10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer

Gern Blansten · January 2010

http://www.edwardjayne.com/christology/mithra.html

Both Mithraism and Christianity became popular in Rome during the second century, A.D. As a Persian religion, Mithraism was far older and more venerable at the time, having been practiced as early as 1500, B.C. during the Aryan migration into both Persia and India. This was when the early Vedic god Mitra, similar to Mithra, began to be worshipped in India. During the sixth century, B.C., the Persian mystic Zarathustra (Zoroaster, as described in Greece) subordinated the story of Mithra to a grand epic struggle between a god (Ahura Mazda) and a devil (Ahriman) that supposedly culminates in judgment day, when all souls can expect to be consigned either to heaven or hell. Whether perceived as the primary god in his own right or subordinated to Ahura Mazda, Mithra was worshipped across Asia from the Indus River to the Black Sea when his religion finally arrived in Rome in a version that first emerged perhaps a hundred years before Christ.

Rome's initial exposure to Mithraism was probably through Cilician "traders" (pirates from the coast of Turkey on the Mediterranean), and with sufficient curiosity value that the Emperor Nero (54-68) supposedly considered becoming a Mithraist. After expeditions to the eastern front by the Emperor Trajan and others in the mid-second century, Mithraism quickly spread to all frontiers of the Roman empire guarded by Roman legions transferred from the Near East. Mithraism was even practiced in Great Britain, where numerous Mithraic temples have been excavated.

Christianity, on the other hand, took at least a century to become a major religious movement competitive with others in the Roman Empire. Besides Mithraism, these included Manichaenism, Gnosticism, and the worship of Heracles, Cybele, Isis, Osiris, Dionysus Zagreus, and the god Serapis as a syncretistic fusion of Osiris and Dionysus--also the religions and mysteries of Jews, Stoics, Pythagoreans, Orphics, and Neoplatonists. The early history of Christian doctrine in the authorship of the Gospels may be charted as follows:

so if we can agree on 1500 AD then review this....

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN MITHRA AND CHRIST:

1. Both Mithras and Christ were portrayed as young and beardless; both sometimes appeared in the shepherd's role, and both saved mankind by performing sacrifical deeds.

2. Both Mithras and Christ had virgin births in the sense that they were conceived without any sexual union between man and woman. Christ's father was said to be God, while Mithras was said to have had no father or mother, having emerged as an adult from a large rock.

3. Both Mithraism and Christianity celebrated the birth of their god on the winter solstice, the 25th of December according to the Julian calendar. Both featured the sharing of presents, the use of Christmas trees with candles, and nativity scenes that included shepherds attracted by a sacred light. The special importance of this solstice ceremony to Mithraists would be indicated by the name Mithras, which derived from Meitras, which in Greek numerology refers to the number 365, the last day of the solar year at the winter solstice.

4. Both the Old Testament and Mithraic legend told of the first human couple having been created. Mithra supposedly kept a watchful eye over their descendents until Ahriman caused a draught that caused such thirst that they begged Mithra for water.

5. Both told of a major flood, in the case of Mithra through his having shot an arrow into a stone cliff to quench mankind's thirst. Unfortunately, the entire world's population was drowned in a flood produced by the water spout that gushed from the hole his arrow produced. One man alone (a Noah figure borrowed from the earlier Sumerian myth of Atrahasis) was warned in time and could therefore save himself and his cattle in an ark.

6. Both Mithraism and Christianity emphasized mankind's redemption resulting from a sacrificial death followed by the god's ascent to heaven. In the case of Christ, it was the god himself (or his son) who was sacrificed; in the case of Mithra, it was a sacred steer that Mithra sacrificed.

7. Both featured resurrection through sacrifice. Mithraism more obviously drew upon spring equinox fertility myths by depicting Mithra's sacrificial bull with a tail that consisted of sheaves of wheat that were supposedly scattered throughout the world once it was slaughtered. Also, the bull's blood formed the milky way, allowing human souls both to be born and to return to the heavens after death.

8. Both told of a Last Supper linked with the blood sacrifice whose symbolic recreation by eating bread and wine provided salvation for all worshippers. After Mithra killed the bull depicted in Mithraic art, he feasted upon it with the Sun God and other companions before ascending to the heavens in the sun god's chariot. The sequence was slightly different in the New Testament: Christ's Last Supper necessarily preceded his crucifixion rather than following it, after which he ascended to heaven.

9. Both emphasized purification through baptism, Mithraists by washing themselves in the blood of sacrificial oxen. While dying oxen bled to death on lattice floors built over their heads, initiates both drank and washed themselves with the blood that dripped on them.

10. Both featured secret temples located underground. For Christians it was a temporary expedient to avoid persecution, but for Mithraists it became a permanent institution, each small chapel, called a Mithraeum, having seated no more than fifty worshippers and having been constructed to point from east to west. Rounded ceilings were painted blue and imbedded with gemstones. There were no windows except for a few chapels in which tiny holes in the ceiling that had been bored to let in the light of certain stars at particular times of the year.

11. Both held Sunday to be sacred.

12. Both encouraged asceticism. Mithraists were expected to resist sensuality and to abstain from eating certain foods.

13. Both emphasized charity. Mithra was identified as the god of help who protected his worshippers, whatever their tribulations in life.

14. Last and probably least, both emphasized a rock, Mithra having been born from one and the Vatican having been built on one.

Gern Blansten · January 2010

Eusebius of Caesarea (circa 283-371 CE) wrote: "The religion of Jesus Christ is neither new nor strange."

St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE) wrote: "This, in our day, is the Christian religion, not as having been unknown in former times, but as having recently received that name."

Gern Blansten · January 2010

EddieLedBetter wrote:

You fail to realize that after the time of Jesus everyone who was a writer wasnt willing to be put to death by a Roman empire for writing about Jesus. Only a devout few writers of that time were actually willing to give up their lives to write these things and pass them down. If you lived then and knew that you would be beheaded or crucified upside down for merely writing about Jesus, someone you have no faith in, would you write about him?

Those who werent brave enough to die for the cause kept the story alive by word of mouth until someone who God worked through who was willing to die, Paul for example, put the words down.

you fail to realize that it is quite possible that they weren't writing about Jesus because there was no Jesus

Hugh Freaking Dillon · January 2010

agauthiermdphd wrote:

To Johnny Sitar

Wow! What an aggressive tone to your response. You should have properly read my post especially the part where I say that I fully admit that my brain, as everyone else, is too small to answer the question if God exist or not. In the first paragraph I clearly stated "Do not ask me what the big picture is as my brain is also too small". When I stated humans will never be able to answer this question how come you thought I excluded myself from this group. I did not and never pretended that I know the answer to this question. I tried to write my comment without answering this question. The only points I wanted to make is that our brains are too small for such question and that science is extremely limited. There is no black kettle here as I am not calling anyone anything. I only stated that none of us can know if God exist or not due to our physically limited state of being, period. I did not call one side arrogant without calling the other the same. I called everyone who tried to answer the question "does God exist", regardless of the answer they give, arrogant. Raising the question is interesting but in the end none of us will ever be able to prove anything anyway.

To marking ball

I certainly appreciate your comment (ant its better tone) and would agree that there is the possibility that God does not exist. I do not know and may never know. This is where having faith or not comes into play but still does not answer the question with certainty either way. This goes back to my two points that our physical form is limiting us from understanding things and that science in 2010 if not able to answer this question either way.

Peace

not aggressive at all. you can take my tone any way you want. I was merely pointing out that you seem to air on the side of believing, and pointing out that just because science can't prove god is real doesn't mean he doesn't exist. that's obvious. christians seem to think they HAVE proof, and that's bogus to me.

no aggression in this one either, by the way.

supersonicyears · January 2010

Gern Blansten wrote:

EddieLedBetter wrote:

You fail to realize that after the time of Jesus everyone who was a writer wasnt willing to be put to death by a Roman empire for writing about Jesus. Only a devout few writers of that time were actually willing to give up their lives to write these things and pass them down. If you lived then and knew that you would be beheaded or crucified upside down for merely writing about Jesus, someone you have no faith in, would you write about him?

Those who werent brave enough to die for the cause kept the story alive by word of mouth until someone who God worked through who was willing to die, Paul for example, put the words down.

you fail to realize that it is quite possible that they weren't writing about Jesus because there was no Jesus

I'm sad for you

Johnny Sitar wrote:

agauthiermdphd wrote:

To Johnny Sitar

Wow! What an aggressive tone to your response. You should have properly read my post especially the part where I say that I fully admit that my brain, as everyone else, is too small to answer the question if God exist or not. In the first paragraph I clearly stated "Do not ask me what the big picture is as my brain is also too small". When I stated humans will never be able to answer this question how come you thought I excluded myself from this group. I did not and never pretended that I know the answer to this question. I tried to write my comment without answering this question. The only points I wanted to make is that our brains are too small for such question and that science is extremely limited. There is no black kettle here as I am not calling anyone anything. I only stated that none of us can know if God exist or not due to our physically limited state of being, period. I did not call one side arrogant without calling the other the same. I called everyone who tried to answer the question "does God exist", regardless of the answer they give, arrogant. Raising the question is interesting but in the end none of us will ever be able to prove anything anyway.

To marking ball

I certainly appreciate your comment (ant its better tone) and would agree that there is the possibility that God does not exist. I do not know and may never know. This is where having faith or not comes into play but still does not answer the question with certainty either way. This goes back to my two points that our physical form is limiting us from understanding things and that science in 2010 if not able to answer this question either way.

Peace

not aggressive at all. you can take my tone any way you want. I was merely pointing out that you seem to air on the side of believing, and pointing out that just because science can't prove god is real doesn't mean he doesn't exist. that's obvious. christians seem to think they HAVE proof, and that's bogus to me.

no aggression in this one either, by the way.

The proof is in our faith

Gern Blansten · January 2010

TheBeach wrote:

I'm sad for you

don't be....life couldn't be better

Hugh Freaking Dillon · January 2010

TheBeach wrote:

The proof is in our faith

heidi klum is secretly in love with me. what? you want me to prove it? i don't have to give any proof, it's true because I believe it to be so!!

Hugh Freaking Dillon · January 2010

TheBeach wrote:

I'm sad for you

if there's anything sad about this, it's that post. gimme a break. people trying to convince us we're not happy, when nothing could be further than the truth (at least in my case, and also stated by Gern). typical religious recruitment MO: convince people they aren't happy so they'll join the cause. and you people wonder why some consider christianity a crutch or for the weak. you perpetuate your own negative stigma.

such a crock.

supersonicyears · February 2010

Johnny Sitar wrote:

TheBeach wrote:

I'm sad for you

if there's anything sad about this, it's that post. gimme a break. people trying to convince us we're not happy, when nothing could be further than the truth (at least in my case, and also stated by Gern). typical religious recruitment MO: convince people they aren't happy so they'll join the cause. and you people wonder why some consider christianity a crutch or for the weak. you perpetuate your own negative stigma.

such a crock.

I never said you weren't happy in this life. It's funny how you both interpreted what I said that way.
Hmnn......

Hugh Freaking Dillon · February 2010

TheBeach wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

TheBeach wrote:

I'm sad for you

if there's anything sad about this, it's that post. gimme a break. people trying to convince us we're not happy, when nothing could be further than the truth (at least in my case, and also stated by Gern). typical religious recruitment MO: convince people they aren't happy so they'll join the cause. and you people wonder why some consider christianity a crutch or for the weak. you perpetuate your own negative stigma.

such a crock.

I never said you weren't happy in this life. It's funny how you both interpreted what I said that way.
Hmnn......

fine. I'll bite. Then please enlighten us on what exactly "I'm sad for you" is supposed to mean? This is the exact same type of drivel that ELB and Godfather has been feeding us the past while, so while I can concede it's possible that you didn't mean it that way, I think given what we've been hitting our heads against the last while, you can understand why it came across as such. Most of the other believers on this thread have said point blank that you aren't happy until you believe.

pandora · February 2010

I'll jump out on a limb here and say- the poster was feeling for you. It seems to me that these threads are started by the nonbelievers to provoke those who believe in God, and religion, to defend their beliefs. I don't think I have seen believers doing that to the nonbelievers yet you say that is what we do. We try to push our beliefs on you?? No but we feel forced to defend them.
As far as not being happy- its the provoking, the need to attack, the cynicism and sometimes a bitter feel that when the words are read without actually looking in another's eyes it may seem as though you are unhappy. Perhaps this is not so. Perhaps you just like to debate.
But aside from that there is a true bliss that believers carry in their hearts.

Hugh Freaking Dillon · February 2010

pandora wrote:

I'll jump out on a limb here and say- the poster was feeling for you. It seems to me that these threads are started by the nonbelievers to provoke those who believe in God, and religion, to defend their beliefs. I don't think I have seen believers doing that to the nonbelievers yet you say that is what we do. We try to push our beliefs on you?? No but we feel forced to defend them.
As far as not being happy- its the provoking, the need to attack, the cynicism and sometimes a bitter feel that when the words are read without actually looking in another's eyes it may seem as though you are unhappy. Perhaps this is not so. Perhaps you just like to debate.
But aside from that there is a true bliss that believers carry in their hearts.

false. the other thread was started by a believer. and he wasn't feeling for me, it was directed at Gern. Feeling for him why? He has stated several time he is completely happy. COMPLETELY. He just doesn't get it. SOME of you put yourselves on some pedestal and try to tell us how to lead our lives because our lives are not complete. You are not forced to defend yourselves; quite the contrary. If you have read my posts, I completely respect your and everyone's right to worship or believe whatever they want. I don't feel as though I'm afforded the same respect, and that is all.

the other part of it is honestly trying to understand where someone is coming from. But when I get the canned response of "well if you would read scripture and if you were truly happy you would just know, as I do". It's condescending, and it's annoying. If you can't defend your position with fact, fine, but just say so.

It is un non-believers that admit to not know all. Some of the believers tend to lean towards the knowing everything angle. Look at the posts. It's right there in black and white.

Now you tell me who is attacking and who is defending?

Hugh Freaking Dillon · February 2010

pandora wrote:

But aside from that there is a true bliss that believers carry in their hearts.

again, you are assuming since I don't believe in your god that I don't carry that same feeling. maybe you didn't before you believed. not so with me. I feel more blissful and complete than when I WAS a believer.

Gern Blansten · February 2010

same here....complete "bliss"

couldn't be happier

pandora · February 2010

Gern Blansten wrote:

same here....complete "bliss"

couldn't be happier

sorry but the avatar and all that tickled my funny bone

Gern Blansten · February 2010

pandora wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

same here....complete "bliss"

couldn't be happier

sorry but the avatar and all that tickled my funny bone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_SubGenius

it's Bob!

pandora · February 2010

Johnny Sitar wrote:

pandora wrote:

I'll jump out on a limb here and say- the poster was feeling for you. It seems to me that these threads are started by the nonbelievers to provoke those who believe in God, and religion, to defend their beliefs. I don't think I have seen believers doing that to the nonbelievers yet you say that is what we do. We try to push our beliefs on you?? No but we feel forced to defend them.
As far as not being happy- its the provoking, the need to attack, the cynicism and sometimes a bitter feel that when the words are read without actually looking in another's eyes it may seem as though you are unhappy. Perhaps this is not so. Perhaps you just like to debate.
But aside from that there is a true bliss that believers carry in their hearts.

false. the other thread was started by a believer. and he wasn't feeling for me, it was directed at Gern. Feeling for him why? He has stated several time he is completely happy. COMPLETELY. He just doesn't get it. SOME of you put yourselves on some pedestal and try to tell us how to lead our lives because our lives are not complete. You are not forced to defend yourselves; quite the contrary. If you have read my posts, I completely respect your and everyone's right to worship or believe whatever they want. I don't feel as though I'm afforded the same respect, and that is all.

the other part of it is honestly trying to understand where someone is coming from. But when I get the canned response of "well if you would read scripture and if you were truly happy you would just know, as I do". It's condescending, and it's annoying. If you can't defend your position with fact, fine, but just say so.

It is un non-believers that admit to not know all. Some of the believers tend to lean towards the knowing everything angle. Look at the posts. It's right there in black and white.

Now you tell me who is attacking and who is defending?

Actually I personally don't care what people believe- what possible difference would that make to me whether there are people here who don't believe in God. I did not know the believers started a thread as I'm not reading all the "God threads". Its quite a lengthy read you know. Pretty much a wow this can go on and on.
I don't read scripture nor am I religious but I am a spiritual person and that there really are no words for. As I have said before it is a feeling. There is a need that is fulfilled with a feeling. I experienced a miracle that has left me with this feeling. I know without a doubt that we all have souls that we have a place to go when we leave this world. Now you can try to discount this faith with your scientific thoughts and words or you can try to understand as you say you wish to. I have not seen a lot of understanding in these threads though.

pandora · February 2010

Gern Blansten wrote:

pandora wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

same here....complete "bliss"

couldn't be happier

sorry but the avatar and all that tickled my funny bone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_SubGenius

it's Bob!

Oh like Ward Cleaver but scary and dead?
Ward Cleaver was so very happy- even sleeping in a single bed

Hugh Freaking Dillon · February 2010

pandora wrote:

1) Actually I personally don't care what people believe- what possible difference would that make to me whether there are people here who don't believe in God. I did not know the believers started a thread as I'm not reading all the "God threads". 2) Its quite a lengthy read you know. Pretty much a wow this can go on and on.
3) I don't read scripture nor am I religious but I am a spiritual person and that there really are no words for. As I have said before it is a feeling. There is a need that is fulfilled with a feeling. I experienced a miracle that has left me with this feeling. I know without a doubt that we all have souls that we have a place to go when we leave this world. 4) Now you can try to discount this faith with your scientific thoughts and words or you can try to understand as you say you wish to. I have not seen a lot of understanding in these threads though.

1) then you and I understand each other, as I have no interest whatsoever in turning anyone any which way
2) can't say I blame you for that
3) I agree. I don't personally believe in miracles, but I am spiritual, but more of in tune with nature than any supreme being
4) I don't try to discount anyone's faith with scientific thoughts or words. I have been trying to understand, but as soon as I feel as I'm "getting there", I hit a roadblock of arrogance from certain folk.

Peace Pandora.

pandora · February 2010

Do you think arrogance is the correct word? That usually means to exaggerate ones own worth- to be overbearing. In the little I've read I haven't seen that in the christian counter I don't think. But maybe taken that way because faith is strong but not meant to be a put down to those who don't share the same.
Sometimes I think in the cyber world its so easy to misconstrue because we can not look into each others eyes and feel the meaning behind the words.

10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer

Comments

Categories