The Co-existence of Science and Theology

04/02/2008 12:21:54 AM · #1551

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I guess what I'm saying is that it is difficult to start stories about someone who existed only years before.

But if he didn't exist at all, it would be trivial.

So you are telling me Louis that Luke and Paul chose to write and tell completely fictionalized stories about someone who didn't even exist? Not only did they choose to do this, but they were stupid enough to decide to tell the story that he lived only a decade earlier when eyewitnesses were still alive? And then Paul was dumb enough to get beheaded for it.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

04/02/2008 12:29:21 AM · #1552

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I guess what I'm saying is that it is difficult to start stories about someone who existed only years before.

But if he didn't exist at all, it would be trivial.

So you are telling me Louis that Luke and Paul chose to write and tell completely fictionalized stories about someone who didn't even exist? Not only did they choose to do this, but they were stupid enough to decide to tell the story that he lived only a decade earlier when eyewitnesses were still alive? And then Paul was dumb enough to get beheaded for it.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Of course it would be ridiculous to one who takes the accounts at face value, and who has so much already invested in them.

04/02/2008 12:29:56 AM · #1553

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I guess what I'm saying is that it is difficult to start stories about someone who existed only years before.

Mr. Crockett would disagree.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Paul seems quite aware of these details. He is too busy however, supporting and building the church to write out all the details of which the members were likely well aware.

One would think you could get considerably more support by mentioning a few miracles, particularly if they were recent, verifiable events. Regarding the resurrection itself, Paul fails to mention the empty tomb and asserts that Jesus appeared to 500 people- an audacious claim, as you put it, to make within the lifetime of people who could refute that claim, no? If even a few of those 500 were still alive, surely Luke's account would have mentioned those witnesses as well. BTW, early versions of the Gospel according to Mark didn't mention Jesus appearing to anybody, while later versions of Mark had all the disciples doubting the resurrection they were supposed to be expecting.

Whatever Shannon. You keep moving the goalposts. I can't win. First you tell me Paul mentions nothing of Jesus' life. I point out he mentioned he was betrayed. So you choose to ignore that and now you mention he says nothing about the empty tomb. WTF? If Paul is asserting that Jesus was resurrected, wouldn't we assume the tomb is empty?

Let's just put the shoe on the other foot. You guys take turns telling me what you think happened. Was Jesus real? When did the stories originate? Why did they originate? How long did they take to originate? I'll take a turn sitting back ripping you apart. You guys always want it easy never offering your own opinions and merely waiting for others to post their's for you to laugh at and demean. So you tell me. How did Christianity start?

Message edited by author 2008-04-02 00:32:32.

04/02/2008 12:38:16 AM · #1554

Who's laughing, who's demeaning? Why are you taking this so personally? It's not as if you didn't know you were arguing with hard atheists. This is the last place I would think you would look for validation of your beliefs.

scalvert

04/02/2008 12:50:20 AM · #1555

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You keep moving the goalposts. I can't win. First you tell me Paul mentions nothing of Jesus' life. I point out he mentioned he was betrayed. So you choose to ignore that and now you mention he says nothing about the empty tomb. WTF?

The goalposts didn't move. You contend that Paul as a contemporary should be the most accurate portrayer of history since details would be easily confirmed or falsified by others who knew firsthand, so I countered that Paul didn't mention any of the miracles ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels. You found a reference to his betrayal (does it say by whom?), but ignored the larger issue- no miracles. You also ignored my example of false supernatural events ascribed to a real person within a short period of time. Then you asked to focus in the resurrection, so I did and you protest rather than contest. WTF yourself.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If Paul is asserting that Jesus was resurrected, wouldn't we assume the tomb is empty?

No, many scholars believe Paul's references to resurrection concerned only the spirit, leaving the body behind. If true, then his omission makes sense while the gospels' accounts of a missing body don't. If false, then Paul would logically mention the body disappearing from a sealed and guarded tomb as evidence of the event. The fact that the five earliest accounts of the resurrection don't agree in basic details contradicts your own contention that those closest to the time should be easily confirmed or refuted.

04/02/2008 01:18:28 AM · #1556

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If Paul is asserting that Jesus was resurrected, wouldn't we assume the tomb is empty?

No, many scholars believe Paul's references to resurrection concerned only the spirit, leaving the body behind. If true, then his omission makes sense while the gospels' accounts of a missing body don't. If false, then Paul would logically mention the body disappearing from a sealed and guarded tomb as evidence of the event. The fact that the five earliest accounts of the resurrection don't agree in basic details contradicts your own contention that those closest to the time should be easily confirmed or refuted.

Wiki calls the use of phrases like "many scholars" weasel words. Many scholars also contend that Paul asserts Jesus was resurrected in physical body as he was a Pharisee and they believed in the literal resurrection of the dead in physical form. In fact, a "spiritual" resurrection would be quite against jewish tradition. So the burden of proof would lie with your "many scholars" who are contending that Paul means something that would not be commonly understood by his peers without explaining it.

I'll cite my source: Jewish Encyclopedia entry on Resurrection

Message edited by author 2008-04-02 01:25:23.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/02/2008 01:21:26 AM · #1557

Originally posted by Louis:

Yes, I need a break. I'm competitive by nature and frustrations abound in talks like this. I know who you guys are. I actually just like testing things out on you and see what bounces back. But often what bounces back is simply dodging and shifting. That doesn't help me and leads to frustration.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/02/2008 02:23:44 AM · #1558

Could someone please explain the difference between a "miracle" and "magic?" Could someone explain why the miracle-working Jesus isn't considered a witch/warlock/sorcerer/necromancer, or at least why those who followed with similar supernatural activities were condemned and tortured/executed rather than exalted as messengers or earthly manifestations of God/God's power?

04/02/2008 03:55:19 AM · #1559

Originally posted by scalvert:

The four "approved" Gospels (out of dozens) were apparently written decades after Jesus' death and contradict each other on many basic points (who witnessed what, where and when). We don't know of a single word written by anyone who actually met Jesus in person, so even if he really existed as a man, there's not a single eyewitness account of anything he did. Now consider all the places in the Bible where Jesus said this or that... how exactly does an author know the verbatim Word of Godâ�¢ decades after the only people involved in a private conversation are dead? Can anyone say "Creative License?"

The dating of the four Gospels is generally viewed by scholars to be as early as the 50s AD for Mark, with Matthew and Luke following next, perhaps ten or so years later, and John being the latest of the four, sometime near the end of the first century. The author of Mark is believed to be John Mark, an associate of both Peter and Paul. Eusebius tells us that Mark wrote the gospel while in Rome in the service of Peter (who, of course, "actually met Jesus in person" and knew him extensively as one of the twelve disciples - your "eye witness"). Papias who lived from 60 - 130AD, quotes an earlier source as confirming that Mark followed Peter around and took down Peter's teachings and assempled them in the gospel - again displaying relevance to the "eye witness". Mark is the only gospel to refer to an anonymous young man who fled naked at the time of the arrest of Jesus, suggesting in church tradition that this minor detail was Mark's autobiographical comment (not that the detail is necessary to show Mark's authorship). Additionally, the writings of Luke and Matthew are such that scholars agree that an earlier source document, known generally as "Q" (from the German word Quelle for "source") existed and consisted of a group of sayings of Jesus written down (which is how people know what Jesus actually said) and available to all three of the authors. No copy of Q is extant, but there does not appear to be much controversy among scholars of different stripes that the document once existed. As a document dating earlier than Mark and Mark's own involvement with Peter would suggest, written evidence of Jesus existed as early as 10 - 15 years after Jesus' death. This is early enough to provide accuracy and too recent to permit "legends" to grow up around the events in question. When compared to other ancient texts which do not have nearly as much immediacy as the gospels do (yet are generally regarded as accurate by scholars) the record of the gospels is remarkably reliable. This is not "creative license". It's remarkably fine verification considering it all took place 1500 years or so befor the first printing press and the beginnings of mass-produced writings and at a time when their writings would not have been welcomed by either religious orthodoxy or state government. Given the persecutions it's a wonder there are "any" writings left from this time period.

Message edited by author 2008-04-02 08:00:10.

04/02/2008 05:12:37 AM · #1560

Originally posted by Louis:

I find it interesting that Paul's account of Jesus [referring to Dr. Ahchoo's documentation of 1 Thessalonians] relates only to his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. Nothing else. No miracles, no parables, no ministry. Nothing.

Funny, that. All Paul knows of Jesus is exactly the same mythical elements easily attributable to Dionysus, Mithras, Horus, and dozens of other gods that came before.

I'd suggest that a resurrection and ascension might rightly be classified as a "miracle", although not the ones you are doubtless referring to.

But beyond that little point, 1 Thessalonians is a brief epistle, or letter, to people Paul knew, had lived with, to whom he referred to as "brothers", and for whom he says he, Silas and Timothy "always thank God for all of you, mentioning you in our prayers." So you find it "interesting that Paul's account of Jesus relates only to his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. Nothing else. No miracles, no parables, no ministry." Come now. Since when do friends, compatriots or "brothers" in a common situation recount a litany of life events about someone they all know and about whom they are all knowledgeable as part of a letter to each other? It's a short letter by a mentor to the mentored, perhaps four pages long in the Bible (depending on font type and the presence or absence of editors' notes) greeting them, giving them some instructions about things that are going on at the time (eg. Timothy's report) and focusing on events to come (Jesus' eventual return, ie. the "gospel of God").

If one of you were to write an equally concise letter to the other and mentioned the chief significance of Charles Darwin it would not be noteworthy that you didn't detail the event's in Darwin's life, the voyage of the Beagle, his time in the Galapagos, etc. Those facts are common knowledge for you and don't require repeating in the context of a letter.

And references to Mithras, et. al , in this context, with the observation about "all that Paul knows about Jesus" is his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension is stretching your comparative religions argument well beyond the breaking point. I assume it was an attempt a humor rather than a serious argument.

04/02/2008 05:45:46 AM · #1561

Originally posted by Louis:

We don't have the distinction that Jesus was a real man. Like the others, he was a god in human form.

Say what? In Christian theology Jesus is fully God and fully man. A paradox, perhaps, but no less accurate as a statement of theology. (John 1:1-34) So we do have the distinction that Jesus was a real man. If you don't grasp that concept then it's no wonder you are an atheist. You may dispute it if you like. But we still have this "distinction" in the personhood of Jesus. And don't key off on the word "real" - it's not a quibble. The reason he suffered on the cross was precisely because he was a "real" man. If he were only God pretending to be a man or if he was half God, half man (which is not the same thing), or a "god in human form"...then there would be no suffering, no atonement, no theology, no Christianity. You don't have to believe the theology, and doubtless you don't, but your non-belief does not change the "distinction" that Jesus was a real man.

It's also at least one of the reasons that your comparative religion arguments about Mithras et al breaks down. There may be a few outward similarities, but not every similarity makes a valid argument.

04/02/2008 07:00:17 AM · #1562

Originally posted by Louis:

All your points about Paul have only one source -- Paul. To ascertain historical veracity, cross-referencing is king. What historical events aside from death, resurrection and ascension does he talk about?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

This is merely off the top of my head, but I know he mentions the Last Supper. Now lets recall that all I'm arguing about is that early Christians believed Jesus was resurrected. Early in the sense of "his peers" not decades later. Paul's assertion that Jesus was resurrected (made about 15 years after his death) is cross-referenced by the gospels (written later). It simply makes no sense to suppose that the belief that Jesus was resurrected originated at some point decades or centuries after Christianity began.

Perhaps we are talking cross-wise again. You tell me. When do you think this idea that Jesus was resurrected (which it seems you suppose was plagarized from the "golden oldies" of the time) started? What is your evidence to say it started at that time? Why do you believe it did not start earlier?

My argument is that we can prove it existed merely 15 years after his death and have good reason to suppose it was around much earlier than that even up to the point of his actual death.

It's worth remembering that Paul's place in Christianity begins after Jesus' death and resurrection. His first contact with Jesus is on the Damascus road when Jesus appears to him, upbraids him for persecuting Jesus, and then appoints Paul as a servant and as a "witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you." Paul's charge, then, is to preach the resurrection, to explain how even from Old Testament times the language of the sacred texts presaged Jesus' divinity. Paul is charged with spreading the message of Jesus as the Christ, not to dwell on the history of Jesus' life. And in large part, that's what Paul (and others such as Peter, Timothy, Silas, etc. did). It was now the age of the church.

DrAchoo is correct; Paul did discuss the historical event of the Last Supper on the night Jesus was betrayed (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). Luke also recounts one instance when Paul spoke of a time in Jesus' ministry when Jesus admonished that it was more blessed to give than receive (Acts 20:35). There may be other instances. Paul's writings are extensive and I don't have time to pour over them to look for more examples. I don't think there are many because that was not what Paul and the others were required to do after the church age began.

As for cross references pertaining to Paul, it is not only by his writings that we know what he did. Luke also spends a great deal of time relating Paul's efforts in the Book of Acts.

04/02/2008 07:46:52 AM · #1563

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Magic, sorcery, witchcraft, being a spiritist or one who attempts to contact the dead (and perhaps some related terms) are deemed to be occult practices common in pagan nations of the ancient world. They were seen as efforts to interact with or control evil spirits and were forebidden practices in Deuteronomy 18:10-11 because "[a]nyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord". One explicit practice that was lumped in with these "detestable" things was "anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire" (which might seem like a relatively "detestable" practice to prohibit). Old Testament prophets also carried on the warnings in various places in the context of Isreal and its people. There are a few similar references found in the New Testament, including references to magicians and sorcerers, the common trait appears to be that they were agents of evil in one form or another and not messengers or earthly manifestations of God/God's power. (Acts 13: 6-8, for eg.) Even today, self-styled witches sometimes go out of their way to connect themselves with Satanic rituals (although I don't think this is always so with those who say they practice witchcraft).

Miracles are acts or events that are supernatural in character but seem to have the common attribute of bringing glory to God and/or indicating a deeper revelation of God. Healing a blind man demonstrates the power of God and simultaneously works a profound benefit on the man. When Jesus called out a demon from someone he was doing it for divine glory or to demonstate a message that elevated God. God and Jesus are not the only ones working miracles. At various places in the New Testament the disciples also worked miracles, sometimes not too effectively. Paul also did miracles.

I haven't spent a lot of time with this topic, but the Bible does make sharp distinctions between good and evil and the agents thereof, and I think this is just one of those areas. My reference for this quick answer is Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictonary which reads more like a concise encyclopedia than a dictionary.

scalvert

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

04/02/2008 09:36:18 AM · #1564

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Wiki calls the use of phrases like "many scholars" weasel words.

Yep, I agree with Wiki. I could give specific sources if you like, but it doesn't matter. Your post tacitly acknowledges the problem with a spiritual claim, so let's see if physical resurrection makes any more sense...

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Many scholars also contend that Paul asserts Jesus was resurrected in physical body as he was a Pharisee and they believed in the literal resurrection of the dead in physical form. In fact, a "spiritual" resurrection would be quite against jewish tradition. So the burden of proof would lie with your "many scholars" who are contending that Paul means something that would not be commonly understood by his peers without explaining it.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus."
If Paul's only view of resurrection includes physical bodies as you contend, then there should be Christians disappearing from tombs left and right. I'm guessing those pesky scholars interpret a lack of Houdini corpses as evidence that Paul meant spiritual resurrection.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

04/02/2008 09:39:31 AM · #1565

Originally posted by chalice:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Could someone please explain the difference between a "miracle" and "magic?" Could someone explain why the miracle-working Jesus isn't considered a witch/warlock/sorcerer/necromancer, or at least why those who followed with similar supernatural activities were condemned and tortured/executed rather than exalted as messengers or earthly manifestations of God/God's power?

Magic, sorcery, witchcraft, being a spiritist or one who attempts to contact the dead (and perhaps some related terms) are deemed to be occult practices common in pagan nations of the ancient world. They were seen as efforts to interact with or control evil spirits and were forebidden practices in Deuteronomy 18:10-11 because "[a]nyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord". One explicit practice that was lumped in with these "detestable" things was "anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire" (which might seem like a relatively "detestable" practice to prohibit). Old Testament prophets also carried on the warnings in various places in the context of Isreal and its people. There are a few similar references found in the New Testament, including references to magicians and sorcerers, the common trait appears to be that they were agents of evil in one form or another and not messengers or earthly manifestations of God/God's power. (Acts 13: 6-8, for eg.) Even today, self-styled witches sometimes go out of their way to connect themselves with Satanic rituals (although I don't think this is always so with those who say they practice witchcraft).

Miracles are acts or events that are supernatural in character but seem to have the common attribute of bringing glory to God and/or indicating a deeper revelation of God. Healing a blind man demonstrates the power of God and simultaneously works a profound benefit on the man. When Jesus called out a demon from someone he was doing it for divine glory or to demonstate a message that elevated God. God and Jesus are not the only ones working miracles. At various places in the New Testament the disciples also worked miracles, sometimes not too effectively. Paul also did miracles.

I haven't spent a lot of time with this topic, but the Bible does make sharp distinctions between good and evil and the agents thereof, and I think this is just one of those areas. My reference for this quick answer is Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictonary which reads more like a concise encyclopedia than a dictionary.

To summarize:

-Man does magic: BAD
-God does magic: GOOD
-Man does magic, but gives God credit: GOOD?
-God does magic, then blames man when goes poorly: GOD'S WILL?

scalvert

04/02/2008 09:41:00 AM · #1566

Originally posted by chalice:

Eusebius tells us that Mark wrote the gospel while in Rome in the service of Peter (who, of course, "actually met Jesus in person" and knew him extensively as one of the twelve disciples - your "eye witness")....

Paul supposedly met with Peter for 15 days, too. All the more puzzling then that the gospels and espistles should diverge in their accounts of important details.

04/02/2008 10:01:11 AM · #1567

Originally posted by chalice:

The dating of the four Gospels is generally viewed by scholars to be as early as the 50s AD for Mark...

No, the earliest possible date is 70, the date of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem and mentioned therein.

04/02/2008 10:09:09 AM · #1568

Originally posted by chalice:

If one of you were to write an equally concise letter to the other and mentioned the chief significance of Charles Darwin it would not be noteworthy that you didn't detail the event's in Darwin's life, the voyage of the Beagle, his time in the Galapagos, etc. Those facts are common knowledge for you and don't require repeating in the context of a letter.

If I were looking after this collection of forgetful compatriots and I wanted to make damn sure there was no mistaking that I was the son of god, I would inspire my chief press correspondent to at least give posterity a hint of all the fantastic things I did in the world.

If Paul is the only source of Jesus' life for about four decades after his death, he's a poor source, and certainly not the kind of source one should abandon reason, logic, and sense for.

Originally posted by chalice:

And references to Mithras, et. al , in this context, with the observation about "all that Paul knows about Jesus" is his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension is stretching your comparative religions argument well beyond the breaking point. I assume it was an attempt a humor rather than a serious argument.

No, it was quite serious. Paul's holes are about the size that fit the pieces of the Mithras mythology. What's so incredulous about that?

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

04/02/2008 10:19:29 AM · #1569

Originally posted by chalice:

Originally posted by Louis:
We don't have the distinction that Jesus was a real man. Like the others, he was a god in human form.

Say what? In Christian theology Jesus is fully God and fully man.... You don't have to believe the theology, and doubtless you don't, but your non-belief does not change the "distinction" that Jesus was a real man.

That is a point of dogma, and so it's completely irrelevant. You're speaking in a language with no meaning, injecting mysteries and so forth when a call to common sense has been issued. If that's the case, you are incapable of critically analysing the dogma, and will continually fall victim to it, succumbing to the mysteries of the supernatural and eschewing all reason. That may be fine for you...

(Incidentally you may not have read this whole thread but I'm intimately familiar with the concept and understand the dogmatic points quite well, being formerly Catholic, being formerly a seminarian candidate.)

Originally posted by chalice:

It's also at least one of the reasons that your comparative religion arguments about Mithras et al breaks down. There may be a few outward similarities, but not every similarity makes a valid argument.

Once again, your fine points of dogma in fact do not lessen the comparative elements of both mythoi. It is easy to see that they both share the exact same script. It is obvious that differences would be observed arising, not least, from their need not to appear ridiculously identical.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/02/2008 06:50:36 PM · #1570

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But often what bounces back is simply dodging and shifting. That doesn't help me and leads to frustration.

Are there some specific points that you would like straight answers to?

A few dozen posts back you asked about free will and whether it is illusory. My "straight" response is that people inhabit a universe governed by rules of physics, and it is reasonable to assume that those rules of physics apply to us equally.

You wanted to rule out quantum uncertainty, but that is probably one of the biggest factors in preventing the universe being predictable. According to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle it will always be impossible to know all information that would be necessary to predict cause and effect at atomic levels with certainty.

Given the unknowable complexity of the universe (assuming the Heisenberg principle to be correct - it appears to be) then it is impossible to know how atoms and, by extension, people will act/react. So I would say that [human] biology is subject to the same rules of physics as everything else, but that does not make it predictable. The operation of physics within as complex an environment as a human brain/body gives rise to a response as close to free will as it can be. is not required: we can reach this conclusion without bending the rules that observably apply to everything else around us.

It is also completely comprehensible why people would come up with the concept of god given free will. It makes sense (in an unsophisticated fashion) and is alluring. Historically, it is a powerful and persuasive concept that powerful people would exploit. It is no surprise that religions that embrace it (in words if not always deeds) have been successful. But none of that makes it more credible in an objective sense.

04/02/2008 07:07:27 PM · #1571

So I had to read about Mithras on wiki as I had not heard of it. However the article seems to beg a basic question.

Why must Christianity be based on Mithraism and not vice versa? The two began at roughly the same period, although Mithraism had its height in the 3rd and 4th century AD, at which time Christianity already had a foothold. So why not the other way around?

The article on wiki lists very few of these "exact similarities" that Louis mentions. (Jokingly this must mean to Shannon that these similarities are made up since they are not mentioned in the text a la Paul and the Miracles of Jesus.) I didn't see anything about "12 disciples, virgin birth, etc." I did see a quote by Justin, an early church father who complains that Mithraism is "diabolically imitating" Christianity. So we actually have some textual evidence to suggest the copycats were the Mithraics.

It also seems to beg the question that compared to the body of textual sources for early Christianity there is a nearly complete dearth of textual history for Mithraism. (to quote wiki, "It was not based on a body of scripture, and hence very little written documentary evidence survives.") I find it a bit amusing that Louis is willing to forgo the need for a large body of original, noncontradictory, factual, externally corroborated texts when it suits his purpose.

I highlighted the important parts. If someone wants to give a response, I'd be interested to know what they felt about those parts.

EDIT: I read a little more closely and see mention of the virgin birth. I also, however, saw mention of an example of why finding similarities can be silly. I'll quote:

"The Jewish faith provided no precendent of pictorial representation on which the Early Christians could base their imagery. According to Cumont, Early Christian imagery drew upon Mithraic traditions. Depictions of the biblical story of Moses striking Mount Horeb with his staff to release drinking water were, according to Cumont, inspired by Mithraic representation of Mithras shooting arrows at rocks causing fountains to spring up."

So while perhaps the artists took compositional advice from the Mithraic icons, the idea that the Moses story, similar to the Mithras story, came out of the Mithraic tradition is impossible as the account in Exodus had been written for close to 500 years before Mithras was around. Similarly an author found a similarity between Christian iconography on sarcophagi of a flaming chariot taking a soul to heaven as being taken from Mithras ascending to heaven when there is a perfectly good jewish tradition of Elijah being taken to heaven in a flaming chariot already present again for centuries before Mithraism was around.

I think someone was working a bit too hard on their doctoral thesis or just wanted to cash in by writing a sensational book.

Message edited by author 2008-04-02 19:28:47.

04/02/2008 08:04:51 PM · #1572

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The wiki article is not completely accurate. Mithraism predates Christianity by several hundred years. It swept across the Roman empire starting about 70 BCE. It was Christianity's main rival to about 200 CE or something.

Mithraism is merely one of a number of cults that predate Christianity and appear to lend major elements to it. The mysteries of Bacchus are another, plus all the ones Shannon mentioned.

It's fun to say people are picking and choosing their facts, but when mythos A looks a hell of a lot like mythos B, C, and D, and mythos A is the newest, any reasonable person will come to a conclusion that hardly needs spelling out.

It may be a simple matter for an adherent to dismiss comparative religious studies out-of-hand, but it is not so easy for others, who have nothing to lose, to do it.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/02/2008 08:11:40 PM · #1573

Originally posted by Louis:

Mithraism is merely one of a number of cults that predate Christianity and appear to lend major elements to it. The mysteries of Bacchus are another, plus all the ones Shannon mentioned.

It's fun to say people are picking and choosing their facts, but when mythos A looks a hell of a lot like mythos B, C, and D, and mythos A is the newest, any reasonable person will come to a conclusion that hardly needs spelling out.

It may be a simple matter for an adherent to dismiss comparative religious studies out-of-hand, but it is not so easy for others, who have nothing to lose, to do it.

So can you provide some supporting evidence to show that Mithraism is centuries older than Christianity? More importantly, can you provide textual or iconographic evidence of the stories of Mithras' virgin birth (as an example) that predate Christianity? You realize I'm not just going to take your word for it. If Christianity stole the virgin birth from Mithras, show me the evidence to say Mithras had that story before.

EDIT: It seems as if one of the real experts in this field Cumont approaches the idea you are presenting with much more humility and much less hubris:
"We cannot presume to unravel to-day a question which divided contemporaries and which shall doubtless forever remain insoluble. We are too imperfectly acquainted with the dogmas and liturgies of Roman Mazdaism, as well as with the development of primitive Christianity, to say definitely what mutual influences were operative in their simultaneous evolution. But be this as it may, resemblances do not necessarily suppose an imitation. Many correspondences between the Mithraic doctrine and the Catholic faith are explicable by their common Oriental origin. Nevertheless, certain ideas and certain ceremonies must necessarily have passed from the one cult to the other; but in the majority of cases we rather suspect this transference than clearly perceive it."

Message edited by author 2008-04-02 20:19:49.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/02/2008 08:55:36 PM · #1574

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by chalice:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Could someone please explain the difference between a "miracle" and "magic?" Could someone explain why the miracle-working Jesus isn't considered a witch/warlock/sorcerer/necromancer, or at least why those who followed with similar supernatural activities were condemned and tortured/executed rather than exalted as messengers or earthly manifestations of God/God's power?

I haven't spent a lot of time with this topic, but the Bible does make sharp distinctions between good and evil and the agents thereof, and I think this is just one of those areas.

To summarize:

-Man does magic: BAD
-God does magic: GOOD
-Man does magic, but gives God credit: GOOD?
-God does magic, then blames man when goes poorly: GOD'S WILL?

I was going to summarize it as "'Our' magic is good, but 'your' magic is evil" -- though your analysis seems pretty good too.