Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roland · 05-01-2003, 05:07 PM

It isn't just Jesus' miracles that go unrecorded by contemporary Roman historians.

The Book of Acts is FILLED with apostles performing similar acts which are also never mentioned.

Christians want to have it both ways. They want us to believe that the evidence of Jesus' divinity and resurrection was so overwhelming at the time that a whole world-shaking religion resulted from it.

Yet, when confronted with this fact that all these events go unrecorded, they like to say, "Why WOULD Roman historians take note of a simple Jewish preacher and miracle worker?"

If Jesus and His acts were truly this innocuous, maybe it says more about the truthfulness of this tale than Christians would like to admit.

Sojourner553 · 05-01-2003, 05:15 PM

It is the cosmic themes that are the same

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN CHRISTIANITY AND MYSTERY RELIGIONS (Including Mithraism)

I. BAPTISM:

It is known that the ancient Greek mystery religions baptized initiates in order to wash away the believer's sins and prepare them for a holy state, in preparation for a new heavenly life after death.

According to the second century Christian father, Tertuillian:

"In certain Mysteries, e.g. of Isis and Mithra, it is by baptism
that members are initiated...in the Apollinarian and Eleusinian rites they are baptized, and they imagine that the result of this baptism is regeneration and the remission of the penalties of their sins." (Tertullian, DE BAPT. 5, as referenced by S. Angus, p 81).

In the MITHRAS LITURGY, one reads how the initiate prayed that "I may be born again in thought and sacred spirit bequeathed in me."

This means (as Mithraism was older than Christianity) that similar to the ancient Christians, the Mithra cult believed that initiation through baptism was accompanied by the reception of a divine spirit. (As quoted by Howard M. Teeple, HOW DID CHRISTIANITY REALLY BEGIN, Religion and Ethics Institute Evanston, Illinois, 1994, p 143. Teeple also points out that baptismal basins/fonts used for sprinkling/ immersion can be found today in ruined sites of ancient Mithraic chapels in Germany, Austria, and Italy, p 144).

To Christians, baptism came to symbolically represent a "rebirth" of the convert--which washed away his/her sins, so as to be worthy of eternal salvation. This doctrine is stated in 1 John 3:9 as follows:

"No one born of God commits sin, for God's nature abides in him,
and he cannot sin because he is born of God."

When it became obvious that baptized Christians could slide back into sin, this created new doctrinal problems. Some early Christian groups believed they could repent and be baptized again. Other groups, believed the gift of baptism could be conveyed only ONCE--and therefore suggested postponing baptism until adulthood, or even until one was near death.

II. Sharing in the Suffering of the Mystery God/Stigmata

Paul claimed to have had marks or stigmata on his body, which showed the depth of his experiencing Jesus' suffering on the cross. (See Galatians 6:17). The mystery cults, likewise, emphasized experiencing the suffering of the mystery god-- so that in becoming one with him, they could also partake in the ecstasy of his spiritual rebirth. Some of the devotees of the mystery god, Attis, for example, castrated themselves in the height of their celebrations, to partake in the rebirth of their god. (When early Christians also began to take up the ideals of chastity, the famous Christian father Origen castrated himself to make himself pure for Christ.)

III The Rite of the Eucharist -- or "Last Supper"

Paul described the tradition of the Eucharist in his first letter to
the Corinthians--whereby he stated he was now delivering to his brethren information on this rite which he had "received of the Lord". Then he goes on to describe how Jesus took bread, broke it, and then said

'Take, eat: this is my body which is broken for you: This do in
remembrance of me". Likewise the same rite is performed with the
wine saying "This cup is the new testament of my blood: This do ye,
as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." (1 Corinthians 11:23-30)

Note how Paul states he has received this information "of the Lord", which hints at a revelation. Because Paul states that he has received this from "the Lord"--and NOT from the apostles in Jerusalem--this suggests that the Jerusalem Church possibly did not observe this rite. Some have argued that this means that it was Paul who instituted the tradition of the eucharist into Christian tradition.

The Jews partook in a communal meal, but this was to give thanks unto God for their bread and wine.

It is known that Mithraism included a "Last Supper" for Mithra's followers. Followers partook of a sacred meal that was comprised of cakes and a cup of water or wine. Initiates were sometimes depicted in animal masks. (This may go back to when gods were represented under the forms of animals--and initiates believed that in taking the name and form of his god, that he was identifying with him. (1) Indeed the famous statesman Cicero, in a speech given around 40 years before Jesus' birth, denounced the pagan rite of the sacrament of substantiation, decrying, "How can a man be so stupid as to imagine that which he eats to be a God?"

Interestingly, Paul's term for the Eucharist (Greek 'kuriakon deipnon') means Last Supper, which is the exact same expression used in the mystery religions for their sacred meal to their savior-god. Paul saw the wine and the blood of the Eucharist in a real way connecting to the Body and Blood of Christ. Anyone who participated in the rite of the Eucharist in an inappropriate manner would become sickly, even die:

"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in
an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of
the Lord...any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body
eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are
weak and ill, and some have died." (1 Corinthians 12:27-30)

(Possibly this is how Paul explained how believers could still come down sick and even die.)

As an interesting side note, it appears that second and third century C.E. pagans confronted Christians with the fact that their sacrament of the Lord's Supper was almost identical to the one celebrated by the Persians in their worship of their savior-god, Mithra. At a loss to explain these similarities (for the Christian fathers knew Mithraism was older) some of the early Christian fathers attributed this similarity to be from the influence of the "devil". According to Tertullian, the similarities between the Church sacraments and those of the mystery religions was due to the mischief of Satan:

"Satan imitates the sacraments of God. ("Dei sacramenta Satanas affectat ". DE EXH. CAST., 13).

The evidence given above is irrefutable to those who look at the facts honestly--ie Paul was influenced by, at least, SOME of the popular Greek thought of his time. However, this conclusion shouldn't really be a surprise. For it is a known fact, that almost ALL people are influenced to some degree by the historical times in which they lived, and the culture(s) in which they are raised or exposed to.

Sojourner553 · 05-01-2003, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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"

The same is true in looking at similarities between the Flood story in Genesis and the Babylonian version.

Of course there are important differences between the two stories (such as the nature of the Gods and WHY they sent the flood, the name of the ark builder, etc).

Would your position be that the Genesis story was not influenced by the earlier Babylonian version because of these differences?

Sojourner

Peter Kirby · 05-01-2003, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sojourner553
Indeed the famous statesman Cicero, in a speech given around 40 years before Jesus' birth, denounced the pagan rite of the sacrament of substantiation, decrying, "How can a man be so stupid as to imagine that which he eats to be a God?"

What's the source for the quote of Cicero? What's the context? Sounds interesting.

best,
Peter Kirby

Sojourner553 · 05-01-2003, 06:30 PM

Quote:

per Peter:
"What's the source for the quote of Cicero? What's the context? Sounds interesting. "

[Cicero 106 - 43 B.C.E.]

from: Cicero, The Nature of the Gods, Tr. Horace C.P. McGregor, Penguin, 1984 (1972), 208, 209, 117, 229-230, 23:

"'Upon my word, I cannot feel contempt for the ignorance of the uneducated masses, when I consider the sort of rubbish that is talked by Stoic philosophers. We all know the popular beliefs. The Syrians worship a Fish-God._ The Egyptians have defiled almost the whole animal kingdom. Even in Greece a number of human beings have been translated into gods. "

'When we call corn "Ceres" or the vine "Bacchus" we are using a familiar figure of speech. But do you think that there is really anybody so mad as to believe that the food which he eats is a god?'

"How for instance could Diagoras or Theodorus have been superstitious once they had denied the existence of the gods? I do not think Protagoras could have been so either, who would neither assert nor deny their existence. The teachings of all these philosophers do not merely free us from superstition, which is a senseless fear of the gods, but also destroy religion itself, with all reverence and worship. Then there are those who have argued that all our beliefs about the gods have been fabricated by wise men for reasons of state, so that men whom reason could not persuade to be good citizens might be persuaded by religion. Have not these also totally destroyed the foundations of belief?"

You can also find a cursory reference to this here (but not the citation)

http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...6/chap27.shtml

Metacrock · 05-01-2003, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

Meta => glad you are being breif. I would hate to lengthy. ;-)

Quote:

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.

Meta =>Don't forget that was also your source!

Quote:

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....

Meta => No.1 is irrelivant. If you read the material I posted in response it says that Ostia was the stronghold of Mithrism in the West. Soliders from Ostia (the cult of Mithra was primarily for soldiers) were stationed in Jerusalem for the revolt of ad 66. So that's a direct line into the Christian world.

No.2 is a matter of opinion.

Quote:

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.}

Meta =>Except of course that the Mithrists strongholders were sent right to Jerusalem where they could be directly influenced without Christiantiy having to spread to northwest Itally and find them. But you know, you quoted Cumont. Do you not know the sources you quote? How can you quote him against me and then deny his importance or expertise?

Quote:

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."

Meta =>You are ignoring the Ostia connection

Quote:

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.

Meta =>Well we do see continuity.

Quote:

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.

Meta =>Christian Sabbath as sunday evolved over time. Originally they began keeping it on saturday. But as the chruch was gentilized they drifted away from that.

Quote:

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")

Meta =>You seem to be losing sight of the point of all this. the point is that Jesus wasn't patterened after pagan gods. It doesn't matter than pagan inflences crept in after the Gopspels were written.

Quote:

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

Meta =>NO! And that's the point! that helps me, you see? Because if Dec. 25 and worship on sunday are not part of the orignial Jesus story, then it doesnt' matter if they were influenced by paganism, that can't be evidence for Jesus being pattered after pagan Gods! you see now?

Quote:

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.

Meta =>No I wouldn't bother to argue it at all, for the reason I just said. see above.

Quote:

(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)."

Meta =>notions of heaven and hell crept into Judaism in the intertestamental period. Josephus writes about this. So those notions were in place before Jesus was born, even thought not part of the OT. and that means:

They weren't influences upon the story of Jesus because they already happened. So that's not eveidence that Jesus was patterened after pagan gods.

Quote:

(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.

Meta =>Again, I'm not arguing that there are no influences from Paganism, but that's not enough to suggest that Jesus himself was made up along a pattern of pagan gods. But "The Lord's Supper" evolved out of the Passover meal. There is a ceremony in Judaism with unlevened bread, the passover, and they also drink wine and have a slaughtered lamb. The blood, symbolized by the wine, is related to the wine of passover. If I'm not mistaken I think the Pascal wine is symbolic of blood shed over the door post.

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

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

Meta =>already ducmented this, that statment speicifcally post dates Christianity. Can't prove which way the barrowing goes.

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

Meta =>Irrelivant, it's in the passover.

Quote:

(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.

Meta =>Not quite ture. Jews will never describe it as a Trinity, but we do see more than one persona for God in the OT. We have God, the creator, we have the Spirit of God who moves on the face of the deep, and we have the Shekiena glory which hovers over the tabernackle, and in the Targimim that is there is the memra used of God's self revealing presense and seperate as a immination from the creator.

besides that after the Gospels. See? It can't be a influence upon the story of Jesus.

**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

Meta =>But Cumont is the one who says Mithrism copied christianity!

Metacrock · 05-01-2003, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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)

Meta =>hate to tell you this. But all of those guys but Titus [colorred]do in fact mention Jesus!

Christianity didn't have to travel to Rome for the Mithrists to learn of it, because they went to Jerusalem, as soldiers from the Ostia garrison, which was the stronghold of Mithrism![/color]

Quote:

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.

Meta =>Well it was, that's why all the afore mentioned historians do mention it. But more importantly, the mithrists went to Jerusalem!

Quote:

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�)

Meta =>No becasue they do mention him. Here's the list:

Quote:

1)_ All of these following historians mention Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure who existed in the first century CE, or they mention Christ. * Thallus (c. 50-75AD)
*Phlegon (First century)
* Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, c.93)
* Letter from Pliny the Younger to Trajan (c. 110)
* Tacitus (Annals, c.115-120)
* Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c. 125)
* Galen (various writings, c.150)
* Celsus (True Discourse, c.170).
* Mara Bar Serapion (pre-200?)
* Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses)
*Lucian (Second century)
*Numenius (Second cent.)
*Galerius (Second Cent.)

Plus Pleny Younger mentions Christianity.

Quote:

* 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?

Meta =>Well they did talk about Jesus. But you know Josephus says that when the temple was destoryed all of Jerusalem heard a mighty shout fromt he heavens and the doors opened and great wind rushed out of the temple. Now, he said that happened. But, no Roman historian comments on it. So could it be that things happened that people thought they say in one country and people in another didn't care about? Romans didn't normally care about the goings on in Jerusalem, because it was unimportant to them.

Quote:

3) Why Jesus wouldn't be mentioned more than he is.
_
_
_
_
_Jp Holding:
_
_
http://www.integrityonline15.com/jph..._01_01_01.html
_
_
a. Roman Historians were only concerned with issues that directly effected them where they lived, or pertained to the fortunes of the empire.</BLOCKQUOTE>
He didn't address the Roman Senate, worte no treatesies, histories, poems or palys, never travaled outside of Palestine, and did not change the socio-economic situation in Paltestine. He was a strictly local affair, of regional importance only, in his own lifetime.
Harris adds that "Roman writers could hardly be expected to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and therefore to have carefully documented" Christian origins. How were they to know that this minor Nazarene prophet would cause such a fuss?"
_
_
Jesus and History
On Line Electronic books
Edward C. Wharton http://www.scripturessay.com/cev1.html
From Pagan Sources
"Palestine of the first century has been referred to as an unimportant frontier province in the Roman Empire. Those provincial governors assigned to that region of the world were often thought to have received hardship posts. Too, those who wrote the history of Rome were in the upper strata of Roman society and usually had a personal dislike of Orientals, disapproved of their religions and looked upon their superstitions as very un-Roman. [Micahel Green , Runaway World, Inter-Varsity Press, p. 12.] This partially accounts for the little trickles of information that comes from their pens about the Christian religion. They wrote about it only as it forced its way into the mainstream of their view. Yet what they did write is proof positive that Jesus Christ was both a real person and that he had made such an impact upon society that the Roman world found it increasingly difficult to disregard him."
_
_
_
_
b. Jesus was not a big enough threat to the Romans

He was enough of a threat to warrent his exicution, but there had been many other Messianich "pretenders" who warrented harher treatment. The Romans never had to call out troops to quell a revolt led by Jesus or his followers.
_
_
c. His death as a criminal made him even more marginal, and as one of many criminals exicuted by Rome during their stay in Palestine he was unremarkable.

_
_
d. He was itinerant

J.P. Holding:
"Jesus marginalized himself by being occupied as an itinerant preacher. Of course, there was no Palestine News Network, and even if there had been one, there were no televisions to broadcast it. Jesus never used the established "news organs" of the day to spread His message. He travelled about the countryside, avoiding for the most part (and with the exception of Jerusalem) the major urban centers of the day. How would we regard someone who preached only in sites like, say, Hahira, Georgia?"
_
_
e. He was a nerdowell

Holding agin: "Jesus lived an offensive lifestyle and alienated many people. He associated with the despised and rejected: Tax collectors, prostitutes, and the band of fishermen He had as disciples."

f. He was unimportant, poor, migrant, in an empire the captial of which was very far away, ran by rich tyrannts and he could do nothing to imporve their power. Why should they have an interest in him?
_
_g. Not concerned with Roman gods.

Jesus' bore a message of eschatological and spiritual significance about an obscure foreign God most Romans knew little about. They had no particular reason to see him as anything other than a strictly regional private matter concerning a religion that seemed barbaric and about which they had no interest.

_h. No evening News.

News travaled slowly, the distances were great. They had no mass communications. It took months for Rome to learn of events in Palestine, and most of the events there were of little interest to them. Moreover, his work only lasted three years. By the time he was begining to reach the height of his fame in Jerusalem word of his very existence might just be reaching Rome, where it would have been gretaed coldly with no real interest anyway. Than suddenly he was gone, exicuted as a torulbe maker and good ridence! Reports of his resurrection would not flood Rome as great astounding news, other supernatural claims were made all the time from all parts of the world, including Rome itself, so who would believe or care about this one?

i. One of many wonder workers
_
_
There were actually quite a few "wonder workers" and Messianic claimants in Jesus' time. In fact he may have seen one himself, a man called "The Egyptian" who led a revolt in Jesus' childhood, in The Galillee, but his followered were slaughtered and the Egyptian disappeared. Why should the Romans Take notice of just one more.

But let's not lose sight of the real issue here. You seem to think that general "why I don't believe" arguments are relivant here. They are not. My only concern is to show that Jesus wasn't copied after pagan gods. that's it. All this other stuff is unimportant to me.

Quote:

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.

Meta =>No I shouldn't have to show anything, because irrelivant. It has nothing to do with the issue; which is that Jesus wasn't made up based upon pagan gods.
_

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

Meta => Then why are you arguing agianst me? That's all I'm saying. Sojourner, did you jump into this without reading the orignal thread? tisk tisk. ;-)

Quote:

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.

Meta =>should I not give you the benifit of a doubt for being logical? Should I start out assuming that you understand the topic and are responding with relivant arguments? Or should I start out saying "Sojourner doens't understand so I bet these arguments don't aplly?" I merely assumed you understood the topic.

Quote:

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?

Meta =>sorry I don't see what that has to do with anything.

[quote]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?[/color]

Meta =>Unclear? How can I be unclear? the very first thing I said at the top of the orignal thread was "all I'm arguing about is the historical Jesus." You really didn't read it did you?

Quote:

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?

Meta =>cosmic themes is a good argument. Hot dog, now we are getting somewhere. I've been waiting for years for these Jesus myther people to discover the cosmic themes. (not that I'm calling you a Jesus myther)

Metacrock · 05-01-2003, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Roland
It isn't just Jesus' miracles that go unrecorded by contemporary Roman historians.

The Book of Acts is FILLED with apostles performing similar acts which are also never mentioned.

Christians want to have it both ways. They want us to believe that the evidence of Jesus' divinity and resurrection was so overwhelming at the time that a whole world-shaking religion resulted from it.

Yet, when confronted with this fact that all these events go unrecorded, they like to say, "Why WOULD Roman historians take note of a simple Jewish preacher and miracle worker?"

If Jesus and His acts were truly this innocuous, maybe it says more about the truthfulness of this tale than Christians would like to admit.

that is just historically Naive. There are reasons why the Romans didn't care, and they basically boil down to, if it didn't happen in Rome is wasn't that important. The early chruch was a Jewish thing, it didn't invovle Rom that directly. Jesus was a Jew, he was homeless, never addressed the senate, so they didn't care about him.

As for recording christianity in general, they had dozens of little mid eastern and other cults coming to Rome from all over. There's no reason why they should sinlge out this one. But what you say is flase a priori, because Celsus did talk about the darkness at noon, so some of the miracles did get mentioned.

Also we don't have that much from the first century anyway.

finally, this is irrelivant. IT has nothing to do wth the issue of Jesus being a myth.

here is a list of what we have from the1st century that does not include Jesus, except for Philo (voluminous works). This is shows how little survived anyway:

Quote:

"A final consideration is that we have very little information from first-century sources to begin with. Not much has survived the test of time from A.D. 1 to today. Blaiklock has cataloged the non-Christian writings of the Roman Empire (other than those of Philo) which have survived from the first century and do not mention Jesus. These items are":
_
_
* An amateurish history of Rome by Vellius Paterculus, a retired army officer of Tiberius. It was published in 30 A.D., just when Jesus was getting started in His ministry.
* An inscription that mentions Pilate.
* Fables written by Phaedrus, a Macedonian freedman, in the 40s A.D.
* From the 50s and 60s A.D., Blaiklock tells us: "Bookends set a foot apart on this desk where I write would enclose the works from these significant years." Included are philosophical works and letters by Seneca; a poem by his nephew Lucan; a book on agriculture by Columella, a retired soldier; fragments of the novel Satyricon by Gaius Petronius; a few lines from a Roman satirist, Persius; Pliny the Elder's Historia Naturalis; fragments of a commentary on Cicero by Asconius Pedianus, and finally, a history of Alexander the Great by Quinus Curtius.
Of all these writers, only Seneca may have conceivably had reason to refer to Jesus. But considering his personal troubles with Nero, it is doubtful that he would have had the interest or the time to do any work on the subject.
_
_
* From the 70s and 80s A.D., we have some poems and epigrams by Martial, and works by Tacitus (a minor work on oratory) and Josephus (Against Apion, Wars of the Jews). None of these would have offered occasion to mention Jesus.
* From the 90s, we have a poetic work by Statius; twelve books by Quintillian on oratory; Tacitus' biography of his father-in-law Agricola, and his work on Germany. [Blaik.MM, 13-16]
_
_
"To this Meier adds [ibid., 23] that in general, knowledge of the vast majority of ancient peoples is "simply not accessible to us today by historical research and never will be." It is just as was said in his earlier comment on Alexander the Great: What we know of most ancient people as individuals could fit on just a few pieces of paper. Thus it is misguided for the skeptic to complain that we know so little about the historical Jesus, and have so little recorded about Him in ancient pagan sources. Compared to most ancient people, we know quite a lot about Jesus, and have quite a lot recorded about Him!"
_
_
_So there just aren't that many overall sources to go by in the first palce. But why wouldn't more of Jesus' contempoaries write about him?

Metacrock · 05-01-2003, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sojourner553
[B] It is the cosmic themes that are the same

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN CHRISTIANITY AND MYSTERY RELIGIONS (Including Mithraism)

I. BAPTISM:

It is known that the ancient Greek mystery religions baptized initiates in order to wash away the believer's sins and prepare them for a holy state, in preparation for a new heavenly life after death.

According to the second century Christian father, Tertuillian:

"In certain Mysteries, e.g. of Isis and Mithra, it is by baptism
that members are initiated...in the Apollinarian and Eleusinian rites they are baptized, and they imagine that the result of this baptism is regeneration and the remission of the penalties of their sins." (Tertullian, DE BAPT. 5, as referenced by S. Angus, p 81).

Meta =>baptism was practiced by the Jews of Jesus day and before, it was practiced by those at Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) and was a rite initating proselatys from gentilism. It was a Jewish thing. That's a well known fact. I suspect that baptism is a general rite that all cultures share some way.

Quote:

In the MITHRAS LITURGY, one reads how the initiate prayed that "I may be born again in thought and sacred spirit bequeathed in me."

This means (as Mithraism was older than Christianity)

Meta =>No it does not mean that! Because you see we have not texts from mythism. Everything we know about it, we know from periods after the Nt was written,and from artifacts and inscriptions. So they don't really know what their initiates said. They are only guessing based upon inscriptions on cave walls. and those post date Paul. So there is no way to establish which came first.

Quote:

Ecloe Initative

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

"The evidence for this cult is mostly archaeological, consisting of the remains of mithraic temples, dedicatory inscriptions, and iconographic representations of the god and other aspects of the cult in stone sculpture, sculpted stone relief, wall painting, and mosaic. There is very little literary evidence pertaining to the cult."

The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World (Oxford University Press, revised paperback 1991),

[on line summary visted 9/6/01]
http://www.well.com/user/davidu/mithras.html

Owing to the cult's secrecy, we possess almost no literary evidence about the beliefs of Mithraism. The few texts that do refer to the cult come not from Mithraic devotees themselves, but rather from outsiders such as early Church fathers, who mentioned Mithraism in order to attack it, and Platonic philosophers, who attempted to find support in Mithraic symbolism for their own philosophical ideas. However, although our literary sources for the Mithraic mysteries are extremely sparse, an abundance of material evidence for the cult exists in the many Mithraic temples and artifacts that archaeologists have found scattered throughout the Roman empire, from England in the north and west to Palestine in the south and east. The temples, called mithraea by scholars, were usually built underground in imitation of caves. These subterranean temples were filled with an extremely elaborate iconography: carved reliefs, statues, and paintings, depicting a variety of enigmatic figures and scenes. This iconography is our primary source of knowledge about Mithraic beliefs, but because we do not have any written accounts of its meaning the ideas that it expresses have proven extraordinarily difficult to decipher.

Our earliest evidence for the Mithraic mysteries places their appearance in the middle of the first century B.C.: the historian Plutarch says that in 67 B.C. a large band of pirates based in Cilicia (a province on the southeastern coast of Asia Minor) were practicing "secret rites" of Mithras. The earliest physical remains of the cult date from around the end of the first century A.D., and Mithraism reached its height of popularity in the third century. In addition to soldiers, the cult's membership included significant numbers of bureaucrats and merchants. Women were excluded. Mithraism declined with the rise to power of Christianity, until the beginning of the fifth century, when Christianity became strong enough to exterminate by force rival religions such as Mithraism.

Quote:

that similar to the ancient Christians, the Mithra cult believed that initiation through baptism was accompanied by the reception of a divine spirit. (As quoted by Howard M. Teeple, HOW DID CHRISTIANITY REALLY BEGIN, Religion and Ethics Institute Evanston, Illinois, 1994, p 143. Teeple also points out that baptismal basins/fonts used for sprinkling/ immersion can be found today in ruined sites of ancient Mithraic chapels in Germany, Austria, and Italy, p 144).

Meta => When do they date to? evidence above says Mithrism first appears middle first century, so that's already time enough to go to Jersusalem and be influenced by Christianity. So there just is no way to tell who came first or who got what first.

Quote:

To Christians, baptism came to symbolically represent a "rebirth" of the convert--which washed away his/her sins, so as to be worthy of eternal salvation. This doctrine is stated in 1 John 3:9 as follows:

"No one born of God commits sin, for God's nature abides in him,
and he cannot sin because he is born of God."

When it became obvious that baptized Christians could slide back into sin, this created new doctrinal problems. Some early Christian groups believed they could repent and be baptized again. Other groups, believed the gift of baptism could be conveyed only ONCE--and therefore suggested postponing baptism until adulthood, or even until one was near death.

Meta =>Don't see what that has to do with it.

Quote:

II. Sharing in the Suffering of the Mystery God/Stigmata

Paul claimed to have had marks or stigmata on his body, which showed the depth of his experiencing Jesus' suffering on the cross. (See Galatians 6:17). The mystery cults, likewise, emphasized experiencing the suffering of the mystery god-- so that in becoming one with him, they could also partake in the ecstasy of his spiritual rebirth. Some of the devotees of the mystery god, Attis, for example, castrated themselves in the height of their celebrations, to partake in the rebirth of their god. (When early Christians also began to take up the ideals of chastity, the famous Christian father Origen castrated himself to make himself pure for Christ.)

Meta =>Post Gospels, has nothing to do with Jesus story. Also evidence already presented says we only know of Attis cult late, post Christian.

III The Rite of the Eucharist -- or "Last Supper"

Quote:

Paul described the tradition of the Eucharist in his first letter to
the Corinthians--whereby he stated he was now delivering to his brethren information on this rite which he had "received of the Lord". Then he goes on to describe how Jesus took bread, broke it, and then said

'Take, eat: this is my body which is broken for you: This do in
remembrance of me". Likewise the same rite is performed with the
wine saying "This cup is the new testament of my blood: This do ye,
as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." (1 Corinthians 11:23-30)

Note how Paul states he has received this information "of the Lord", which hints at a revelation. Because Paul states that he has received this from "the Lord"--and NOT from the apostles in Jerusalem--this suggests that the Jerusalem Church possibly did not observe this rite. Some have argued that this means that it was Paul who instituted the tradition of the eucharist into Christian tradition.

Meta =>You can't link Paul to pagan cults. And it was already evolving out of the Pascal meal. He doesn't say that Jesus gave him the revelation of doing the eucharist. He says the revelation about Grace. He says the Eurcharistic prayer was passed to him from the elders in Jerusalem.

Quote:

The Jews partook in a communal meal, but this was to give thanks unto God for their bread and wine.

It is known that Mithraism included a "Last Supper" for Mithra's followers. Followers partook of a sacred meal that was comprised of cakes and a cup of water or wine. Initiates were sometimes depicted in animal masks. (This may go back to when gods were represented under the forms of animals--and initiates believed that in taking the name and form of his god, that he was identifying with him. (1) Indeed the famous statesman Cicero, in a speech given around 40 years before Jesus' birth, denounced the pagan rite of the sacrament of substantiation, decrying, [color=blue] "How can a man be so stupid as to imagine that which he eats to be a God?"

Meta => that's not known form their own documents. So it's not good evidence. And it's irrelivant to the Jesus story.

Quote:

Interestingly, Paul's term for the Eucharist (Greek 'kuriakon deipnon') means Last Supper, which is the exact same expression used in the mystery religions for their sacred meal to their savior-god. Paul saw the wine and the blood of the Eucharist in a real way connecting to the Body and Blood of Christ. Anyone who participated in the rite of the Eucharist in an inappropriate manner would become sickly, even die:

Meta =>we dont' have any of their texts from the cult itself. that comes to us from Christian apologists. So how do we know they aren't borrowing their own word to describe the rite?

Quote:

"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in
an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of
the Lord...any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body
eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are
weak and ill, and some have died." (1 Corinthians 12:27-30)

(Possibly this is how Paul explained how believers could still come down sick and even die.)

Meta =>irreilvant and immaterial.

Quote:

As an interesting side note, it appears that second and third century C.E. pagans confronted Christians with the fact that their sacrament of the Lord's Supper was almost identical to the one celebrated by the Persians in their worship of their savior-god, Mithra. At a loss to explain these similarities (for the Christian fathers knew Mithraism was older) some of the early Christian fathers attributed this similarity to be from the influence of the "devil". According to Tertullian, the similarities between the Church sacraments and those of the mystery religions was due to the mischief of Satan:

Meta =>How do you know Mithrism is older? Since we have no texts, and it appears in the west for the first time mid 1st century, how do you know? And they copying could have already taken place from Roman soliders in Jerusalem as I've said.

"Satan imitates the sacraments of God. ("Dei sacramenta Satanas affectat ". DE EXH. CAST., 13).

Quote:

The evidence given above is irrefutable to those who look at the facts honestly--

Meta =>Yea sure it is. It is refutable [color=red][b]becaus the scholars who study Mithrism don't think it was the prototype for christianity, they don't argue that. Because they know that we don't have any evidence of it from a time before the christians already existed.

Quote:

ie Paul was influenced by, at least, SOME of the popular Greek thought of his time. However, this conclusion shouldn't really be a surprise. For it is a known fact, that almost ALL people are influenced to some degree by the historical times in which they lived, and the culture(s) in which they are raised or exposed to.

Meta =>No evidence that Paul invented the Eurcharist. it was already evolving out of the Pascal meal. And we can see that in Acts where it says they broke bread together and it's speaking of the Pascal meal.

No one argued that there aren't influenced, but you can't tell which way the copying went, and My only argument is that Jesus wasn't made up.

lpetrich · 05-01-2003, 09:17 PM

(from Metacrock; I added Pliny the Younger)
* Thallus (c. 50-75AD)
* Phlegon (First century)
* Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, c.93)
* Letter from Pliny the Younger to Trajan (c. 110)
* Tacitus (Annals, c.115-120)
* Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c. 125)
* Galen (various writings, c.150)
* Celsus (True Discourse, c.170).
* Mara Bar Serapion (pre-200?)
* Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses)
* Lucian (Second century)
* Numenius (Second cent.)
* Galerius (Second Cent.)
* Pliny the Younger (c. 112)

All these gentlemen lived well after Jesus Christ's career, which was about 30-33 CE -- if he had existed at all. And all these accounts are secondhand, meaning that they had learned of JC from the Xtians they had known and known of. At least when they are unambiguously referring to JC -- neither Mara bar Serapion nor Thallus had done so. And Thallus was quoted third-hand about some alleged mysterious darkness.

Which nobody else had seen. Matthew is our only explicit "source" for this alleged 3-hour midday darkness when JC was crucified.

Just to give one name, Pliny the Elder would have seen it and written about it in his Natural History, since he was about 10 years old at the time.

And I must say that I thought I was reading Josh McDowell for a while.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-01-2003, 05:07 PM	#71
Roland Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: California Posts: 748	It isn't just Jesus' miracles that go unrecorded by contemporary Roman historians. The Book of Acts is FILLED with apostles performing similar acts which are also never mentioned. Christians want to have it both ways. They want us to believe that the evidence of Jesus' divinity and resurrection was so overwhelming at the time that a whole world-shaking religion resulted from it. Yet, when confronted with this fact that all these events go unrecorded, they like to say, "Why WOULD Roman historians take note of a simple Jewish preacher and miracle worker?" If Jesus and His acts were truly this innocuous, maybe it says more about the truthfulness of this tale than Christians would like to admit.

05-01-2003, 05:15 PM	#72
Sojourner553 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern US Posts: 817	It is the cosmic themes that are the same SIMILARITIES BETWEEN CHRISTIANITY AND MYSTERY RELIGIONS (Including Mithraism) I. BAPTISM: It is known that the ancient Greek mystery religions baptized initiates in order to wash away the believer's sins and prepare them for a holy state, in preparation for a new heavenly life after death. According to the second century Christian father, Tertuillian: "In certain Mysteries, e.g. of Isis and Mithra, it is by baptism that members are initiated...in the Apollinarian and Eleusinian rites they are baptized, and they imagine that the result of this baptism is regeneration and the remission of the penalties of their sins." (Tertullian, DE BAPT. 5, as referenced by S. Angus, p 81). In the MITHRAS LITURGY, one reads how the initiate prayed that "I may be born again in thought and sacred spirit bequeathed in me." This means (as Mithraism was older than Christianity) that similar to the ancient Christians, the Mithra cult believed that initiation through baptism was accompanied by the reception of a divine spirit. (As quoted by Howard M. Teeple, HOW DID CHRISTIANITY REALLY BEGIN, Religion and Ethics Institute Evanston, Illinois, 1994, p 143. Teeple also points out that baptismal basins/fonts used for sprinkling/ immersion can be found today in ruined sites of ancient Mithraic chapels in Germany, Austria, and Italy, p 144). To Christians, baptism came to symbolically represent a "rebirth" of the convert--which washed away his/her sins, so as to be worthy of eternal salvation. This doctrine is stated in 1 John 3:9 as follows: "No one born of God commits sin, for God's nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God." When it became obvious that baptized Christians could slide back into sin, this created new doctrinal problems. Some early Christian groups believed they could repent and be baptized again. Other groups, believed the gift of baptism could be conveyed only ONCE--and therefore suggested postponing baptism until adulthood, or even until one was near death. II. Sharing in the Suffering of the Mystery God/Stigmata Paul claimed to have had marks or stigmata on his body, which showed the depth of his experiencing Jesus' suffering on the cross. (See Galatians 6:17). The mystery cults, likewise, emphasized experiencing the suffering of the mystery god-- so that in becoming one with him, they could also partake in the ecstasy of his spiritual rebirth. Some of the devotees of the mystery god, Attis, for example, castrated themselves in the height of their celebrations, to partake in the rebirth of their god. (When early Christians also began to take up the ideals of chastity, the famous Christian father Origen castrated himself to make himself pure for Christ.) III The Rite of the Eucharist -- or "Last Supper" Paul described the tradition of the Eucharist in his first letter to the Corinthians--whereby he stated he was now delivering to his brethren information on this rite which he had "received of the Lord". Then he goes on to describe how Jesus took bread, broke it, and then said 'Take, eat: this is my body which is broken for you: This do in remembrance of me". Likewise the same rite is performed with the wine saying "This cup is the new testament of my blood: This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." (1 Corinthians 11:23-30) Note how Paul states he has received this information "of the Lord", which hints at a revelation. Because Paul states that he has received this from "the Lord"--and NOT from the apostles in Jerusalem--this suggests that the Jerusalem Church possibly did not observe this rite. Some have argued that this means that it was Paul who instituted the tradition of the eucharist into Christian tradition. The Jews partook in a communal meal, but this was to give thanks unto God for their bread and wine. It is known that Mithraism included a "Last Supper" for Mithra's followers. Followers partook of a sacred meal that was comprised of cakes and a cup of water or wine. Initiates were sometimes depicted in animal masks. (This may go back to when gods were represented under the forms of animals--and initiates believed that in taking the name and form of his god, that he was identifying with him. (1) Indeed the famous statesman Cicero, in a speech given around 40 years before Jesus' birth, denounced the pagan rite of the sacrament of substantiation, decrying, "How can a man be so stupid as to imagine that which he eats to be a God?" Interestingly, Paul's term for the Eucharist (Greek 'kuriakon deipnon') means Last Supper, which is the exact same expression used in the mystery religions for their sacred meal to their savior-god. Paul saw the wine and the blood of the Eucharist in a real way connecting to the Body and Blood of Christ. Anyone who participated in the rite of the Eucharist in an inappropriate manner would become sickly, even die: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord...any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died." (1 Corinthians 12:27-30) (Possibly this is how Paul explained how believers could still come down sick and even die.) As an interesting side note, it appears that second and third century C.E. pagans confronted Christians with the fact that their sacrament of the Lord's Supper was almost identical to the one celebrated by the Persians in their worship of their savior-god, Mithra. At a loss to explain these similarities (for the Christian fathers knew Mithraism was older) some of the early Christian fathers attributed this similarity to be from the influence of the "devil". According to Tertullian, the similarities between the Church sacraments and those of the mystery religions was due to the mischief of Satan: "Satan imitates the sacraments of God. ("Dei sacramenta Satanas affectat ". DE EXH. CAST., 13). The evidence given above is irrefutable to those who look at the facts honestly--ie Paul was influenced by, at least, SOME of the popular Greek thought of his time. However, this conclusion shouldn't really be a surprise. For it is a known fact, that almost ALL people are influenced to some degree by the historical times in which they lived, and the culture(s) in which they are raised or exposed to.

05-01-2003, 09:17 PM	#80
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	(from Metacrock; I added Pliny the Younger) * Thallus (c. 50-75AD) * Phlegon (First century) * Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, c.93) * Letter from Pliny the Younger to Trajan (c. 110) * Tacitus (Annals, c.115-120) * Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c. 125) * Galen (various writings, c.150) * Celsus (True Discourse, c.170). * Mara Bar Serapion (pre-200?) * Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses) * Lucian (Second century) * Numenius (Second cent.) * Galerius (Second Cent.) * Pliny the Younger (c. 112) All these gentlemen lived well after Jesus Christ's career, which was about 30-33 CE -- if he had existed at all. And all these accounts are secondhand, meaning that they had learned of JC from the Xtians they had known and known of. At least when they are unambiguously referring to JC -- neither Mara bar Serapion nor Thallus had done so. And Thallus was quoted third-hand about some alleged mysterious darkness. Which nobody else had seen. Matthew is our only explicit "source" for this alleged 3-hour midday darkness when JC was crucified. Just to give one name, Pliny the Elder would have seen it and written about it in his Natural History, since he was about 10 years old at the time. And I must say that I thought I was reading Josh McDowell for a while.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.