Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sojourner553 · 05-02-2003, 06:50 PM

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

Compared to YOU, I am brief (Smile)

Meta =>Everytime they said that I've said "I am only concerned about the historiacal Jesus!" when will atheists learn to listen? or skeptics or whatever???

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.

LOL. Wouldn�t it have been simplier for them � if all their beliefs were transformed � just to become Christian. One wouldn�t be able to tell much difference afterall, since you claim the dogmas were so similar.

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?

I quote authorities for the facts. I do not blindly following their OPINIONS on how they interpret the facts.

If you think they have a good ANALYSIS as to how they arrived at their opinion, please include this, rather than �name-dropping� which requires no thinking.

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.

Which is it, Christianity affected the gentiles (such as the Mithrists) or the other way around. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Maybe the Mithraists borrowed this from the soldiers at Ostia too (who learned it from the Christians)????

Please be consistent.

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.

So how much of pagan inFluence occurred AT THE TIME OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS, vs the later MYTHICAL JESUS.

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:

Absolutely. The early Jewish books of the Bible show different themes from the latter ones because of pagan influence as well.

One can see the influence of Greek thought on the Jews (such as in the book of Maccabbes for example, much more.)

Meta =>Again, I'm not arguing that there are no influences from Paganism,

So where do you draw the line?

Meta => but that's not enough to suggest that Jesus himself was made up along a pattern of pagan gods.

I showed you the themes. Show me where these then had a pure Jewish source.

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.

[/color=red]

Passover represents how God spared the ancient Hebrews in Canaan. The symbolism does not relate to a redemption of one�s sins/ communion with a savior god by eating flesh/drinking blood. Again, this is a VERY pagan concept in Judaism!!! [/color]

Show me otherwise please.

Meta => Re: �In Mithraism there are inscriptions that state such lines as
"you saved us after having shed the eternal blood".
already ducmented this, that statment speicifcally post dates Christianity. Can't prove which way the barrowing goes.

Fine. Show me where this logically comes from Judaism.

Meta => Jews will never describe it as a Trinity,

Why, if it is a logical progression, and Jewish prophets clearly stated it.

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.

There is also an early verse where the God of the OT states �we� -- to try and help you out. These are probably though from the OT being a composite of early writings including those seeing Yahweh as only a local tribal god.

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

You can make up anything following this line...

Sojourner553 · 05-02-2003, 07:17 PM

Meta =>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.

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. ;-)

If that is your true point. **I am guilty!**

Of course Jesus was a historical person. There is much of his doctrine and history that was too embarrassing to the early Church!

Examples:

*Being from Galilee and not from Jerusalem (although Matthew and Luke claim he was born there and moved when very young).
* his compassion for sinners, the poor--even women.

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.

First I did not write this too you � unless you have two separate names you sign in under.

To me it�s illogical to show how the cosmic themes can prove anything one way or another if there was a historical person or not.

Take Buddha as an example. Proving the Buddhism�s cosmic themes were original or borrowed makes not one iota of difference in proving whether the Buddha was a historical person or not.

Meta => I didn't bring it up! I'm not arguing that this proves anything! Sojourner said "if Jesus was real they would have mentioned him" and she listed several of those in the list. So I put up the list and said "they did mention him." that's a direct answer to her argument. But it's not my argument, I wasnt' trying to prove Jesus' existece with that list, I don't need to.

Now it is you who did not read what I posted!. I stated clearly that if Christians had affected Mithra doctrine instead of the other way around, surely contemporary Roman authors would have written about the Jesus (by which I meant their beliefs and ideas � and not a simple, derogatory reference to the existence of Christians.)

Meta =>I aslo will say this: So what if they lived after him? They are historians, they are suppossed to write about the past! that doesnt' prove they didn't have access to materials about him!!!

Again if your thesis is that Christians affected Mithraism instead of the other away around is to be taken seriously, one should see the IDEAS of early Christians being discussed in a matter to show they were new/novel from other pagan ideas by first/second century AD writers/historians.

this is the issue I am debating with you.

SLD · 05-04-2003, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Metacrock

Meta => Yes, you are quite right. I may have misspoke myself in writting too quickly (look up there in that thread, there's a lot of crap to cover!). The cult appeared in the 1st century BC as far we know, but it's artifacts that show any similiarites to christianity all show up latter. That says to me that they copied Christianity, since the Roman soliders from Ostia were in Jerusalem; but I admit copy could have gone both ways.

[/B]

That is not true Metacrock. We do have archeological evidence of Mithraism in the 1st century BC in Asia Minor, including a reference to drinking the Blood and eating the flesh of Mithras in order to be saved.

SLD

SLD · 05-04-2003, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Metacrock

Meta =>Nothing more than argument from sign. That' a fallacy. Just because they were in the same region hardly proves that Paul barrowed from them. Paul brags about being a Pharisee, why would a faithful jew who is proud of his phariseeism copy form pagan cults? He also incidates in 1 cor that he thinks other relgions are filled with demons. Why would he barrow from them?

[/B]

Paul's claim to be a Pharisee is delusional on his part. He was from Tarsus. He could not be both from Tarsus and a Pharisee. The Pharisees were in Israel. Furthermore Paul was a roman citizen, something no Pharisee would be - they hated the romans.

As to why he would condemn the pagan cults that he borrowed from? Even you know the answer to that one. You don't need a Ph.D. in Psychology to know that people condemn things in order to distance themselves from it. The same way you can spot a closet homosexual by his homophobia.

SLD

SLD · 05-04-2003, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Metacrock

Meta =>No, you miss the piont my skeptical friend. Such things are archetypes, not conscoius barrowing. That doesnt' prove Jesus was made up. At most it proves that certain religious practices are shared by many faiths, big deal.

[/B]

The Eucharist is an archtype?

That's an original argument. Granted that maybe dying and rising gods is an archtype due to the connection with crop cycles and fertility, but the Eucharist? I'm sorry no way. For you to show me it was an archtype you'd have to show it in other religions that Christianity could not possibly borrow from - Chinese, Native American, or some other religious sources that are clearly not possibly related to Christianity.

Even if it is only something that a lot of religions have in common, it does prove that the Jesus of the Gospels is made up. He's nothing more than any other mystery cult god - born of a virgin who some kind of encounter with God, performs miracles, has a eucharist and then dies and rises again. Yet to you it's all an archtype that proves nothing. It does prove something - that it's a myth just like all the others.

Does it prove that there was no historical Jesus on whom this particular mystery cult was based? Absolutely not. I happen to believe that there is an historical figure underneath it all - but he is most certainly not the figure portrayed in the Gospels.

What do you mean by the historical Jesus?

SLD

GakuseiDon · 05-04-2003, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SLD
That is not true Metacrock. We do have archeological evidence of Mithraism in the 1st century BC in Asia Minor, including a reference to drinking the Blood and eating the flesh of Mithras in order to be saved.

SLD

SLD, could you post a link to the reference about "drinking the Blood and eating the flesh of Mithras in order to be saved" please? Does the link date the reference?

Sojourner553 · 05-07-2003, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GakuseiDon
SLD, could you post a link to the reference about "drinking the Blood and eating the flesh of Mithras in order to be saved" please? Does the link date the reference?

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).

Even the most peculiarly Christian sacrament, the Lord's Supper, was, according to the testimony of Justin Martyr, celebrated by the Persians in the same way as by the Christians; 1 and Justin is ingenuous enough to attribute this coincidence without the slightest hesitation to the influence of evil spirits. Tertullian is also aware of many similarities between Church institutions and the pagan modes of Mithras worship, which observation prompted him to declare that "Satan imitates the sacraments of God." 2 The Devil appears to have been very cunning in those days, for if he had not daring spies in heaven, he must himself have anticipated the Lord's plans; for the pagan institutions spoken of as Satanic imitations, such as the Persian haoma sacrifice, the eating of consecrated cakes in commemoration of the dead for the sake of obtaining life immortal are older than Christianity.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/evil/hod/hod13.htm#fn_92

GakuseiDon · 05-08-2003, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sojourner553
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).

Even the most peculiarly Christian sacrament, the Lord's Supper, was, according to the testimony of Justin Martyr, celebrated by the Persians in the same way as by the Christians; 1 and Justin is ingenuous enough to attribute this coincidence without the slightest hesitation to the influence of evil spirits. Tertullian is also aware of many similarities between Church institutions and the pagan modes of Mithras worship, which observation prompted him to declare that "Satan imitates the sacraments of God." 2 The Devil appears to have been very cunning in those days, for if he had not daring spies in heaven, he must himself have anticipated the Lord's plans; for the pagan institutions spoken of as Satanic imitations, such as the Persian haoma sacrifice, the eating of consecrated cakes in commemoration of the dead for the sake of obtaining life immortal are older than Christianity.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/evil/hod/hod13.htm#fn_92

Interesting, S553, but there is nothing there about "drinking the Blood and eating the flesh of Mithras in order to be saved" in your post or the link.

In Mithraism, standing under a grate while a bull is butchered, and being showered in its blood offered cleansing, but I'd never heard of it representing the blood and flesh of Mithras.

Do you have a link to support that?

Sojourner553 · 05-08-2003, 07:23 PM

"Interesting, S553, but there is nothing there about "drinking the Blood and eating the flesh of Mithras in order to be saved" in your post or the link. "

How many Christian sacrements were there during this time period?"

ie how many sacrements does Paul mention other than the Eucharist?

GakuseiDon · 05-09-2003, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sojourner553
"Interesting, S553, but there is nothing there about "drinking the Blood and eating the flesh of Mithras in order to be saved" in your post or the link. "

How many Christian sacrements were there during this time period?"

ie how many sacrements does Paul mention other than the Eucharist?

Sorry, I can't see the relevency of your question.

SLD said that: "That is not true Metacrock. We do have archeological evidence of Mithraism in the 1st century BC in Asia Minor, including a reference to drinking the Blood and eating the flesh of Mithras in order to be saved. ".

I'd just like to find whether that is a real reference or not.

SLD? Where did that reference come from?

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

05-02-2003, 06:50 PM	#91
Sojourner553 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern US Posts: 817	Meta => glad you are being breif. I would hate to lengthy. ;-) Compared to YOU, I am brief (Smile) Meta =>Everytime they said that I've said "I am only concerned about the historiacal Jesus!" when will atheists learn to listen? or skeptics or whatever??? 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. LOL. Wouldn�t it have been simplier for them � if all their beliefs were transformed � just to become Christian. One wouldn�t be able to tell much difference afterall, since you claim the dogmas were so similar. 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? I quote authorities for the facts. I do not blindly following their OPINIONS on how they interpret the facts. If you think they have a good ANALYSIS as to how they arrived at their opinion, please include this, rather than �name-dropping� which requires no thinking. 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. Which is it, Christianity affected the gentiles (such as the Mithrists) or the other way around. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Maybe the Mithraists borrowed this from the soldiers at Ostia too (who learned it from the Christians)???? Please be consistent. 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. So how much of pagan inFluence occurred AT THE TIME OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS, vs the later MYTHICAL JESUS. 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: Absolutely. The early Jewish books of the Bible show different themes from the latter ones because of pagan influence as well. One can see the influence of Greek thought on the Jews (such as in the book of Maccabbes for example, much more.) Meta =>Again, I'm not arguing that there are no influences from Paganism, So where do you draw the line? Meta => but that's not enough to suggest that Jesus himself was made up along a pattern of pagan gods. I showed you the themes. Show me where these then had a pure Jewish source. 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. [/color=red] Passover represents how God spared the ancient Hebrews in Canaan. The symbolism does not relate to a redemption of one�s sins/ communion with a savior god by eating flesh/drinking blood. Again, this is a VERY pagan concept in Judaism!!! [/color] Show me otherwise please. Meta => Re: �In Mithraism there are inscriptions that state such lines as "you saved us after having shed the eternal blood". already ducmented this, that statment speicifcally post dates Christianity. Can't prove which way the barrowing goes. Fine. Show me where this logically comes from Judaism. Meta => Jews will never describe it as a Trinity, Why, if it is a logical progression, and Jewish prophets clearly stated it. 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. There is also an early verse where the God of the OT states �we� -- to try and help you out. These are probably though from the OT being a composite of early writings including those seeing Yahweh as only a local tribal god. Meta => besides that after the Gospels. See? It can't be a influence upon the story of Jesus. You can make up anything following this line...

05-02-2003, 07:17 PM	#92
Sojourner553 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern US Posts: 817	Meta =>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. 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. ;-) If that is your true point. I am guilty! Of course Jesus was a historical person. There is much of his doctrine and history that was too embarrassing to the early Church! Examples: Being from Galilee and not from Jerusalem (although Matthew and Luke claim he was born there and moved when very young). his compassion for sinners, the poor--even women. 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. First I did not write this too you � unless you have two separate names you sign in under. To me it�s illogical to show how the cosmic themes can prove anything one way or another if there was a historical person or not. Take Buddha as an example. Proving the Buddhism�s cosmic themes were original or borrowed makes not one iota of difference in proving whether the Buddha was a historical person or not. Meta => I didn't bring it up! I'm not arguing that this proves anything! Sojourner said "if Jesus was real they would have mentioned him" and she listed several of those in the list. So I put up the list and said "they did mention him." that's a direct answer to her argument. But it's not my argument, I wasnt' trying to prove Jesus' existece with that list, I don't need to. Now it is you who did not read what I posted!. I stated clearly that if Christians had affected Mithra doctrine instead of the other way around, surely contemporary Roman authors would have written about the Jesus (by which I meant their beliefs and ideas � and not a simple, derogatory reference to the existence of Christians.) Meta =>I aslo will say this: So what if they lived after him? They are historians, they are suppossed to write about the past! that doesnt' prove they didn't have access to materials about him!!! Again if your thesis is that Christians affected Mithraism instead of the other away around is to be taken seriously, one should see the IDEAS of early Christians being discussed in a matter to show they were new/novel from other pagan ideas by first/second century AD writers/historians. this is the issue I am debating with you.

05-08-2003, 07:23 PM	#99
Sojourner553 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern US Posts: 817	"Interesting, S553, but there is nothing there about "drinking the Blood and eating the flesh of Mithras in order to be saved" in your post or the link. " How many Christian sacrements were there during this time period?" ie how many sacrements does Paul mention other than the Eucharist?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.