PDA

View Full Version : Coincidence? This could be awkward for Christians



Large_Emu
11-13-2009, 12:21 PM
I sure love Steven Fry.


MSm7YPMQOSo

Queequeg
11-13-2009, 12:26 PM
Except it is not clear what tradtions are from what faith, it would be unfair to conclude that Christainity plagerised Mithras.

imaxman
11-13-2009, 12:28 PM
But teh jeezus story is the right one!

Large_Emu
11-13-2009, 12:29 PM
Except it is not clear what tradtions are from what faith, it would be unfair to conclude that Christainity plagerised Mithras.

The Romans came before Christianity, that's a fact.

pikeamus
11-13-2009, 12:40 PM
inb4 ripper details all the differences between jesus and mithras.

At least, I think it's usually ripper that does this. I forget, trolls tend to blend into one another.

Queequeg
11-13-2009, 12:45 PM
The Romans came before Christianity, that's a fact.

Read the Mithras Christainity comparison on wiki


Mithraism and Christianity
The idea of a relationship between early Christianity and Mithraism is based on a passing remark in the 2nd century Christian writer Justin Martyr, who accused the Mithraists of diabolically imitating the Christian communion rite.[81] Based upon this, Ernest Renan in 1882 set forth a vivid depiction of two rival religions: "if the growth of Christianity had been arrested by some mortal malady, the world would have been Mithraic,"[82] Edwin M. Yamauchi comments on Renan's work which, "published nearly 150 years ago, has no value as a source. He [Renan] knew very little about Mithraism..."[83]

The philosopher Celsus in the second century provides some evidence that Ophite gnostic ideas were influencing the mysteries of Mithras.[84]

[edit] Mithras and the Virgin Birth
Joseph Campbell, who was not a Mithras scholar, described the birth of Mithras as a virgin birth, like that of Jesus.[85] He gives no ancient source for his claim.

Mithras was not thought of as virgin born in any ancient source. Rather, he arose spontaneously from a rock in a cave.[86] In Mithraic Studies it is stated that Mithras was born as an adult from solid rock, "wearing his Phrygian cap, issues forth from the rocky mass. As yet only his bare torso is visible. In each hand he raises aloft a lighted torch and, as an unusual detail, red flames shoot out all around him from the petra genetrix."[87]

David Ulansey speculates that this was a belief derived from the Perseus' myths which held he was born from an underground cavern.[88]

[edit] Mithras and 25 December
It is often stated that it was believed that Mithras was born on December 25. Beck calls this assertion "that hoariest of 'facts'". He continues: "In truth, the only evidence for it is the celebration of the birthday of "Invictus" on that date in Calendar of Philocalus. 'Invictus' is of course Sol Invictus, Aurelian's sun god. It does not follow that a different, earlier, and unofficial sun god, Sol Invictus Mithras, was necessarily or even probably, born on that day too."[89]

Clauss states that there were no public ceremonies of the mysteries of Mithras: "the Mithraic Mysteries had no public ceremonies of its own. The festival of natalis Invicti [Birth of the Unconquerable (Sun)], held on 25 December, was a general festival of the Sun, and by no means specific to the Mysteries of Mithras."[90]

Steven Hijmans has discussed in detail the question of whether the general "natalis Invicti" festival was related to Christmas but does not give Mithras as a possible source.[91]

[edit] Mithras and Salvation
A painted text on the wall of the St. Prisca Mithraeum in Rome contains the words: et nos servasti . . . sanguine fuso (and you have saved us ... in the shed blood). The meaning of this is unclear, although presumably refers to the bull killed by Mithras, as no other source refers to a Mithraic salvation. According to Robert Turcan,[92] Mithraic salvation had little to do with the other-worldly destiny of individual souls, but was on the Zoroastrian pattern of man's participation in the cosmic struggle of the good creation against the forces of evil [93]

[edit] Mithras and the Taurobolium
No ancient source associates Mithras with the Taurobolium. The only monument to do so, CIL VI, 736, is a forgery.[94]

[edit] Mithras and the Sign of the Cross
Tertullian states that followers of Mithras were marked on their forehead in an unspecified manner.[95] There is no indication that this is a cross, or a branding, or a tattoo, or a permanent mark of any kind.[96]

[edit] Mithraic art-motifs in medieval Christian art?
From the end of the 18th century some authors have suggested that some elements in medieval Christian art reflect images found in Mithraic reliefs.[97] Franz Cumont was among these, although he studied each motif in isolation rather than the combination of several elements and whether they were combined in Christian art in the same way.[98] Cumont said that after the triumph of the church over paganism, artists continued to make use of stock images originally devised for Mithras in order to depict the new and unfamiliar stories of the bible. The "stranglehold of the workshop" meant that the first Christian artworks were heavily based on pagan art, and "a few alterations in costume and attitude transformed a pagan scene into a Christian picture".[99]

A series of scholars have since discussed possible similarities with Mithraic reliefs in medieval Romanesque art.[100] Vermaseren stated that the only certain example of such influence was an image of Elijah drawn up to heaven in a chariot drawn by fiery horses.[101] Deman stated that to compare isolated elements was not useful, and that combinations should be studied. He also pointed out that a similarity of image does not tell us whether this implies an ideological influence, or merely a tradition of craftmanship. He then gave a list of medieval reliefs that parallel Mithraic images, but refused to draw conclusions from this, as these would be subjective.[102]

As you can see less than conviencing

Also Stephen Fry is quite the militan atheist

Large_Emu
11-13-2009, 12:52 PM
Read the Mithras Christainity comparison on wiki



As you can see less than conviencing

Also Stephen Fry is quite the militan atheist


1) Wikipedia is the lest reliable source on the internet.
2) QI is a show about facts and does its research very well
3) Steven Fry is an extremely intelligent person and prides himself on being right.

Queequeg
11-13-2009, 01:06 PM
1) Wikipedia is the lest reliable source on the internet.
2) QI is a show about facts and does its research very well
3) Steven Fry is an extremely intelligent person and prides himself on being right.

Wikipedia's accuracy is debatable, however if a page has a large discussion thread (in this instance it is extensive)it is usually suggestive that it has been heavily reviewed and represents a less bias opinion than just a single persons such a Stephen Fry's regardless of how intelligent or proud.

I'm as about atheism as you come (in fact even if God did exist it would be a non issue for me) but IMO this argument is about as intellectually credible as the creationist "if we come from monkeys why do we still see monkeys?" statement

I not suggesting that Mithra's and Christianity do not have a trading relationship so to speak, just that it is highly unlikely given the credibility of sources and factual accuracy of supposed Mithra's traditions that Christianity is a Roman engineered plagiarism.

Rational skepticism swing both ways

Large_Emu
11-13-2009, 01:16 PM
Wikipedia's accuracy is debatable, however if a page has a large discussion thread (in this instance it is extensive)it is usually suggestive that it has been heavily reviewed and represents a less bias opinion than just a single persons such a Stephen Fry's regardless of how intelligent or proud.

I'm as about atheism as you come (in fact even if God did exist it would be a non issue for me) but IMO this argument is about as intellectually credible as the creationist "if we come from monkeys why do we still see monkeys?" statement

I not suggesting that Mithra's and Christianity do not have a trading relationship so to speak, just that it is highly unlikely given the credibility of sources and factual accuracy of supposed Mithra's traditions that Christianity is a Roman engineered plagiarism.

Rational skepticism swing both ways

http://www.christianity-revealed.com/cr/files/mithraschristianity.html
http://www.comereason.org/cmp_rlgn/cmp070.asp
http://www.venusproject.com/ecs/true_origins_christianity.html
http://www.tyndalearchive.com/Scriptures/www.innvista.com/scriptures/compare/mithra.htm

Mithraism is 4000 years old.

Queequeg
11-13-2009, 01:19 PM
http://www.christianity-revealed.com/cr/files/mithraschristianity.html
http://www.comereason.org/cmp_rlgn/cmp070.asp
http://www.venusproject.com/ecs/true_origins_christianity.html
http://www.tyndalearchive.com/Scriptures/www.innvista.com/scriptures/compare/mithra.htm

Mithraism is 4000 years old.

Thanks for the links, I will read later and let you know what I think. Currently I am sceptical as you know. If I need to change this I will

Loochi
11-13-2009, 01:29 PM
Interesting.

Queequeg
11-13-2009, 01:46 PM
http://www.christianity-revealed.com/cr/files/mithraschristianity.html


Skim read this, although the web address is a complete give away that is a utterly bias. My initial preconceptions where quickly proven true when its compares 10 other deities to the story of Jesus. These are not the genuine accounts of there representative traditions and I would go so far as to say blatant lies. For example

Krishna was the youngest of 8 children and his mother Devaki could obviously not be a virgin as this web page claims

Also Hercules mother carried twins one form her mortal husband and one from Zeus, again see could not be a virgin.

Again Osiris was not crucified but was murdered by Set who drowned him and then cut his body into 14 parts

Honestly are the remaining websites are gonna be propaganda? If so I'm not gonna bother.

Queequeg
11-13-2009, 01:51 PM
http://www.comereason.org/cmp_rlgn/cmp070.asp


This link actually concludes that Mitraic belief was influenced by Christainity



CONCLUSION

Given all the evidence, the claims that Christianity somehow borrowed from Mithraic beliefs is shown to be unsupported by fact. Many scholars now believe that it is Christianity's increasing popularity that caused a late form of Mithraism to change in order to sound more mainstream. However, at its core, Mithraism remains a pagan form of worship based on a superstitious and primitive worldview.

I hope this discussion has helped clarify how some of these "mystery faiths" aren't really as damaging to Christianity as they appear. If I've left anything fuzzy, please feel free to write. Also, for more on this topic, see my article entitled "Is the Bible Plagiarized From Other Religions?"

ONtop888
11-13-2009, 02:51 PM
The Romans came before Christianity, that's a fact.

No, Quee is correct. The Mithras rites that are similar to Christianity are only documented in the late 2nd century when Christianity started to rapidly spread throughout the Roman Empire. Furthermore, the significance of baptism and the Eucharist are descended from Hebrew concepts, not pagan. Example: Jesus being the Passover Lamb connected with the Eucharist.

And, from my knowledge the only documentation of Roman mithra rites during that time is from Christian sources, correct me if I am wrong on that.

ONtop888
11-13-2009, 02:54 PM
Quee, ahh my brother, what a great Christian apologist you would make :D. OT, are you a philosopher? Whenever you get into philosophy (not that you have in this thread, but that is why I said 'OT' :) ), you have a plethora of knowledge.

...Rousseau...
11-13-2009, 02:59 PM
this again.

trailwarrior
11-13-2009, 05:49 PM
Strong Fail!


Refutation of Mythra similarities...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr2jRxLdJ2A&#t=09m00s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJPPXujssLY


Christian Refutations of Zeitgeist:

- A Refutation of the Zeitgeist (http://explanationblog.wordpress.com/the-myth-of-jesus-a-refutation-of-the-zeitgeist/)
- Take the Zeitgeist Challenge (http://zeitgeistchallenge.com/)
- "Zeitgeist" Online Movie: Part One Refuted (http://www.preventingtruthdecay.org/zeitgeistpartone.shtml)
- The Debunking of Zeitgeist Mythology (http://www.zeitgeistresponse.info/)
- Zeitgeist: Analysis and Responce (http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=124&Itemid=107)


Non-Christian Refutations of Zeitgeist:

- Zeitgeist, the Movie Debunked - Part 1 (http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one)
- Zeitgeist Part I (http://ct.grenme.com/index.php/Zeitgeist_Part_I)


A Few Videos Debunking Zeitgeist:

- Zeitgeist Refuted (1of10) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej_coXEnKEI&feature=related)
- Zeitgeist Exposed (1of8) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuyIxKrw2Yk&feature=related)
- Zeitgeist - The Response (1of3) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juKFSlQWojs&feature=related)
- Zeitgeist - A Scholarly Response to the Movie (1of6) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfsIEwI3LNA&feature=related)
- Zeitgeist The Movie Debunked (1of3) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5yIwjStqR8&feature=related)
- Zeitgeist's Claims Debunked (1of2) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDab5MOLjpM&feature=related)
- Zeitgeist's Pre-Messiah Claims Debunked (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDOJJ2QAEGY&feature=fvw)
- Zeitgeist - The Lies Are Exposed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSPragH1gQI&feature=related)
- Refuting Zeitgeist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EAjsKXELrM&feature=fvw)


Large_Emu will take the Zeitgeist Challenge and let us know how well he does...

wRaxf4ZC0e8

Queequeg
11-14-2009, 04:21 AM
Quee, ahh my brother, what a great Christian apologist you would make :D.

I wouldn't get your hopes up :).

I do try and remain as objective as possible, my goal is to educate myself not reaffirm by beliefs by reading lies and properganda.Just as there are thiest how use sophistry to convience others of their view point their is a growing number of athiests sources on the internet that do to. IMO if you can convience someone through honesty then who are you really lying too?


OT, are you a philosopher? Whenever you get into philosophy (not that you have in this thread, but that is why I said 'OT' :) ), you have a plethora of knowledge.

I don't have any formal eduction in Philosophy (not that it hasn't crossed my mind to persue it) and I'm not as well read as I would to be (although you can always be more well read). However In the last year or so I seemed to have developed some insatiable first for knowledge and find I can't read though books or watch enough documentries.

Still that being said there are posters on here that have a far more extensive knowledge of philosophy than myself like Boffman, TranceNRG and Elhombre.

Blindead
05-05-2010, 09:42 AM
http://www.christianity-revealed.com/cr/files/mithraschristianity.html
http://www.comereason.org/cmp_rlgn/cmp070.asp
http://www.venusproject.com/ecs/true_origins_christianity.html
http://www.tyndalearchive.com/Scriptures/www.innvista.com/scriptures/compare/mithra.htm

Mithraism is 4000 years old.

No it's not. You have no idea what you're talking about.

neekz0r
05-05-2010, 10:13 AM
1) Wikipedia is the lest reliable source on the internet.
2) QI is a show about facts and does its research very well
3) Steven Fry is an extremely intelligent person and prides himself on being right.

1) I disagree. It is the most reliable source because you can tell who is editing it AND the sources it gets from. It's a great jumping point. And really? "least reliable source"?

2) Don't know anything about it. But it's a show, and ratings are more important then facts to most shows.

3) If he's smart, he wouldn't pride himself on being right. He'd pride himself on giving everything a credible view point before dismissing or supporting it.

TheAdlerian
05-05-2010, 10:13 AM
http://www.christianity-revealed.com/cr/files/mithraschristianity.html
http://www.comereason.org/cmp_rlgn/cmp070.asp
http://www.venusproject.com/ecs/true_origins_christianity.html
http://www.tyndalearchive.com/Scriptures/www.innvista.com/scriptures/compare/mithra.htm

Mithraism is 4000 years old.

There's a theory that the Romans invented christianity as a tactic against the jews and because it encapsulates religious power. If you google "did the romans invent christianity" you can find expanded info about it.

That lends some fuel to the Mithras/Jesus connection.

However, the Romans would not have had to borrow from themselves because judaism provides several lies which can be used for its own defeat and those are the ideas of a prophet and a messiah. All you have to do is create a cult involving what they describe and then you have a way to degrade judaism as being behind the times. Jewish leaders can't say "that's not the messiah/prophet, because we were lying!" as that would discredit them. So, they have to eat it as they watch their power decline in favor of the cults.

But, if the Romans wanted to use christianity as a political tool then they'd have to include things Romans already recognized. That's why roman catholics have saints, they're like the gods, in that they have different powers and control over aspects of life. Holy water is also from the old gods. So, we know that catholism is part Roman religion and part mideastern religion which supports your idea.

danow
05-05-2010, 10:24 AM
http://i957.photobucket.com/albums/ae55/danow_photo/large_tomlincry.jpg

Kumquatv1
05-05-2010, 10:57 AM
Mithrasism was placed in the world by Satan to test the faith of Christians.

/thread