The Co-existence of Science and Theology

04/02/2008 09:07:22 PM · #1576

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

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?

I assume scholars are good enough for you?

I have an excellent book called "Comparative Mythology" by Jaan Puhvel. To take Mithras as a specific example, his lineage is Persian, and Puhvel calls him "Hellenized" by the first century BCE (the Greeks and Persians had a special relationship BCE). It was then that he reached Rome, before Christianity, according to Puhvel (pg. 100).

Virgin birth has its roots in Egypt with the goddess Ishtar, whose priestesses were called "holy virgins", an appellation carried back as "virgin-born" to Palestine by the Hebrews from their captivity in Babylon. This related to a virginity of the spirit, as it were, but the Hellenized version became "parthenioi", which was corporeal, the spiritual concept apparently being alien to the Greeks. Virgin births were ultimately attributed to Dionysus, Heracles, Perseus, Achilles, and others by superimposing the notion that these heroes were born of a woman and a god disguised variously as a snake, a bull, or a ray of light, or something else, the mere presence of which impregnates the virginal mortal woman, just as the holy spirit impregnates the virginal Mary disguised as a dove.

Mithras was born out of a rock. In "Masks of God: Occidental Mythology", Joseph Campbell writes that Mithras was born of the earth itself, commenting that the earth has given a virgin birth to the archetypal man.

Virginal birth with divine lineage is a very old mythos, originating many millenia ago with the Egyptians. Keep in mind that Mithras is merely one example when comparing the Jesus myth with other myths predating it.

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

04/02/2008 10:28:05 PM · #1577

Originally posted by Louis:

I have an excellent book called "Comparative Mythology" by Jaan Puhvel. To take Mithras as a specific example, his lineage is Persian, and Puhvel calls him "Hellenized" by the first century BCE (the Greeks and Persians had a special relationship BCE). It was then that he reached Rome, before Christianity, according to Puhvel (pg. 100).

Virgin birth has its roots in Egypt with the goddess Ishtar, whose priestesses were called "holy virgins", an appellation carried back as "virgin-born" to Palestine by the Hebrews from their captivity in Babylon. This related to a virginity of the spirit, as it were, but the Hellenized version became "parthenioi", which was corporeal, the spiritual concept apparently being alien to the Greeks. Virgin births were ultimately attributed to Dionysus, Heracles, Perseus, Achilles, and others by superimposing the notion that these heroes were born of a woman and a god disguised variously as a snake, a bull, or a ray of light, or something else, the mere presence of which impregnates the virginal mortal woman, just as the holy spirit impregnates the virginal Mary disguised as a dove.

Mithras was born out of a rock. In "Masks of God: Occidental Mythology", Joseph Campbell writes that Mithras was born of the earth itself, commenting that the earth has given a virgin birth to the archetypal man.

Virginal birth with divine lineage is a very old mythos, originating many millenia ago with the Egyptians. Keep in mind that Mithras is merely one example when comparing the Jesus myth with other myths predating it.

Sounds like a bit of bait and switch to me. So your "identical" virgin birth to the Jesus story is Mithras being born out of the earth? I still need a dated text which supports even this idea being around before the first century AD. Joseph Campbell, I'm assuming, was born after that time. But to simply assume that Christians copied the idea of Mary being a virgin from the Mithraic tradition of Mithras being born from the earth and then to call them "identical" stretches all credulity.

Even your Persian theory has lots of detractors on wiki so it hardly seems airtight:
Cumont's ideas, though in many respects valid, had however one serious problem with respect to the author's theory on the origins of Mithraism: If the Roman religion was an outgrowth of an Iranian one, there would have to be evidence of Mithraic-like practices attested in Greater Iran. However, that is not the case: No mithraea have been found there, and the Mithraic myth of the tauroctony does not conclusively match the Zoroastrian legend of the slaying of Gayomart, in which Mithra does not play any role at all. The historians of antiquity, otherwise expansive in their descriptions of Iranian religious practices, hardly mention Mithra at all (one notable exception is Herodotus i.131, which associates Mithra with other divinities of the morning star).

Further, no distinct religion of Mithra or *mitra had ever (and has not since) been established. As Boyce put it, "no satisfactory evidence has yet been adduced to show that, before Zoroaster, the concept of a supreme god existed among the Iranians, or that among them Mithra - or any other divinity - ever enjoyed a separate cult of his or her own outside either their ancient or their Zoroastrian pantheons."[10]

It should however be noted that while it is "generally agreed that Cumont's master narrative of east-west transfer is unsustainable," a syncretic Zoroastrian (whatever that might have entailed at the time) influence is a viable supposition.[11] This does not however imply that the religion practiced by the Romans was the same as that practiced elsewhere; syncretism was a feature of Roman religion, and the syncretic religion known as the Mysteries of Mithras is a product of Roman culture itself. "Apart from the name of the god himself, in other words, Mithraism seems to have developed largely in and is, therefore, best understood from the context of Roman culture."[12]

In the end it seems like I'm being held to a much stricter standard than you are. I have to provide original Christian texts to support my ideas while you can merely quote modern historians. If I knew I was allowed to do that I'd have the case all sewn up by now...

Message edited by author 2008-04-02 22:32:12.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/02/2008 10:28:45 PM · #1578

Originally posted by Louis:

Mithras was born out of a rock. In "Masks of God: Occidental Mythology", Joseph Campbell writes that Mithras was born of the earth itself, commenting that the earth has given a virgin birth to the archetypal man.

Which sounds a lot like the story of Adam to me ...

Speaking of Genesis -- as I understand it, God made Adam, the first man, and then made Eve from his rib (perhaps an unsuccessful early attempt at cloning?), and between them they had three sons: Cain, Abel, and Seth. Where did those guys get their wives? I've never heard anyone talking about God making anyone else ... but if He did and I missed it, were these women also spare ribs, dirt, or sugar and spice and everything nice? And can He make me one? ;-)

Message edited by author 2008-04-02 22:31:53.

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

04/02/2008 10:31:42 PM · #1579

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Louis:
Mithras was born out of a rock. In "Masks of God: Occidental Mythology", Joseph Campbell writes that Mithras was born of the earth itself, commenting that the earth has given a virgin birth to the archetypal man.

Which sounds a lot like the story of Adam to me ...

Ya, so now Paul is saying that Mithras came from Judaism...

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/02/2008 10:40:57 PM · #1580

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Louis:
Mithras was born out of a rock. In "Masks of God: Occidental Mythology", Joseph Campbell writes that Mithras was born of the earth itself, commenting that the earth has given a virgin birth to the archetypal man.

Which sounds a lot like the story of Adam to me ...

Ya, so now Paul is saying that Mithras came from Judaism...

I think I meant to say the opposite, but who knows.

I thought the Biblical story of Genesis were based on the Babylonian creation myth -- I'm pretty sure it's been elaborated on earlier in this thread ...

I think the main point is that all of these mythologies/religions existed at one time or another, perhaps in a similar fashion to how Baptists and Espicopalians (to name two of what most be several dozens of versions of "True Christianity") co-exist today, and there's no reason to consider any one of them more valid than the other, even given the leap of faith that any of them could be "valid" in the scientific sense.

scalvert

04/02/2008 10:56:53 PM · #1581

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

A) Provide, as I have asked, a textual or iconographic source for the virgin birth of Mithras which is dated to before 50-100 AD.

The Wiki article you linked regarded a particular Roman cult of Mithra, apparently descended from Zorastrianism, but the main Wiki on this deity shows that Mithra was around for quite a bit longer. "The first extant record of Mitra/Mithra is in the inscribed peace treaty between Hittites and the Hurrian kingdom of the Mitanni in the area southeast of Lake Van, c. 1400 BCE." Within that same Wiki page is this reference- "By at least the 3rd century BCE, Mithra was identified as the progeny of Anahita... The largest temple with a Mithraic connection is the Seleucid temple at Kangavar in western Iran (c. 200 BC), which is dedicated to 'Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithras' though no historical evidence is found to support this." Note that there's no historical evidence to support the virgin birth of Jesus either, only that Jesus probably existed as a person.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

[b]B) Provide at least textual commentary which asserts the things above all existed in the Mithras tradition. I'm assuming you were all pulling from one mythos and not just picking and choosing from various myths like produce in a grocery store.[/b]

To be honest, I'd never heard of Mithra before today, but there are several interesting references within the Mithra and larger Zorastrianism Wikis. Among them:

"Mithra comes to the fore among the created beings. "I created him" Ahura Mazda (God) declares... "to be as worthy of sacrifice and as worthy of prayer as myself" ...Mithra gains the title of "Judge of Souls" and is assigned the domain of human welfare (which he shares with the Creator). Mithra occupies an intermediate position in the Zoroastrian hierarchy as the greatest of the yazata, created... to aid in the destruction of evil and the administration of the world. He is then the divine representative of the Creator on earth, and is directed to protect the righteous from [demonic forces]."

"He was thus a divinity of the realms of air and light, and, by transfer to the moral realm, the manifestation of truth and loyalty. As the enemy of darkness and evil spirits, he protected souls, accompanying them to paradise, and was thus a redeemer."

"Many temples were erected to Mithra in Armenia, which remained one of the last strongholds of the Mazdaist cult of Mithra until it became the first officially Christian kingdom."

"The festivities in the week following [December 21st]... are a remnant of the culture which celebrated the birth of the divinity of light on that day."

Of the larger Zorastrianism:
"There is one universal and transcendental God, Ahura Mazda, the one Uncreated Creator to whom all worship is ultimately directed."

"Active participation in life through good thoughts, good words and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep the chaos at bay. This active participation is a central element in Zoroaster's concept of free will..."

"Zoroastrians believe that on the fourth day after death the human soul leaves the body and the body remains as an empty shell."

"Ahura Mazda is the beginning and the end, the creator of everything which can and cannot be seen, the Eternal, the Pure and the only Truth. In the Gathas, the most sacred texts of Zoroastrianism thought to have been composed by Zoroaster himself, the prophet acknowledged devotion to no other divinity besides Ahura Mazda."

"All physical creation (geti) was thus determined to run according to a master plan â�� inherent to Ahura Mazda... in his role as the one uncreated creator of all, Ahura Mazda is not the creator of druj which is "nothing", anti-creation, and thus (likewise) uncreated."

"central to Zoroastrianism is the emphasis on moral choice, to choose between the responsibility and duty for which one is in the mortal world... Humans bear responsibility for all situations they are in, and in the way they act to one another. Reward, punishment, happiness and grief all depend on how individuals live their life."

"Achaemenid era (648â��330 BCE) Zoroastrianism developed the abstract concepts of heaven, hell, personal and final judgement, all of which are only alluded to in the Gathas. Yasna 19 (which has only survived in a Sassanid era (226â��650 CE) Zend commentary on the Ahuna Vairya invocation), prescribes a Path to Judgement known as the ...Chinvat bridge, which all souls had to cross, and judgement (over thoughts, words, deeds performed during a lifetime) was passed as they were doing so."

Again, I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, but this all sounds very familiar, and these beliefs were widely held in the Middle East hundreds of years before Jesus (and still practiced today in some parts of the world).

Message edited by author 2008-04-02 23:02:18.

04/02/2008 11:06:50 PM · #1582

And Judaism held many of those beliefs hundreds of years before Zoroastrianism...so?

Message edited by author 2008-04-02 23:12:57.

04/02/2008 11:12:04 PM · #1583

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I think the main point is that all of these mythologies/religions existed at one time or another, perhaps in a similar fashion to how Baptists and Espicopalians (to name two of what most be several dozens of versions of "True Christianity") co-exist today, and there's no reason to consider any one of them more valid than the other, even given the leap of faith that any of them could be "valid" in the scientific sense.

Well, that's definitely a topic of conversation, but it wasn't the one we were having. I was asserting that Christians held very early the belief that Jesus resurrected from the dead and this was a unique belief to think a human could do this. Louis was saying Christians coopted the resurrection and lots of other neat things from Mithras, but he's still coming up with some quality evidence on that matter.

04/02/2008 11:37:43 PM · #1584

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think the main point is that all of these mythologies/religions existed at one time or another, perhaps in a similar fashion to how Baptists and Espicopalians (to name two of what most be several dozens of versions of "True Christianity") co-exist today, and there's no reason to consider any one of them more valid than the other, even given the leap of faith that any of them could be "valid" in the scientific sense.

Well, that's definitely a topic of conversation, but it wasn't the one we were having. I was asserting that Christians held very early the belief that Jesus resurrected from the dead and this was a unique belief to think a human could do this. Louis was saying Christians coopted the resurrection and lots of other neat things from Mithras, but he's still coming up with some quality evidence on that matter.

I didn't say that at all. I said Christianity coopted the resurrection and lots of other neat things from all kinds of sources, some thousands of years older, some hundreds, but all older. There's plenty of quality evidence in my most recent post. Incidentally, why should I dig up ancient texts to prove points scholars can make much better than me? I don't have access to them, scholars do.

Your rebuttals are beginning to sound a little panicky. A few cracks forming in the foundations, are there? ;-)

scalvert

04/02/2008 11:44:43 PM · #1585

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

And Judaism held many of those beliefs hundreds of years before Zoroastrianism...so?

For someone so concerned with sources, you sure make a lot of these claims. :-/

From Wiki Answers: "We now know that the first five books are composed from input from several sources, usually known as J, E, D and P. The sources known as J and E seem to date back to early in the first millenium BCE. D dates from before 600 BCE and P probably lived during the Babylonian exile. In order to establish when Judaism really began, we need to go backwards from this date to find the earliest reliable evidence of Judaism.

We know from the Bible that the northern kingdom, Israel, was at all times polytheistic. The biblical references to the kings of Israel show every one of them as polytheistic in their beliefs. Biblical references that tell us about popular religion in Israel - what the people themselves believed - show that the nation was polytheistic from its inception until its destruction by the Assyrians.

Judaism must have begun in the southern Hebrew state of Judah. We also know from the Bible that Judah was polytheistic until the reign of Hezekiah, who made a failed attempt to impose monotheism in the 7th century BCE. Arguably, if a recognizable forerunner of Judaism existed before this time, it was only a small sect, constantly at odds with the powerful kings of Judah. Hezekiah's son, Manasseh, allowed polytheism to flourish once again, evidence that monotheism had not taken root among the ordinary people."

From Wiki on the Torah: Virtually all contemporary secular biblical scholars date the completion of the Torah, as well as the prophets and the historical books, no earlier than the Persian period. The oldest of the traditional sources is The Jahwist (or J) - written c 950 BCE.

Bear in mind that all of this is MUCH younger than the 1400 BCE reference to Mithras, let alone Zorastrianism in general.

Message edited by author 2008-04-03 00:02:47.

04/02/2008 11:49:23 PM · #1586

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

And Judaism held many of those beliefs hundreds of years before Zoroastrianism...so?

And the Vedic six hundred years before that. The "so" is that there's nothing new under the sun, resurrection stories, virginal births, and messiahs included. Maybe it's time once again to discuss how intractable some people are, despite evidence...

04/02/2008 11:55:16 PM · #1587

Originally posted by Louis:

Incidentally, why should I dig up ancient texts to prove points scholars can make much better than me? I don't have access to them, scholars do.

Your rebuttals are beginning to sound a little panicky. A few cracks forming in the foundations, are there? ;-)

Surely you jest.

A) I was not the one to say that Mithras and Christianity had scads of similarities.
B) I was not the one to say Mithras and it's beliefs predate Christianity.
C) I am not the one who now says, "I don't need proof when I have a scholar who says what I want" (that's not a quote ;)).

You must be joking. Here's your "virgin" argument as I see it now. Feel free to fill in the gaps:

1) Mithraism holds that Mithras "was born of a virgin and God" (quoting Louis on 4/1 06:36 PM).
2) Christianity holds the same about Jesus. In fact, "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." (quoting Louis 7:55 PM)
3) "You don't think it makes it possible that the story has borrowed elements? Some of those elements are astoundingly similar. Identical, in fact. Twelve disciples, miracles, death, resurrection, ascension, virgin births, nailing to a tree, saviour of mankind, prophecy... if it was such a unique event, you'd think God would have made damn sure it happened only once." (quoting Louis 8:42 PM) Perhaps I am misinterpreting you to think these all came from Mithras because you said "it happened only once" implying that all the same things happened together in another mythology. I'll let you half off the hook on this one.
4) "I agree, it would make no sense to assume the resurrection stories began a long time after the supposed event, or long into the first century. They would have originated closer to the time of other such stories, such as the competing cult of Mithras" (quoting Louis 10:35 PM)
5) "No, it was quite serious. Paul's holes are about the size that fit the pieces of the Mithras mythology." (quoting Louis 4/2 10:09 PM)
6) "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." (quoting Louis 10:19 PM)
7) "Mithraism predates Christianity by several hundred years." (quoting Louis 8:04 PM)
8) "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." (quoting Louis in the same post)

It sounds to me like you think Christianity borrowed lots of its ideas from Mithras. However when asked to provide some proof that a) Mithras indeed existed before Christianity and b) some contextual dates of WHEN these beliefs of Mithras were held (making sure they are before Christianity), you come up dumb and can only quote scholarly opinion (and not even opinion addressing b). On top, your "Mithras was born of a virgin and a God" has been morphed into "Mithras was born of the earth".

Who's argument is showing cracks?

Message edited by author 2008-04-02 23:59:19.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

04/03/2008 12:25:00 AM · #1588

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It sounds to me like you think Christianity borrowed lots of its ideas from Mithras.

It did. As well as from many other mythologies predating it.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

However when asked to provide some proof that a) Mithras indeed existed before Christianity

Already done, several times.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

and b) some contextual dates of WHEN these beliefs of Mithras were held (making sure they are before Christianity),

Already done, several times. (Are you actually reading any of these responses?)

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

On top, your "Mithras was born of a virgin and a God" has been morphed into "Mithras was born of the earth".

Did you read what Campbell wrote? Did you read the lineage of virgin birth stretching from Egypt through Greece and Rome? And you still dispute that Christianity is not unique in its mythos?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Who's argument is showing cracks?

It isn't an argument. It's difficult for facts to show cracks.

And no, it wasn't jest.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/03/2008 12:27:08 AM · #1589

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It sounds to me like you think Christianity borrowed lots of its ideas from Mithras. However when asked to provide some proof that a) Mithras indeed existed before Christianity and b) some contextual dates of WHEN these beliefs of Mithras were held (making sure they are before Christianity), you come up dumb and can only quote scholarly opinion (and not even opinion addressing b). On top, your "Mithras was born of a virgin and a God" has been morphed into "Mithras was born of the earth".

Who's argument is showing cracks?

I keep reading this thread but I'm confused as to why you continue to take issue with Mithras possibly predating Christianity. If it is demonstrated that it did then what happens next? You admit Christianity might be a fraud? You got something else under your sleeve? :P

Message edited by author 2008-04-03 00:28:39.

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

04/03/2008 12:36:05 AM · #1590

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It sounds to me like you think Christianity borrowed lots of its ideas from Mithras.

It did. As well as from many other mythologies predating it.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
However when asked to provide some proof that a) Mithras indeed existed before Christianity

Already done, several times.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
and b) some contextual dates of WHEN these beliefs of Mithras were held (making sure they are before Christianity),

Already done, several times. (Are you actually reading any of these responses?)

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
On top, your "Mithras was born of a virgin and a God" has been morphed into "Mithras was born of the earth".

Did you read what Campbell wrote? Did you read the lineage of virgin birth stretching from Egypt through Greece and Rome? And you still dispute that Christianity is not unique in its mythos?

Please, forgive me. I must not be. So for my deaf ears and blind eyes, please, once again, show me a link to an ancient text showing that Mithraism believed Mithras was "born of a virgin and a god" and that this belief was held before Christianity. Even if you don't have a link, cite the ancient text in a scholarly discourse. It matters not to your argument about Egypt or any other cult. You told me "Mithras was born of a virgin and a god". I want to see where this is shown and I want to know what texts it is derived from and I want to know when those texts are dated to. I don't want to hear what Joseph Campbell think unless he says why he thinks it and what texts he is using to support his idea (and when those texts are dated to). Hell, Campbell seems to tell us Mithras was born "from a rock". That doesn't sound like "of a virgin and a god" to me.

I'm predicting a) you are full of crap and b) the backpedaling or denial will begin post haste.

Message edited by author 2008-04-03 00:42:35.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/03/2008 12:47:22 AM · #1591

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

And Judaism held many of those beliefs hundreds of years before Zoroastrianism...so?

And likely the "priests" of Cro-Magnon as well ...

"The First Human Creations dealt with hunting and being hunted, with birth, life, and death, with existence, extinction, and the afterlife." (emphasis added)

Oh yeah: those images predate the Biblical date of the creation (according to Bishop Usher, wasn't it?) of the Earth by some 26,000 years.

Message edited by author 2008-04-03 00:51:04.

04/03/2008 01:14:38 AM · #1592

You're quite correct, I can't cite chapter and verse an ancient text that gives up the mysteries of Mithras for you as conveniently as that. Nobody can. I told you the well-known fact that Mithras was born out of a rock. I told you that this was a virginal birth. I cited Campbell to show you that this is a scholarly interpretation of a mythological event encapsulated in a mystery cult. I attempted to illustrate the lineage of virgin birth and I also tried to draw a direct line using this lineage to Mithras himself.

You don't have to believe that Mithras' virginal birth is actually virginal, but I'm afraid that the symbology associated with his birth, out of an egg-shaped rock and so on, clearly indicates that this is so. It simply makes you look foolish to dispute it. I understand that you may think rock-births are silly (about as silly as literal virginal births), and I understand you may be no student of comparative mythology and its symbolisms, and I don't claim to be, but I take scholarly interpretation in these matters, not just Campbell but Puhvel and so on, seriously. As an educated individual, I would think you would appreciate this.

If you consider this backpedalling, that's fine, and if you think I'm full of shit and hubris, that's perfectly fine too. Frankly, I don't need my knowledge of these pretty fundamental facts concerning symbolism and mythology validated by you, one who seeks to personalize debate while protesting that the players are all somehow acting unfairly toward you.

Your new-found obsession with Mithras (and the bold markup code) still doesn't address the many and varied cults aside from his that predate Christianity and lend their various mythologies to it. I would ask you to concern yourself with them now, but then again, what on God's green earth would be the point?

04/03/2008 01:23:10 AM · #1593

Well, that's about as much as I could expect so I'll take it.

04/03/2008 03:02:32 AM · #1594

Originally posted by Louis:

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.

Jesus on his way to his death (generally regarded as about 33AD) stops outside the city of Jerusalem and predicts the destruction of Jerusalem. Luke writes of this prediction and does not add anything like "see folks, Jesus told you that Jerusalem would be destroyed in 70AD" which he could have to document Jesus' predictive powers. This suggests (but does not prove) an earlier date than 70AD. (Matthew and Mark also record the prediction of the Temple's destruction without adding any editorializing.)

Moreover, the Gospel of Luke is also regarded as having been written before Luke wrote the Acts. The latter details Paul in Rome at about 63AD, shortly before the fire in Rome (which according to Tacitus, started July 18, 64 - See Wikipedia: Great Fire of Rome) and Nero's persecutions in 64AD. It's hardly likely that the Acts, which is a history of the early church, would have omitted Nero, the "Great Fire" and the persecutions of many Christians if it were written after that year. Luke is regarded as the church's first historian. So Acts is dated about 63AD and the Gospel of Luke a year or two before then. Luke references that "many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed them down to us" (Luke 1:1-2) This is a reference to earlier "compiled" sources (note the word "many" which indicates a number of at least partial compilations that were "undertaken") and eyewitness accounts.

Since Mark is one of the source documents for Matthew and Luke, it must have been written before early 60s. Scholars seem to be divided on a date in the mid to late 50s on the one hand, and to as early as the early 50s on the other hand.

The point of all this is that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke were written early enough to be accurate histories of Jesus' life and ministry. The likelihood of a source writing, the "Q" document, adds another early writing pre-dating the early 60s, which appears to have been a collection of sayings of Jesus, based upon a comparison of the Matthew and Luke gospels (perhaps one of the compilations that Luke refers to in his gospel). Mark's personal relationship with Peter gives the "eye witness" connection (regardless of the date he wrote the gospel). Early church figures identify Mark as an associate and interpreter of Peter while they were in Rome.

The use of the 70s date, in part, boils down to people not wanting to acknowledge that Jesus could predict the destruction of Jerusalem.

04/03/2008 03:44:59 AM · #1595

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

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?

Poor summary of what I said.

04/03/2008 05:02:23 AM · #1596

Originally posted by Louis:

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.

Paul is not the "only source of Jesus' life for about four decades after his death. Mark, Luke, and Matthew all fit inside the four decades time frame, giving their gospels to posterity. And Jesus' life was well known by his contemporaries (Peter, John, etc.) in addition to Paul, all of whom did a pretty fair job of being a "source" as far as the establishment of the early church is concerned. Given the magnitude of the church's growth in early times, especially in the face of persecution and opposition from people in authority, I'd say the job was handled well enough. No abandonment of reason, logic or sense involved.

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.

Originally posted by Louis:

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?

You're quite serious that "all that Paul knew about Jesus" is his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension? Paul was persecuting early Christians because of Jesus. Given Jesus' challenge to orthodoxy, it's pretty apparent that Paul had a good handle on the impact Jesus was having on Paul's brand of religion, on the miracles Jesus was working, on his claim of deity (the "blasphemy" that drove the Jews nuts), etc. The fact that Paul didn't regurgitate all the events of Jesus' life in his letters to people who were already familiar with those events doesn't mean he was unfamiliar with Jesus' life.

And as for this Mithras mythology comparison argument, I seriously doubt that any of the contemporaries of Jesus were walking around after his death saying, in effect, "Whoa, I've heard this god/man resurrection story somewhere before. Wasn't Mithras the dude that first came up with that gig? That Paul is a major plagerizer." I suspect, (but I'll admit that I haven't researched) the earliest post-Jesus, written arguments of this comparison come from non-Christian scholars who were seeking to discredit the Christian experience. My guess is late 1700s, early 1800s, but maybe there are earlier writings. I don't know, but I'd be interested in any early citation you can give me so I can read up on it. (I haven't located anything in Wiki other than a listing of alleged comparisons which are interesting but not probative that they were actually adopted by Christian leaders).

In any event, not every similarity has probative value and you'd think the early orthodox church and local governments would have been all over that if Paul was contriving something. Instead, the Jews were arguing details of the burial and resurrection - not comparative religion. (Note: I am not saying there aren't similarities scattered around the ancient world. I'm saying the argument doesn't carry enough weight because someone has to adopt the archtype into Christianity before it can possibly have any relevance.) You seem to imply that Paul is the architect of the adoption of Mithras (and similar) mythologies into Christianity by your "Paul's holes" comment. Paul was an instantanious convert to Christianity on the road to Damascus. He was preaching the good news immediately after his conversion. It's way over the top to suggest that because there are some early pagan similarities he decided to fake a good story so he could get his clock cleaned by the orthodox religious order from which he came and in which he was well-schooled. Logic tells me that a man who is totally committed to his Jewish traditions, who is educated in the classic teachings of that tradition, who has a place of honor and status in that tradition, and who makes it his personal mission to stamp out the alleged heretical Jewish sect calling themselves followers of the Way (ie. Jesus), to the point of approving the stoning of Christians in general and Stephen in particular, and who claims to have had an experience with the post-resurrection Jesus on the road to Damascus, and who immediately joins the Christians (who had their own post-resurrection Jesus experiences independent of Paul and before his conversion) and champions their cause, is not someone who has the motive, opportunity, or background to fake a new religion based upon what for him was an obscure pagan deity with a few "similarities". It's more plausible to me that to buy into the Mithras mythology comparison argument is a sure fire way to "abandon reason, logic, and sense" when faced with the life of Paul.

Message edited by author 2008-04-03 06:26:12.

04/03/2008 05:46:28 AM · #1597

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.

Originally posted by chalice:

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.

Originally posted by Louis:

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...

Well, it seemed to me that dogma was acceptible in this particular post because you resort to it at the outset by making the claim that Jesus "was a god in human form." That assertion is equally dogmatic. If we are to start from a point of "distinction" without appealling to any dogma, it seems that the starting point would be that "Jesus was a real man" because that's what Homo sapiens are. The real issue would be what else, if anything, besides being a "real man" was Jesus?

In any event, to couch your argument in dogma and then claim I can't rejoin in kind, seems a bit disingenuous to me.

Originally posted by Louis:

(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.)

You are correct, I haven't read all of the thread yet and I wasn't aware of your background, but it is not important. It has been patently obvious to me that you are well-educated on the subjects of theology and atheism and at least some science, from the content of the comments I have read thus far.

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.

Originally posted by Louis:

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.

I am making a fine point here, but they can't share "the exact same script" and then have observable "differences". The words "exact" and "differences" are antithetical in this context. This is not just a quibble. If you are making the argument that there is a comparison between Mythras and Jesus it is incumbant of you to bridge every chasm of difference to make that stick. Otherwise, the similarities are a coincidence having no impact on Jesus. Moreover, one person's "the same script" with observable "differences" is another person's "basically different" with a few "similarities". And using words like "obvious" and "ridiculously" are conclusory (rather gratuitous, I would say).

I've already addressed the Mithras argument in my last post or two, using non-dogmatic reasons having to do with human behavior, so I won't repeat them here.

04/03/2008 07:53:41 AM · #1598

I've never given the Mithras (or other gods) comparative religion argument much thought beyond knowing that there were various early religions with similar components. Having read the chain of comments already posted I think there is nothing I can add to whether or not a given concept (say, virgin birth) in one religion is like or unlike one in any other. It makes for good academic reading and speculation. And given the dearth of tangible writings on pre-Christian Mithras myths it's not likely to go much farther. DrAchoo has repeatedly asked for some evidence of pre-Christian documentation and there does not seem to be much forthcoming and I suspect that unless you are an expert in that field it would be hard to know where to look for it. Even among the experts already quoted there is uncertainty and some inconsistent ideas.

Leaving that all aside, though, there is another issue. It's irrelevant how many similarities exist. Unless there is any evidence of adoption of those earlier beliefs by Christian leaders there is no justification for attributing them to Christianity.

To use a basic example. If I paint my house red and there happen to be a few red houses in the neighborhood, unless there is some causal nexus proven (such as I've actually seen the houses, mentioned them to a friend, was with one of the other owners when they picked out the red paint to paint their house, etc.) there is no reason to believe that the other red houses are in any way related to my house being red.

I don't really care if Mithras' virgin mother was named Mary and her fondest wish was to hang out in stables with the horses at the time of Mithras' birth. Unless there is a causal nexus proven there is only speculation and academic curiosities.

To bring Mithras into Christianity someone has to be the agent. There needs to be a smoking gun before probative value can even be suggested. Who among the Christians is the smoking gun?

Paul? (That seems to be suggested by Louis' Paul's "holes" comment.) But Paul comes to the party too late. Acts tells us that the disciples were already beginning their preaching and church-building before Paul even had his Damascus road experience. I've already pointed out the unlikelihood of Paul jumping ship from Jewish tradition just so he can fabricate a new religion based upon ancient religious archtypes coming out of Persia, etc.

The eleven disciples after Judas does himself in? They are common fishermen, tradesmen, a tax collector, and the like from Galilee and local environs. What do they know about Mithras and its Persion antecedents? Probably nothing. They know about Jewish traditions, maybe some Samarian practices, and that's about it. There is nothing in the Biblical account that suggests they were even catching on to the divinity of Jesus until after his death and resurrection. (Thomas won't believe even after the others tell him they've had a post-resurrection experience.) It isn't until they've had a religious experience at Pentacost that they start acting like leaders instead of wimps. And then it was instantaneous. Not much time to research and formulate a Mithras-like theology.

John the Baptist? Nope. He has an idea of what is to come, but he is jailed early and executed. A bit player.

That leaves Jesus himself. Now, to believe that Jesus is a man who decides to make a name for himself, or is delusional, or otherwise figures out that this Mithras idea is interesting seems improbable. First, he's a carpenter from Nazareth. Not exactly a hotbed of Mithras likely going on there. Same old Jewish and Samarian influences. Yet he comes up with an idea that he is God, the Messiah of Jewish tradition, and he uses a few parables and some Socratic methods to get his followers to figure out that he is the Christ. So he gets the bright idea of going to the orthodox Jews, ticks them all off and then tries to get them to accept his Messiahship. Seeing that it isn't going well, he predicts he will not be long for this world and then has another bright idea to go into Jerusalem during Holy Week so they can nail him (figuratively and literally) so we can all make Mithras comparisons 2000 years later. The "real man" Jesus isn't up to the religion-creating job.

Maybe its the orthodox Jews or Roman government. I can hear it now, "Let's pretend that Jesus is a deity like Mithras. Those old Persian archtype gods are so unbelievable in this part of the world that the comparison will discredit Jesus and we can get on with the business of orthodox religion and Roman governance." Trouble is, there is no evidence that they made any attempt to set up Jesus. They ridiculed him, beat him to a pulp, executed him, stoned his followers, and tried to crush the Way.

In short, there is no smoking gun. No agent of adoption of the Mithras archtype. No king or other ruler involved who might use it to keep himself in power. No organized priesthood with a vested interest in staying in power. No power base. No politics. Lots of risk to staying alive if you run around claiming what the early Christian's claimed. It's all just a big coincidence. An academic think piece. No practicality. No motive. No opportunity. No copying. No logic. No merit.

Of course, you could also consider that Jesus was who he said he was and forget about the Mithras comparisons. Somehow, I doubt you're likely to go with that idea no matter what I say, so I won't wear my fingers out typing up what you already reject. It's late here and nearly sunrise on the east coast, so I'd better get some sleep. Night all...or good morning.

scalvert

04/03/2008 09:44:00 AM · #1599

I probably won't have a chance to respond to recent posts until much later, but I thought THIS amazing clip would be an eye-popper after Chalice's attempts to portray humans as somehow unique in their appreciation of art.