Saturday, March 22, 2008

HAPPY RESSURECTION OF MITHRAS DAY


Having been born of the virgin Anahita, in a cave, on December 25; with twelve disciples, the god Mithras travelled far and wide as a teacher and illuminator of men. At about age 30 he began his ministry, offering salvation based on faith, compassion, knowledge and valor.

Suffering a violent death, Mithras arose from his tomb an event celebrated annually at the Spring Equinox. After the earthly mission of this god had been accomplished, he took part in a Last Supper with his companions before ascending to heaven, to forever protect the faithful from above.

The similarities to Christianity go on in much more detail: baptism, that he atoned for all man’s sins … etc. Coincidence? Did the followers of Mithras co-opt their god fable from Jesus and the Christian tradition? Not likely, since the cult of Mithras preceded Christianity by over 600 years.

How do Christians deal with this? Well, one of two ways. They either deny such a god figure existed, out of ignorance or avoidance, or, like the famous 2nd century Christian apologist Justin Martyr (1 Apologia, 66, 4), they denounce the devil for having sent a God so similar to Jesus – yet preceding him.

As Christians celebrate their Easter, they are in fact celebrating the Resurrection Festival of Mithras. His will be done.


Some of many source materials:
http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/jesus_similar.html
http://www.livingstonemusic.net/godmen.htm

26 comments:

crazydad™ said...

Yeah, ol' Mithras really made it hard for me to stay xian.

Mith have mercy!

HoleyHands said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
HoleyHands said...

'Hymn of the XXX Legion: Circa A.D. 350'.

(In which the spirit of Mithraism can seen.)

Mithras, God of the Morning, our trumpets waken the wall!
'Rome is above the Nations, but Thou art over all'
Now as the names are answered, and the guards are marched away,
Mithras, also a solider, give us strenght for the day!


Mithras, God of the Noontide, the heather swims in the heat,
Our helmets scorch our foreheads; our sandals burn our feet,
Now in the ungrit hour; now ere we blink and drowse,
Mithras also a solider, keep us true to our vows!


Mithras, God of the Sunset, low on the Western main,
Thou descending immortal, immortal to rise again!
Now when the watch is eneded, now when the wine is drawn
Mithras also a solider, keep us pure till the dawn!

DromedaryHump said...

CD,
I always figured your coming around to reality was a combination of my common sense and Mithras' rather uncomfortable similarities.

HH,
love that hymn. I shall sing it to the tune of "Onward Christian Soldiers" next time I visit the local house of delusional make believe, AKA church.

Anonymous said...

I find it amazing how atheist will pride themselves in the scepticism and then believe in any old rubbish they read on their favourite atheist website. The problem is that most these claims are either: a) so wrong that nobody has ever believed them, what more can I say? b)half truths heavily distorted or c)beliefs that post-date christianity and any influence was the other way around!

Take a look here for more info.

Anonymous said...

if you want to discuss it further then you can do so here

I will wish you luck in finding any primary sources that pre-date Christianity demonstrating people ever believed half those things about Mithras.

DromedaryHump said...

I can't help but notice, "Anonomous", that the site you directed me to happens to be a Christian apologetics site. Evidently, the myth has caused many issues amongs modern believers, considering how involved the author got with his selective extracts of sources of the myth.

The fact is Justin Martyer declared the similarities between Mithras the predecessor, and the johnny come lately Jesus, the work of the devil long before any modern day christian's decided it best to obfiscate the problem it causes for them.

Yet.. unless I missed it, that fact is strangely missing.

Yes, there are many variations of the Mithras tale. Much of it because of the oral tradition, mis translation, and conflicting regional cult perspectives. Mithras wasn't just a Roman god, his myth was wide spread. Thus the variances of myth is not unlike the multiple stories of Genesis,the Apocraphil scriptures of the Jews, the Gnotic Biblical stories, and the confilicting/contradicting "eyewitness" accounts throughout the NT. Of course, your apologists like to play games with those as well. Its not unlike why JW's and Mormons believe differently than "main stream" Xtians.

The church founding fathers picked and chose which of the fables they'd include in their main body of scripture, it doesn't make the myths they selected more or less a part of the religion than those they opted to ignore for political or dogmatic reasons.

Now... get to work on Tammuz, Horus/Osiris, and the other gods similar to and predating Jebus, and see if you can come up with a few thousand words of excuses and denial that dismiss their similarities to Jesus as well.

I'm sure you can...just like you probably can find Christian "reasons" to dismiss carbon 14 dating,fossil evidence, geologic strata proofs, et al, to dismiss ancient earth science and accept a biblical 6,000 yr old earth.

Your type is waaay too predictable.

Anonymous said...

I'm afraid that this is laughed upon in biblical scholarship in the same way creationism is in science. So your comparison to carbon dating is a tad ironic. Apart from Robert Price, I can't think of a single scholar who gives this the time of day. I could name more young earth creationists with doctorates in science than biblical scholars who agree with this. You dismiss 'christian apologist sites' and yet the ones you link to can hardly be described as scholarly. Let me quote professor Ronald Nash (from his book The gospel and the Greeks): 'Which mystery gods actually experienced a resurrection from the dead? ... And of course no claim can be made that Mithras was a dying and rising god.'

In the book 'Reinventing Jesus', written by three reputable scholars, it says about the copycat myth 'How could the idea that there is nothing new in Christianity gain a footing today? A combination of factors contributed to this resurgence. The post modern interest in spirituality, coupled with increasing lack of historical grounding has been the main ingredient. But the icing on the cake is ready access to unfiltered information via the Internet and influential power of the medium. The result is junk food for the mind' I don't know how else to explain this to you: this is factually inaccurate in places and not taken seriously outside of hyper sceptical websites. Even atheist scholars do not use this in their debates.

So what about the church fathers? You are taking them out of context. They are trying to win pagans over to their religion and are not commenting on obvious parallels. It is no different than Christian evangelists today using popular films to explain the Christian message or saying to a Muslim "we have a lot in common but..."

DromedaryHump said...

Anon,
I suggest if youre going to be a visitor here, you acquire a name.

Your need to literalize the similarities of pre-jesus god, that is, requiring that each similarity be shown to be literal i.e. "ressurection in body" versus "rebirth" as in the spring equinox (which was the point of the Mithras / Easter comparison) misses the entire point.

That Jesus was conceived of a union between a god and a human woman is a repetative theme renown throughout pre-christian pagan history. Is it NOT?

That the issue of those unions, AKA: Man-Gods, were prevelant themes throughout pre-jeusus paganism is a fact. Is it Not??

That death and ressurection, either in bodily form, or seasonal form, or astronomical form was a prevelant theme throughout pre-christianity is undeniable. is it NOT?

That seers, philosophers, cynic-preachers and holy men traveled the earth preaching, often with disciples by their side, often persecuted, was prevalant theme from pre-christian Buddah on thru other Pagan man-gods is fact. IS is NOT?

The concept of "Trinity", in Hinduism and early Egyptian theology was a known theme througout the orient, pre-christianity. Was it NOT?

See, you can try and punch holes in Mithras, or Tammuz, or Horus, or the other pre-Jesus/ Jesus like man-god myths in specificity, but the themes don't disappear. They remain even if the specific elements of a myth vary, as all myths, including Christianity do.

If you just want to disavow or reject the similarities of themes I just listed above, I wouldnt be surprised. Denial and dishonesty, and rejection of reality is part and parcel to Christianity.
Maybe it would be more convenient to just blame it on "the serpant's" / Devils deception.
It worked for Justin Martyr.

OH... and i'm taking the church fathers out of "context"??? Hahaha!! Yeah...OK. Put Martin Luthers statement in "CONTEXT" for me where what he said doesn't endorse "lying for the Lord". Good luck with that.
I plan to post my article on the cry of "context" as the favored apologists method of denial. Look for it in the near future. LOL. "CONTEXT!!" :)

DromedaryHump said...

PS: Oh, I forgot.

as for scholars (besides Price) who claim a clear paralell exists between the Mithras myth and Christianity, and proffer that xtianity co-opted much of their myth from Mithras are Franz Cumont, M. J. Vermaseren, and A. Deman. These men are no hacks...if you know anything about them, which you don't.

Deman is the one who said:
rather than attempting to find individual references from Mithraic art in Christian iconography... it is better to look for larger patterns of comparison: "with this method, pure coincidences can no longer be used and so the recognition of Mithras as the privileged pagan inspirer of medieval Christian iconography is forced upon us."

Perhaps you need to be less selective, and more collective in the scholarly sources you, and your apologetics sites, invoke.

But I understand. Anything that undermines "the faith" is to be avoided and dismissed at all costs. "To be a Christian one must pluck out the eye of reson". Martin Luther said that too... and he wasn't lying. That time.

DromedaryHump said...

damnit..sorry...references;

Cumont, Franz (1956). in McCormack, Thomas K. (trans.): The Mysteries of Mithras. Dover Publications.

Vermaseren, M.J (1963). Mithras: The Secret God. Chatto & Windus.

Derman, A. (1971). in Hinnells, John R.: “Mithras and Christ: Some Iconographical Similarities,” in Mithraic Studies, vol. 2. Manchester University Press

and...
Martin A. Larson, The Story of Christian Origins (1977), p 470

bob said...

That Jesus was conceived of a union between a god and a human woman is a repetative theme renown throughout pre-christian pagan history. Is it NOT?
Not really - Mithras, for example, was born from a rock. What you mean is that a handful involved a god coming down and having sexual intercourse with a mortal woman and this is not the same as the virgin birth story of Christianity.

That the issue of those unions, AKA: Man-Gods, were prevelant themes throughout pre-jeusus paganism is a fact. Is it Not??
Not really - gods were often depicted as having human bodies but this is completely different to the Christian belief that Jesus was God incarnate.

That death and ressurection, either in bodily form, or seasonal form, or astronomical form was a prevelant theme throughout pre-christianity is undeniable. is it NOT?
By astronomical form do you mean 'the sun sets and to the fundamentalist atheist this can be taken to mean death and when the sun rises we can read into that a belief that it rose again.' You are then simply reading Christian theology into unrelated beliefs. It would be the same type of logic as saying 'when i post my comment it is like sending a message which is like praying. Oh - message boards are ripped off from praying' Stop blindly repeating what you've read on misinformed websites and start citing credible sources.

That seers, philosophers, cynic-preachers and holy men traveled the earth preaching, often with disciples by their side, often persecuted, was prevalant theme from pre-christian Buddah on thru other Pagan man-gods is fact. IS is NOT?
and so anyone who travels around preaching is copying pagan mythology? Am I as I travel around the Internet teaching my philosophy? Next you're going to tell me that Jesus eating and wearing clothes was plagiarised! I don't have to show hat absolutely everything Jesus did was unique if they are ordinary every day similarities.

The concept of "Trinity", in Hinduism and early Egyptian theology was a known theme througout the orient, pre-christianity. Was it NOT?
you mean you see the number three in other religions and read 'trinity' into that. there is nothing identical to the Christian concept of trinity regardless of what you have read on the Internet.

Perhaps you need to be less selective, and more collective in the scholarly sources you, and your apologetics sites, invoke.
Sorry, but I get the impression that you are the one who simply reads junk food atheist websites written by goodness knows who and happily accept everything they say. Why do you blindly believe what you read on an atheist website and not accept anything that contradicts them? Do you think that atheist website never ever get their facts wrong whilst Christian ones make them up all of the time?

So far you have not provided a single primary source which pre-dates Christianity to show that anyone ever believed these things around the time of Jesus. In a previous post you said: 'Yes, there are many variations of the Mithras tale.' which then begs the question: how do you know that the version of Mithraism in the first century was the same one you read about in third and fourth century sources and that Christianity didn't influence Mithraism.

Let me quote the Encyclopaedia Britannica to you: "There is little notice of the Persian god in the Roman world until the beginning of the 2nd century, but, from the year AD 136 onward, there are hundreds of dedicatory inscriptions to Mithra. This renewal of interest is not easily explained. The most plausible hypothesis seems to be that Roman Mithraism was practically a new creation, wrought by a religious genius who may have lived as late as c. AD 100 and who gave the old traditional Persian ceremonies a new Platonic interpretation that enabled Mithraism to become acceptable to the Roman world." Having the encyclopaedia Britannic in DVD is handy as it means I can check out all these pagan gods without using bunkum atheist websites (or even christian apologetic ones)

Moving on, Martin Luther was not an early church father so that is irrelevant. Nor do I have to agree with everything Martin Luther said so this is no more than a red herring.

Finally, I meant contemporary scholars and I apologise for not making that clearer. Can you not accept that you are going against most scholarship on this and that a lot of claims about what this or that pagan god did is often unsubstantiated and misleading.

DromedaryHump said...

Bob..thanks for developing a name.

Listen..Bob... you have taken the tact now of either intellectual dishonesty, or you are feigning stupidity (by "feigning" i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt).

You can try and say...well Horus,tammuz, Dionysus, Krishna, Zarathustra, et al werent jewish, and their god father had a human like form,and it wasn't YAWEH so their is no similarity.

But the fact is, they were all birn of vigins and were man-gods. Some had God fathers who impregnated humans (ie. Zeus was Dionysus's father).

Thus, you're insistance on ignoring the basic and fundamental THEME that runhs througn mythical pagan gods and christian dogma, instead offering looop holes and needing exactitude, does more to discredit you, and to underscore your need to deny and lie, than it does to discredit me or the facts of religion sharing/ co-opting.

If you can't argue in good faith, go back to your little web site and preach to the sheep.

My quest for knowledge, and my education, is unhammpered by having to protect and defend any particular view point.
That you readily dismiss the similarities , and have to find degrees of seperation between your myth and pre-jesus myths without allowing yourself to admit to the basic and obvious similarities that are common threads to so many ancient religions, is symptomatic of your need to defend your religious beliefs.

"Plucking out the eye of reason" as Matin Luther demanded of Xtians, doesnt make reason go away. It just makes you look like foolish.

Finally, that you dont consider scholars from the 50's, 60's and 70's as "contemprary", must mean youre under 20 years old. They are contemporary to me...LOL. That you dont like that they provide an alternate perspective to your preferred take, inspite of the fact that two of the scholars I gave you are Christians themsleves (as is Price, or was, is your option. Afterall, opinions are like assholes, everybody has at least one... even scholars.

DromedaryHump said...

PS: Bob said:
"there is nothing identical to the Christian concept of trinity regardless of what you have read on the Internet."

See... this is your problem.
If you read about the three personages in one god (shiva, Vishnu, Brahama)in a book,or on the internet, or ask your neighborhood hindu, and understand it preceded Xtianity, it doesnt HAVE TO BE EXACTLY LIKE the xtian trinity for the Hindu concept of three personages in one god to have been the genesis for the Xtian trinity.

That a Mercedes doesnt look or act exactly like the original Model T ford doesn't mean that a current day Mercedes doesnt owe its very existence to the original CONCEIVERS, inventors of the automobile. Mercedes coopted a basic design, technology concept,and made it modern, better, unique.

Is this clear? even a xtian should be able to understand that pure logic and reality.

Or maybe they can't.

DromedaryHump said...

Bob said:
" Martin Luther was not an early church father so that is irrelevant. Nor do I have to agree with everything Martin Luther said so this is no more than a red herring. "


Hmmm...so first it was that I was taking those quotes out of context. Then when I ask you to put Luthers quote in a context that doesnt suborn lying for god, you dissassociate yourself from Luther and call it "a red herring"?

LOl.. can you be anymore transparent? What happened to Context?? :)

DromedaryHump said...

PPPS: Hey Bob...go to bed!! Its very late in Great Britain, and clearly your not thinking rationally.
This presupposes you think more rationally well rested... I have my doubts.
:D

bob said...

So far your argument can be summed up as 'it says on the Internet that most pagan gods were like Jesus so it must be true.' I have asked you to prove that people believed Mithras rose from the dead etc prior to the New Testament being written (our evidence for what the first Christians believed) You have not done this. Instead you resort to ad hom attacks and repeating the claim that group x believed y in the first century as if that somehow makes it true.

Archaeology is a rapidly growing area and as we discover more and more about pagan mythology we start to realise that it sounds less and less like Christianity. Hence the number of scholars who support the theory is steadily decreasing to zero.

Martin Luther has nothing to do with this. I said that you were quoting Justin Martyer out of context (i.e he wasn't explaining away parallels but trying to create them in order to give him a way in to evangelise to pagans) Instead of refuting my argument you change the subject to Martin Luther. You ask what happened to context...indeed I read your posts and ask that very question.

As you're a sceptic I would have thought the question 'where's your evidence?' would go down well. It appears not. If I made a claim about first century Christian you'd want evidence to back it up yet you feel you can make claims about first century Mithraism without a shred of evidence behind you. I will give you one last chance to answer the question: 'how do we know people in the first century believed Mithras rose from the dead?

DromedaryHump said...

Bob,

First: I am NOT a "skeptic".
I am a total non-believer in supernatural, god/gods, tooth fairys, Vampires, et al. I doubt you're "skeptical" about the existence of Zeus or Mithras. I will safely assume you dismiss them as nonsensical myths, just as I do, and just as I dismiss your belief in Jebus.

Secondly, my knowledge of the pagan myths and their similarities to the xtian myth is not drawn only from the internet. If you look at a recent posting to that Unitarian Minister you'd see I was a religion minor in college. At least 9 credits were in comparative religion, origins of Christianity and pagan mythology. (Admittedly, this was in the day where the professors wore animal skins, and I took notes on clay tablets in cuniform writing.) So while your source of information may be drawn only from xtian apologetics sites on the internet, please don't project the same limitations and myopic perspective on me. Thank you.

As for my evidence of pre-xtian mithras virgin birth, death, ressurection belief... I provided you with three ( 3 ) resources. Since your focus is stricktly on Mithras,and you wish to disregard all of the other pre-jesus man-gods who share similar life cycles and origins to Jesus, feel free to start with those three books.

That you ignore those other pre-xtian gods with jesus similarities, and have done so repeatedly, infers your entire repetoire of apologetics hinges on discrediting Mithras as a pre-xtian theme model. I suppose trying to specialize in one myth is easier, and helps to insulate you from the overwhelming evidence of the ancient themes that the jesus myth shares. That's fine. What ever preserves your faith.

Martin Luther has everything to do with this. He was a critical personage in the Reformation. The sect he started is followed by millions. The fact he endorsed lying to spread the word was the point of that post. The Church Fathers I cited from the 4th and 5th centuries did likelwise. You claimed "context" not in refernce to Justin Martyr...you claimed it on the quotes I provided from those four people in my "Christians lie" post.

HERE'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU WROTE:
"So what about the church fathers? You are taking them out of context."

So what youre doing now re clainming you were addressing J. Martyr context is a bald face lie.
Which of course, endorses and prooves my original premise. Christians are inherintly deceptive. YOU SIR ARE A LIAR BY YOUR OWN WORDS.

So.. I gave you the requested sources and I clearified my position on a couple of things and youve rejected them, or refused to acknowledge them. Thus, I'm not sure what more is to be gained by this exchange, which has become repetative.

I certainly hold no interest in "deconverting" you, and retain litle hope of getting you to become intellectually honest.

bob said...

A) those aren't primary sources which is what I'm asking for
B) Franz Cumont died in 1947 and so the book can't have been written in 1956 like you claim. I suspect you are using scholarship nearly 100 years old, done when modern archaeology was in its infancy. Also if you can't even correctly identify when the book was written I can't see much hope in you getting other stuff correct too.
C)Larson had his doctorate in English Literature and was writing outside his area of expertise
D) I can't even find the other books still in print, nor the credentials of their authors, so it is very difficult for me to read them
E)So how much of this did you get from your college days and how much did you 'discover' on the Internet later?
F) Martin Luther lived in the 16th century and therefore has no relevance to first century mithraism. Moreover, this means he was not an early church father.
G)Do you agree with everything said by famous atheists?
H) It is not just Mithraism, I have looked at a vast range of pagan gods and found them to be nothing like Jesus.


I agree, it is pointless having this discussion when you are clearly parroting what you've been told and therefore cannot defend yourself when challenged.

DromedaryHump said...

For those who have interest in pre-xtian / Xtian hellenic pagan god themes, this article may be of interest. Its not very long, although the web link is.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:9jdj4xOMUnsJ:www.lagrange.edu/resources/pdf/citations/2007/religion/religion%2520-%2520Kacey%2520Smith.pdf+DR+Morse,+Mithraism+and+Christianity:+How+Are+They+Related,&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

Whats important is that mithras , christianity, and the large number of pagan gods that arose from the Hellenic tradition (Hellenistic mystery religions) shared common themes. Thus, to focus ONLY on one god parallell and trying to contrast or discredit ONLY that myths similarities to the exclusion of all other pagan man-god myths, is to blind oneself to the larger question of "what themes did ALL these religions share that was dictated by the religious trends of the age?".

Thats why looking beyond only one myth is important.

DromedaryHump said...

a) there are no "primary sources" for mithraism...it was an oral tradition. see the link i just provided above for where info re mithraism is derived.

b) i didnt say he wrote it in 1956, the book sited was Published in '56. read it again. asshat.

c) ah...so its lets dismiss everyone as unworthy withwohm you disagree? Your doctorate is in What? Are you writing within your area of expertise? LOL. please.\

d) the martin luther discussion is unrelated to mithras. Just as was as the names of the church fathers and theologians i listed who endorsed lying. We were discussing the "christians lie" comment you made under the wrong post. That you are even confused about this speaks volumes.
HERE'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU WROTE:
"So what about the church fathers? You are taking them out of context."

The only refernce I made to "church fathers" was under the "christians lie" post.
Show me otherwise, and I'll stand corrected.



e) if youve looked at "VAST numbers of pagan gods" and see NO correlations to the jesus theme...then youre even more a liar or more in in denial than I first thought. Martin Luther would be very proud of you.

Further posts on this topic from you will only serve to make your credibility null and void.

DromedaryHump said...

Oh, sorry.
Bob asked:
"So how much of this did you get from your college days and how much did you 'discover' on the Internet later?"

Lets see. 37.94% college
20.77% internet
41.29% from various independent readings; discussions with clergy and similarly interested people with a penchant for nondistorted historical analysis; and divine revelation.

OK, moving on.

bob said...

Unfortunately I can't get the web link you've given to work and so I'll look at what else you've written instead.

If we have no primary sources for Mithraism (and as far as I can see most other pagan gods) how on earth do we know what the common themes were around in Jesus' time? Moreover you can end up with such a vague list (e.g they were worshipped, they died) that it could be applied to anything. You seem to think you can claim pagan myths involved virgin births etc when there is no evidence for this and then claim virgin births etc were common themes. We also need to be careful with our language. If you mean Mithras was born from a rock (which Justin Martyr claims and is how it is depicted in Mithraic temples) and most religions have a birth story then don't use the phrase virgin birth as it is misleading. You might as well say 'I'm sure most pagan gods were called Jesus even though I have no primary source evidence for this. Oh-being called Jesus was a common theme!'

Secondly if you're going to appeal to authority (rather than give any arguments yourself) make sure they are an authority. It says a lot that you are so stuck for credible sources that all the books you cite are out of print, at least one written by someone no more qualified to write on the subject than you or I and one is about a hundred years old. Are you saying that in the last one hundred years this is the best which has been written on the subject? You really are scraping the barrel to find stuff which supports your 'facts' Don't you think that if this was as devastating to Christianity as you seem to think there would be a better selection that that?

Finally if you reread this discussion you'll see that you tried misquoting Justin Martyr (an early church father) to back up your theory and so I assumed that it was obvious I wasn't referring to a completely different and unconnected blog entry of yours. Do you also need me to clarify that when I talk about sources I mean the ones you are using in this particular discussion or that this post should not be taken as a refutation of something you wrote two months ago?

To be blunt, I have shown that your blog entry makes claims about Mithraism which aren't true. I have backed this up by quoting you everything from current scholars who are up to date on the subject to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. You have simply referred me to a few out of print books and refused to share how these book demolish anything I've said. We are all entitled to our own opinion but not to our own facts.

I beg you to consider the possibility that atheists can sometimes get their facts wrong and that Hellenistic mystery religions only have a passing resemblance to Christianity.

DromedaryHump said...

Bob,
Look. your reverence and worship of the Ency. Britanica as the last word of biblical and mythological materials not withstanding, there is a vast variance of opinon out side of that volume. Amazing, huh? There are alot of authoritive sources.

That you reject non-christian scholars and accept christian scholars as having the only valid opinion, is a function of your belief system and upbringing. Here... I'll play the game.. I reject all Xtian sources as tainted and self serving. There, now we have an equal footing.

that you dont even realize that you posted a comment about "christian lies" under the blog post entitled: "letter to a Unitarian minister", and that you referenced Church Fathers,(note the PLURAL) and not just justin Martyr is more proof of your deception and denial that the "contextual" accusation was related to the Christians Lie blog, and the quotes I provided, not justin marytr. But we arent going to get you to admit anything like your error and your reverasal. You reject the evidence that you yourself provided.

You accuse me of being selective in what I accept as fact. I suggest youre doing the same.

You say my acceptence of theory that was posited 80-100 years ago is old and outdated, and invalid, as per "christian" sources. I say your acceptence of unsupportable miracles, and myth that is Thousands of years old written by prescientific cultists is much more outdated and and far more farfetched and invalid. Funny how you rejct 100 yrs as outdated and wrong, but accept 2 & 3,000 yr old uncorroborated babble as valid and real.

Finally, as a 21st century realist I will always allow room for error and interpretive mistakes by "authorities", because it is the nature of man to err and for scientists to reexamine, and revise as new evidence presents. BUT YOU on the otherhand leave no room for errancy, no room for possible fabrication in this total acceptence of myth and fable that you have accepted as the foundation of your life and beliefs.

Thus, while anything that challenges evidence and theories i accept as fact is simply a difference of opinion to me, To YOU, aything that challenges your "beliefs" is a personal affront. Damn creepy.

Finally, your dogmatic, unswerving, unquestioning and adamant devotion to a book of fable as "uniquely true" among all other man-god stories, is no more valid nor unique than those gods and prophets whos stories are found in the Gita which predates it, or the Quran that followed it, or the stone carvings and cuniform writings depicting 100s of other man-gods that evolved from the minds of men. But, this is all lost on you no doubt... or an inconvenient truth youd prefer not acknowledge

Anyway.. nothing more to be accomplished on this. Move on, or get out.

bob said...

I apologise if I left a comment about Martin Luther in the wrong place and admit that I make mistakes just like anyone else. However when I wrote about early church fathers here I never intended you to think I was talking about Martin Luther, as he hadn't been mentioned in this thread, and apologise if you didn't realise I was discussing the church fathers who described paganism as the work of the devil. I can assure you that your comment on Justin Martyre was what I had in mind when I wrote it.

The point is that the people like Cumont who originally came up with the theory have been proven wrong as scholars have found that their guesses about the mystery cults were inaccurate in many places. Whilst people such as Cumont can be excused we can't as we live in the twenty first century with access to considerably more information on the subject.

To suggest that Christianity can't be true simply because Jesus lived 2000 years ago is like saying that the Romans didn't exist simply because they were around 2000 years ago! We have to look at the historical evidence for Jesus in the same way that we would for any other historical claim.

I think you are right that there is no point in continuing this any further. I wish you luck in researching the history of Christianity and the historical Jesus further and encourage you to treat your own sources with the same scepticism that you treat the ones I use.

God Bless

DromedaryHump said...

Taking your premise that denying the myths of christianity because it was 2000 yrs ago, is akin to denying romans existed is a strawman.

That romans existed has irrefutable proof. corroborative writings, detail doocuments, buildings, roads, an emense body of works by men who were literate from a people who prided themselves on detailed accounting of virtually everything within the empire that happened.

the only source for the christian myths is the bible, of which only one writer alledged to have personalloy met Jebus and claimed to be an eyewitness, the rest spoke to a dead man's apparition (uh huh), or knew those who were there. None of the jesus accounts are first person by jesus. There is no other genunine documents that corroborate the miracles, myths, et al that are the foundation of Christian belief. The bible is the sole source of the mystical aspect of jebus... indeed even a historical Jesus cannot be corroborated.

So, To put your argument into "context" ... to deny that Zeus isnt real, wasnt the supreme god over all other gods, that he didn't sire Perseus and Heracles and live on Mt Olympus, is to deny that the ancient Greeks existed.

Its a silly argument you proffered that I think you'd retract if you thought it through more carefully.

anyway... Ok, Bob...good ending to the discussion.


Oh Jesus H Crust!! another post from you just hit my inbox

Yeah.. someone who claims to be healed of AIDS when we all know they werent, if they arent lying, then they are victims of the self delusion that is christianity. Thats why i referenced hyper-religiosity as a possible excuse, vs lying.
But i assure you , one of the two xtians who claims to be cured of aids is as sane as you. Or..uh.. wait. As sane as a Thinking person.

as for this:
"Jesus did not say that all prayers will be answered but only those in accordance with the will of God. "

How very convenient. I guess world peace, curing children of AIDS and ebola(which He created), and allowing all amputees' prayers for regeneration to be denied or go unsanswered is because those things are ALL "against gods' will"!!?? Very, very convenient indeed. Very critical thinking there.

And yet, my edition of the KJB and NAB doesnt have that exclusioary loop hole. I'll stick with Math 21:21-22; Math 7:7-8; Math 18:19-20; Mark 11:24-25; John 14:13-14; John 15:7; john 16:23-24. et al.

Hey, Great Idea!!!... do this:

Worship me as God for a Day and I will grant you any prayer you want, as long as it's in accordance with MY WILL.
I promise!! On my honor as a Man-God par excellance, no loop holes, you have my word. Anything... just ask me for it... even if you want that mtn cast into the sea..just ask..go on..
:D

If you feel compelled to discuss this further, scroll to my prayer blogging down below, and post it there.
Otherwise...