared to him, and in consequence guarded her [the mother of Plato] pure of the relations of wedlock until she brought forth Plato." (Diogenes Laertius, LIVES AND OPINIONS OF THE EMINENT PHILOSOPHERS, quoted by Randel Helms, Gospels Fictions, P. 50)



Nor were the Greeks/Romans, the only culture to have myths on virgin births--Egyptian Pharaohs were believed to have had supernatural origins, centuries before Jesus was born.




The story was told that Attis was born of the virgin Myrrha. The Buddha, according to a later (but still pre-Christian) tradition,was said to have entered (in the sacred form of a white elephant) into the virgin mother Maya. Ramakrishna was conceived by his mother Chandramani, while embracing the god Shiva in a visionary trance. Lao-tzu was conceived by a 81-year old virgin, after a ball of light was sent by the gods to settle on her lips--She bore her son out of her armpit under a plum tree. The list goes on and on.

Thus, "IF" the early Christians WERE influenced by their pagan neighbors, they would have had a rich background of pagan legends and religions from which to have chosen. Interestingly, some early Christians appear to have noticed these parallels, and therefore rejected the Virgin Birth stories of Jesus, because they sounded too similar to some Greek myths--such as the the myth of Dana‰ who was impregnated by Zeus. (Note: Danae was the mother of the hero Perseus, who eventually become a Greek god):

The Christian father Justin Martyr wrote in his DIALOGUE WITH THE JEW TRYPHO how pagans accused Christians of taking the story of the virgin birth from Danae. Justin responded,

"Why are we Christians alone of men hated for Christ's name, when we do but related of him stories similar to what the Greeks relate of Hermes and Perseus?...What we teach, we learned from Christ and the prophets who preceded him, and it is a true lore and more ancient than that of all other writers that ever existed; but we claim acceptance, not because our stories are identical with those of others, but because they are true."

Justin goes on to say that Satan had created mischief in causing these similarities:

"When I am told that Perseus was born of a virgin, I realize that here again is a case in which the serpent and deceiver has imitated our religion."

Justin noted that some of his fellow Christians believed Jesus was NOT born of a Virgin:


"It is quite true that some people of our kind acknowledge him to be Christ, but at the same time declare him to have been a man of men. I, however, cannot agree with them, and will not do so, even if the majority [of Christians] insist on this opinion."


Justin explained that he did not agree with them, because it appeared to him that the Virgin Birth was based on "predictions set forth by the blessed prophets." (as quoted by Gospel Fictions, P. 48) Justin was likely influenced by Matthew's analysis of Old Testament prophecy in predicting the life of Jesus (See Section I Chapter 10, regarding Matthew's use of Old Testament prophecy to predict the Virgin Birth.)
http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/BIRTH.TXT
http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html

lpetrich

About Virgin-Birth comparison, a typical Xian counterargument may be expressed as follows:

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

However, divine impregnations and otherwise miraculous origins are, as Sojourner553 had commented, very common. Does anyone believe that Pythagoras, Plato, and Alexander the Great had been the offspring of deities?

SLD

I would argue that the early Christian writers did not intend for people to take the virgin birth literally. I see it more as a literary device to attract more converts. The masses at which early Christianity was aimed were largely illiterate and it was more important to tell a good story than it was to tell an exactly truthful story. Jesus just doesn't measure up to the ancient world gods if he wasn't born of a virgin or at least some kind of union with the Godhead. IIRC, it was Hipparchus who also wrote about the impregnation of a virgin by the God via a shaft of light through the ear (someone correct me if I'm wrong on that), and later Christian artists depict the conception as a ray of light going into Mary's ear. A shaft of light is not sex.

What I find odd is that the modern Christian apologists seem to demand too much from the connection between Christianity and the mystery cults. They want an exact match in one mystery cult before they will consider the relationship serious. As I've argued before, I don't think there is an exact match, but that Christianity seems an amalgam of a variety of mystery cults with various contributors adding various parts to it borrowed from whatever local mystery cult they were familiar with. Although, admittedly, the Jesus story does have some originality in many ways - which does make me think that there may indeed have been an historical figure to go along with the story.

To me one of the most striking parallels between the Mystery Cults and Christianity is the Eucharist. The Eucharist presents peculiar problems for Christianity. While not as important to many fundamentalist churches today, it did play an important role in the early church and of course becoming one of the most important sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church once it was formally established. The big thing that the Church has emphasized throughout the centuries is that the bread that is eaten literally becomes the body of Christ inside of you and the wine becomes the blood of Christ in side of you. The problem with this whole concept is that we have hard core indisputable evidence from a variety of sources that the Eucharist predates Christianity. Cicero talks about, and ridicules the notion that the bread actually becomes the body of the god and the wine becomes the blood. Cicero died decades before Christ was born – he couldn’t have copied it. We also have Mithraic references to this ceremony that predate Christianity as well and indicating that participation in the Mithraic Eucharistic is required for the forgiveness of sins. I noticed that Metacrock's source particularly avoided mentioning the Eucharist in his article.

There are also some other parallels that separately would be minor, but together point to serious copying. First, as already discussed, Dionysus turned water into wine long before Jesus did that trick. But also, Jesus uses Dionysus very words when he confronts Saul on the road to Damascus, using the famous line from Euripides play the Bacchae about how it hurts to kick against the Goads. I mean why would a real God use a line in a play by a fake god, unless he deliberately wanted to turn off potential recruits to his worship? The jail break in Acts is also a rip off from the same play. There are other minor similarities as well.

As to the dying and rising Gods story, there are indeed quite a few as others have mentioned. That they did not die and rise exactly as Jesus did I don't think matters a whole lot. As I said before, there may have been a link to a historical Jesus who was crucified by the Romans for sedition against the state. As we have evidence that thousands if not tens of thousands of Jews were crucified throughout Judea during this time, and evidence that about 9% of the men in Judea were named Jesus, it seems likely that a Jesus was crucified for claiming to be the messiah. Thus even if we accept that others are merely fertility symbols, an archtype if you will, the ancients would be quite familiar with the concept of dieing and rising gods. Also is it not odd to Christians that Jesus also dies and rises in the Spring? I would think the story would be more believable if it did not come in the spring and thus could not be associated with the fertility rites.

Also, about Mithraism, there are quite a variety of myths about Mithras, but the most recent scholarship actually rejects a strong link between the Persian Mithras and the Roman Mithras and instead holds that the Roman version of the myth uses as a source, the myths of Perseus - who was born of a virgin. I did some further research on this and found some scholarly debate that indicated that the idea of the rock birth of Mithras is actually later than the idea of Mithras born of a virgin. Bizarre indeed. Nevertheless, the story of the shepherds attending his birth are dated long before Christianity. Mithras also was a redeemer god who rose from the dead after having his eucharistic meal. In fact that was the whole point of being washed in the blood of the bull - to be saved.

As for other rising Gods, there is also Ba'al who is not mentioned in Metacrock's original source. Ba'al of course is the Canaanite god who was later demonized in the old testament. There are a several versions of Ba’al story, which indeed make the Christian apologist’s job easier – he can pick and choose which ones he wants without actually lying to his audience. In some versions Baal is murdered each spring and comes to life again in the fall. – the typical fertility god figure that Metacrock says has no relation to the Christian story. Interestingly enough though it is a woman who resurrects him by killing his murderer, the God of Death, Mot. However in other versions of the story Baal is sentenced to die with another criminal while another criminal is allowed to go free in his place, and in this version a woman cleans the blood that comes from Baal’s heart after it is pierced by a Javelin. Baal is then cared for by a woman on a mountain and eventually returns from the mountain alive and well.

Actually though, Metacrock does make some good points as I think some writers seem to have blown the relationships out of proportion and made statements that are not supported or at least made claims about similarties that we only have evidence after Christian mythology had been well established. It is very true that we cannot rule out cross contamination from Christianity to Mystery Cults in a lot of cases.

What is interesting though is that the early Christian writers admitted that Christianity is a mystery cult. Tertullian refers to Christianity as "our mysteries" several times. Justin Martyr emphasizes the similarities in Christianity and mystery cults and then blames the devil for starting them before Christianity came along so that others would have an excuse to attack Christianity. And of course even Paul refers to the new religion as a "mystery" in several places. The ancients would have clearly understood what they were saying: we mean this to be taken as a mystery cult!!

SLD

Metacrock

Mithrism



1) All our sources Post Date Christianity.



Easter: Myth, Hallucination or History

by Edwin M. Yamauchi

Leadership u. http://www. leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html

Updated 22 March 1997

(prof. of History at Miami University, Oxford Ohio)


"Those who seek to adduce Mithra as a prototype of the risen Christ ignore the late date for the expansion of Mithraism to the west (cf. M. J. Vermaseren, Mithras, The Secret God, 1963, p. 76). The only dated Mithraic inscriptions from the pre-Christian period are the texts of Antiochus I of Commagene (69-34 B.C.) in eastern Asia Minor. After that there is one text possibly from the first century A.D., from Cappadocia, one from Phrygia dated to A.D. 77-78, and one from Rome dated to Trajan's reign (A.D. 98-117). All other dated Mithraic inscriptions and monuments belong to the second century (after A.D. 140), the third, and the fourth century A.D". (M. J. Vermaseren, Corpus Inscription et Monumentorum Religions Mithriacae, 1956).







2) Mithrism Emerged in the west only after Jesus' day.






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)


a) Roman Soldiers Spread the cult.



Roman soldiers probably encountered Mithrism first as part of Zoroastrians when they while on duty in Peria. The Cult spread through the Roman legion, was most popular in the West, and ha little chance to to spread through or influence upon Palestine. It's presence in Palestine was mainly confined to the Romans who were there to oppress the Jews. Kane tries to imply that these mystery cults were all idigidous to the Palestinian area, that they grew up alongside Judaism, and that the adherents to these religions all traded ideas as they happily ate together and practiced good neighborhsip.



b) Mithric Roman Soldiers Influenced by Christians in Palestine




But Mithrism was confined to the Roman Legion primarily, those who were stationed in Palestine to subdue the Jewish Revolt of A.D. 66-70. In fact strong evidence indicates that in this way Christianity influenced Mithrism. First, because Romans stationed in the West were sent on short tours of duty to fight the Parthians in the East, and to put down the Jewish revolt. This is where they would have encountered a Christianity whose major texts were already written, and whose major story (that of the life of Christ) was already formed.



There is no real evidence for a Persian Cult of Mirthras. The cultic and mystery aspect did not exist until after the Roman period, second century to fourth. This means that any similarities to Christianity probably come from Christiantiy as the Soldiers learned of it during their tours in Palestine. The Great historian of religions, Franz Cumont was able to prove that the earliest datable evidence for the cult came from the Military Garrison at Carnuntum, on the Danube River (moern Hungary). The largest Cache of Mithric artifacts comes form the area between the Danube and Ostia in Italy. (Franz Cumont, The Mysteries of Mithra (Chicago: Open Court, 1903), 87ff.)






3) Mithrism was not Christianity's Major Rival


Mithraism
The Ecole Initiative:

http://cedar.evansville.edu/~ecolewe...mithraism.html



Mithraism had a wide following from the middle of the second century to the late fourth century CE, but the common belief that Mithraism was the prime competitor of Christianity, promulgated by Ernst Renan (Renan 1882 579), is blatantly false. Mithraism was at a serious disadvantage right from the start because it allowed only male initiates. What is more, Mithraism was, as mentioned above, only one of several cults imported from the eastern empire that enjoyed a large membership in Rome and elsewhere. The major competitor to Christianity was thus not Mithraism but the combined group of imported cults and official Roman cults subsumed under the rubric "paganism." Finally, part of Renan's claim rested on an equally common, but almost equally mistaken, belief that Mithraism was officially accepted because it had Roman emperors among its adherents (Nero, Commodus, Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and the Tetrarchs are most commonly cited). Close examination of the evidence for the participation of emperors reveals that some comes from literary sources of dubious quality and that the rest is rather circumstantial. The cult of Magna Mater, the first imported cult to arrive in Rome (204 BCE) was the only one ever officially recognized as a Roman cult. The others, including Mithraism, were never officially accepted, and some, particularly the Egyptian cult of Isis, were periodically outlawed and their adherents persecuted.

Metacrock

MEta => so far there haven't been any challenging refutations.






quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Persian god Mithra is believed to have had his origins from the Hindu deity, Mitra--god of the sun and caretaker of the earth (dating from around 2000 B.C.E.). In 450 B.C.E., the Persian ruler Artaxerxes, incorporated Mitra into his country's religion, Zorastrianism and the name was modified to Mithra. (Mithraism was an offshoot of Zorastrianism, just as Christianity was originally a sect within Judaism.)



Mithra was held as the son of the Ahura-Mazda, the god of light. In the philosophical language of his times, he was sometimes referred to as the Logos that emanated from God, and he who thus shared in His omnipotence. (Franz Cumont, THE MYSTERIES OF MITHRA, Dover Publications, 1956 p. 140).




Meta =>Kumont is the same source I use to prove that Mithrism copied Christianity. So they may have gotten the "logos" thing from christians.


Mithrism



1) All our sources Post Date Christianity.



Easter: Myth, Hallucination or History

by Edwin M. Yamauchi

Leadership u. http://www. leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html

Updated 22 March 1997

(prof. of History at Miami University, Oxford Ohio)


"Those who seek to adduce Mithra as a prototype of the risen Christ ignore the late date for the expansion of Mithraism to the west (cf. M. J. Vermaseren, Mithras, The Secret God, 1963, p. 76). The only dated Mithraic inscriptions from the pre-Christian period are the texts of Antiochus I of Commagene (69-34 B.C.) in eastern Asia Minor. After that there is one text possibly from the first century A.D., from Cappadocia, one from Phrygia dated to A.D. 77-78, and one from Rome dated to Trajan's reign (A.D. 98-117). All other dated Mithraic inscriptions and monuments belong to the second century (after A.D. 140), the third, and the fourth century A.D". (M. J. Vermaseren, Corpus Inscription et Monumentorum Religions Mithriacae, 1956).







2) Mithrism Emerged in the west only after Jesus' day.






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)


a) Roman Soldiers Spread the cult.



Roman soldiers probably encountered Mithrism first as part of Zoroastrians when they while on duty in Peria. The Cult spread through the Roman legion, was most popular in the West, and ha little chance to to spread through or influence upon Palestine. It's presence in Palestine was mainly confined to the Romans who were there to oppress the Jews. Kane tries to imply that these mystery cults were all idigidous to the Palestinian area, that they grew up alongside Judaism, and that the adherents to these religions all traded ideas as they happily ate together and practiced good neighborhsip.



b) Mithric Roman Soldiers Influenced by Christians in Palestine




But Mithrism was confined to the Roman Legion primarily, those who were stationed in Palestine to subdue the Jewish Revolt of A.D. 66-70. In fact strong evidence indicates that in this way Christianity influenced Mithrism. First, because Romans stationed in the West were sent on short tours of duty to fight the Parthians in the East, and to put down the Jewish revolt. This is where they would have encountered a Christianity whose major texts were already written, and whose major story (that of the life of Christ) was already formed.



There is no real evidence for a Persian Cult of Mirthras. The cultic and mystery aspect did not exist until after the Roman period, second century to fourth. This means that any similarities to Christianity probably come from Christiantiy as the Soldiers learned of it during their tours in Palestine. The Great historian of religions, Franz Cumont was able to prove that the earliest datable evidence for the cult came from the Military Garrison at Carnuntum, on the Danube River (moern Hungary). The largest Cache of Mithric artifacts comes form the area between the Danube and Ostia in Italy. (Franz Cumont, The Mysteries of Mithra (Chicago: Open Court, 1903), 87ff.) .







Meta => what's to refute? All cultures have notions of good and evil. There is a commonality between christianity and Zoroastrianism thorugh Persia and the Jews in the Exile. I already said that. That's not nearly spesicif enough to imply that Jesus was made up based upon Mithra!


that is part of what I posted in the original post. What's to refute? that helps me! that contradicts the argument that he had virin birth!






Meta => YOu have to show that that is from a source older than christiantiy. Since Cumont proved that mithrism copied christianity, maybe that's the barrowing went the other way on the shepards.



Meta => Batteling a bull is not mirrored in the gospels. The blood bath, I quoted from Stephan Neil in the first post I think where he says that this rite didn't come into vogue until after the time of ST. Paul. Barrowing the other way!




Meta => If that was true, I could argue the Cumont stuff. Mithrism copied Christianity. But it's not true. Where did you get it? Because Meyer says nothing about that. And I can't find it in scholarly sources. That is just the myther stuff and is found in books like Kane's and Freke and Ghandi.




Meta => Look get the drift. Stop bring up general stuff that people all over the world value. Yes, may religons have gods. That doesn't mean Jesus was made up to copy these religions, many religions believe in humility, that doesn't mean Jesus was copied because he was humble. Everyone all over the world can say that. that's not speicific enough.





Meta => Kumont proved mithrism barrowed form christianity


MEta =>why would christian texts imply anything about mytheric texts? The star is from Numbers, the book of Numbers, the guys at Qumran, before the time of Jesus, expected star to harold birth of Messiah. So that was there arleady for anyone to believe and copy.

How else would the Persian Magi know about the star and go looking for the christ child if it wasn't in their culture too?


Meta => That Woman's encyclopedia is the biggest collectin of BS I've ever seen. it ought to tell you something up front that it's written for Goddess worship feminsts, and has an ax to grind (on men's heads).


That point about competition between Mirthism and christianity is refuted.

3) Mithrism was not Christianity's Major Rival


Mithraism
The Ecole Initiative:

http://cedar.evansville.edu/~ecolewe...mithraism.html



Mithraism had a wide following from the middle of the second century to the late fourth century CE, but the common belief that Mithraism was the prime competitor of Christianity, promulgated by Ernst Renan (Renan 1882 579), is blatantly false. Mithraism was at a serious disadvantage right from the start because it allowed only male initiates. What is more, Mithraism was, as mentioned above, only one of several cults imported from the eastern empire that enjoyed a large membership in Rome and elsewhere. The major competitor to Christianity was thus not Mithraism but the combined group of imported cults and official Roman cults subsumed under the rubric "paganism." Finally, part of Renan's claim rested on an equally common, but almost equally mistaken, belief that Mithraism was officially accepted because it had Roman emperors among its adherents (Nero, Commodus, Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and the Tetrarchs are most commonly cited). Close examination of the evidence for the participation of emperors reveals that some comes from literary sources of dubious quality and that the rest is rather circumstantial. The cult of Magna Mater, the first imported cult to arrive in Rome (204 BCE) was the only one ever officially recognized as a Roman cult. The others, including Mithraism, were never officially accepted, and some, particularly the Egyptian cult of Isis, were periodically outlawed and their adherents persecuted


MEta => nothing to refute there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Metacrock

Look I don' t care if there is a story that was copied. that's not the point. I don't agree that's one but that's not important. The ting I'm refuting is the idea that Jesus was made up and copied after dying rizing pagan gods. just finding one story that's copied doesn't prove that.

but the copy probably wasn't conscious barrowing anyway, tha'ts probably an arche type.

and christianity has been in India since first century, so it could have been barrowed the other way.