Mithra "destruction"

zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Mithra "destruction"

http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Mithra-Christianity-Zoroastrianism.html

 

Got this from a christian. I don't know what to say about it. 


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
This is just a case of a

This is just a case of a xian asserting that xianity isn't based on mythology.

The xians always have odd answers when questioned about the striking similarities to the stories of previous gods. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Seems they are saying that

Seems they are saying that they didnt borrow because it was to late in history  that the ideas would have already been around by then. Then they say that we don't know any of the teachings. What basis does this have with historians? Do we know any of this with any kind of certianty?


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I didn't quite get that

I didn't quite get that idea - that it was "too late in history."

The documentary The God Who Wasn't There gives a good explanation of the myths that pre-dated Jesus and the theists' explanations.  It's in conjunction with the interview with Dr. Alan Dundes.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
From what i got from it, it

From what i got from it, it was saying that mithra was more taking from teh christians then the other way around. Then it went on to say that we really don't know the story of mithra and that like we are "filling" it in with the jesus story. At least from waht i read.


Aquinas
Theist
Posts: 11
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Mithraism?

Things aren't always as they appear.  While it is true that Mithraism predated Christianity, it predated Christianity in Persia.  Christianity began in Judea, and Mithraism did not come into the Christian arena until after the Second century.   By then, the Gospels had already been written as well as many of Paul's writings.  Furthermore, the type of Mithraism in Rome at the time, while similar to Christianity was vastly different from the Persian Mithraism that ACTUALLY pre-dated Christianity.  Considering now that Abrahamic religions, as opposed to many others at the time had a very low tolerance of heresy, and was indisputably opposed to syncretism, it is far more likely that Mithraism was influenced by Christianity rather than vice-versa. 

Of course that's only if we play this little word game, my own study of these mythologies, and other sources I have seen seem to show that the type of wording used to justify these pseudo-similarities is dishonest and misleading. For instance, a mythist will normally tell say that Mithra was born of a virgin, and in a cave.  While it is true Mithra had no earthly father, the claim is dishonest because according to the myth, Mithra was born  out of rock, and left a cave behind.  Furthermore Mithra was born as a full adult.  Talk about a play on words.

Sources and suggested further reading:

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

http://www.summit.org/resource/essay/show_printable_essay.php?essay_id=29

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

 

 

 


Aquinas
Theist
Posts: 11
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The xians always

Quote:
The xians always have odd answers when questioned about the striking similarities to the stories of previous gods.

 

The vast majority of historians accept the existence of Jesus as a historical fact, I doubt anyone is feelign threatened.  If, however it can be demonstrated that such similarities exist, in previous myths to the historical account of Jesus Christ, I would follow my understanding that Jesus is a Jungian archetype, in order to prove Jesus is a myth and the Gospels are false, one would actually have to somehow discredit all the historical evidence, not merely demonstrate similarities. 

 

(does that qualify as weird enough to make your list?) 


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Aquinas,  Have you read

Aquinas,

 Have you read Rook and Todangst's posts about the historicity of Jesus? If you have some contemporary historical evidence for Jesus, they'd love to hear about it.

-Triften 


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Aquinas et al.,  So did

Aquinas et al.,

 So did figures such as Buddha outright reject Yahweh, his people & teachings and start their own religion?

Come on, let's be reasonable. Your argument fails in the greater worldview. 

 

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Aquinas wrote: The vast

Aquinas wrote:

The vast majority of historians accept the existence of Jesus as a historical fact

 

????

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. 

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Aquinas wrote: Things

Aquinas wrote:
Things aren't always as they appear. While it is true that Mithraism predated Christianity, it predated Christianity in Persia. Christianity began in Judea, and Mithraism did not come into the Christian arena until after the Second century. By then, the Gospels had already been written as well as many of Paul's writings.

 There were many trade routes between those two areas. Merchants regularly earned extra money by telling stories from their lands, and when they returned, they told stories of the land that they were in before. Therefore, Persian merchants travelling to Judea would have spread these stories to the Jews.

Aquinas wrote:
Furthermore, the type of Mithraism in Rome at the time, while similar to Christianity was vastly different from the Persian Mithraism that ACTUALLY pre-dated Christianity. Considering now that Abrahamic religions, as opposed to many others at the time had a very low tolerance of heresy, and was indisputably opposed to syncretism, it is far more likely that Mithraism was influenced by Christianity rather than vice-versa.
Maybe the Roman one, but I highly doubt it.

Aquinas wrote:
Of course that's only if we play this little word game, my own study of these mythologies, and other sources I have seen seem to show that the type of wording used to justify these pseudo-similarities is dishonest and misleading. For instance, a mythist will normally tell say that Mithra was born of a virgin, and in a cave. While it is true Mithra had no earthly father, the claim is dishonest because according to the myth, Mithra was born out of rock, and left a cave behind. Furthermore Mithra was born as a full adult. Talk about a play on words.
If we ignore differences and only take similarities, sure, it sounds dishonest. However, if they directly ripped off the ENTIRE story, it would have been an obvious rip off. Therefore, is it not logical they'd only take some of it? 

Regardless, you do know, as a good christian, that God is in fact a rock? Psalm 18:2.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1263
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
Aquinas wrote: Things

Aquinas wrote:
Things aren't always as they appear.

You don't say.

Aquinas wrote:
Considering now that Abrahamic religions, as opposed to many others at the time had a very low tolerance of heresy, and was indisputably opposed to syncretism, it is far more likely that Mithraism was influenced by Christianity rather than vice-versa.

church apologists such as justin martyr seem not to have shared that view; rather, the running explanation for apparent syncretism is that satan duplicated the story in advance to confuse us.

Aquinas wrote:
If, however it can be demonstrated that such similarities exist, in previous myths to the historical account of Jesus Christ, I would follow my understanding that Jesus is a Jungian archetype...

JUNGIAN ARCHETYPE?  So just in case your previous argument doesn't fly (it doesn't), obfuscate?  My understanding is that jesus is a Freudian slip.

 

Aquinas wrote:
in order to prove Jesus is a myth and the Gospels are false, one would actually have to somehow discredit all the historical evidence, not merely demonstrate similarities.

There is no historical evidence to discredit in the first place.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Aquinas
Theist
Posts: 11
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
triften

triften wrote:

Aquinas,

 Have you read Rook and Todangst's posts about the historicity of Jesus? If you have some contemporary historical evidence for Jesus, they'd love to hear about it.

-Triften 

Simply because Jesus did not write a book or take a photograph, does not mean he did not exist... that just silly.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Aquinas wrote: triften

Aquinas wrote:
triften wrote:

Aquinas,

Have you read Rook and Todangst's posts about the historicity of Jesus? If you have some contemporary historical evidence for Jesus, they'd love to hear about it.

-Triften

Simply because Jesus did not write a book or take a photograph, does not mean he did not exist... that just silly.

In other words...you've got nothing. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Aquinas
Theist
Posts: 11
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
My exchange

I hope it is not a problem, I responded to a number of people in my one post at the risk of people being confused. I felt it inappropriate to make post after post responding to each comment in an individual post.



Quote:
So did figures such as Buddha outright reject Yahweh, his people & teachings and start their own religion?

Come on, let's be reasonable. Your argument fails in the greater worldview.


So Buddha came up with his own ideas... that is his perogative is it not?

I fail to see why I should be challenged by this.

Quote:
All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people.

Why is that bad? In my  eyes it gives the account more credibility.


Quote:
Merchants regularly earned extra money by telling stories from their lands, and when they returned, they told stories of the land that they were in before. Therefore, Persian merchants travelling to Judea would have spread these stories to the Jews.

But I already made this point, the Persian mithraism was very different from the roman mithraism that came later... The Roman mithraism was like Christianity.

Quote:
Maybe the Roman one, but I highly doubt it.

No that's exactly it which is why it became so similar.


[quoteRegardless, you do know, as a good christian, that God is in fact a rock? Psalm 18:2.


Oh please.  That is taking the verse way out of context.  This is what is called a psalm, and David is making a metaphor for a foundation, and some place solid it has nothing to do with the body of the prophesied messiah, nor is there any reason from the context to make that connection. 


Quote:
church apologists such as justin martyr seem not to have shared that view; rather, the running explanation for apparent syncretism is that satan duplicated the story in advance to confuse us.

Justin was writing about middle of the second century it is possible in feeble grasps for credibility, these mystery cults were claiming to have been previous, either way, there is no evidence at all that this strange roman mithraism was in the Christian arena during or previous to the development of christianity, and all mithraism up to the second century is very very different from roman mithraism, so if any form of mithraism traveled from persia it would have been very unlike the Roman syncretised version.

Quote:
JUNGIAN ARCHETYPE?  So just in case your previous argument doesn't fly (it doesn't), obfuscate?  My understanding is that jesus is a Freudian slip.

That is not obfuscation.  it is speculation.  My own, although I am sure others have probably thought of the idea as well.  It would make an interesting thesis.  What's wrong with this? Am I suddenly not allowed to have independent thoughts? 

Quote:
There is no historical evidence to discredit in the first place.

The majority of historians would disagree with you... you may have to take it up with them.



 

 

 


Aquinas
Theist
Posts: 11
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Aquinas

jcgadfly wrote:
Aquinas wrote:
triften wrote:

Aquinas,

Have you read Rook and Todangst's posts about the historicity of Jesus? If you have some contemporary historical evidence for Jesus, they'd love to hear about it.

-Triften

Simply because Jesus did not write a book or take a photograph, does not mean he did not exist... that just silly.

In other words...you've got nothing. 

 

No actually I have plenty.

 

I am wondering why is my long post appear nearly blank? I am using firefox.


rm991
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-04-27
User is offlineOffline
This if from David Ulansey

This if from David Ulansey who is the premier expert in Mithraism.

 

"The cult known as the Mithraic mysteries, or Mithraism, was one of the most important--and certainly one of the most intriguing--of the religions that arose at about the same time as Chrstianity. It came into existence in the first century B.C.; Plutarch writes that the Cilician pirates were practicing Mithraic rites by 67 B.C. (The pirates, based in the province of Cilicia in Asia Manor, numbered about 20,000; at their height their operations extended over the entire Mediterranean Sea.) Mithraism reached its peak in the third century and finally succumbed to the expansion of Christianity in the late fourth century, about the time that the Western Roman Empire was falling."

 

The roman version predetaed xtianity. Sure the Persian version is not the same and it is much older but 67BC is still well before xtianity.


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Aquinas wrote: jcgadfly

Aquinas wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
Aquinas wrote:
triften wrote:

Aquinas,

Have you read Rook and Todangst's posts about the historicity of Jesus? If you have some contemporary historical evidence for Jesus, they'd love to hear about it.

-Triften

Simply because Jesus did not write a book or take a photograph, does not mean he did not exist... that just silly.

In other words...you've got nothing.

 

No actually I have plenty.

 

I am wondering why is my long post appear nearly blank? I am using firefox.

 

Did i miss a post? because i haven't seen anything yet