100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: This may Get A Tad Heated | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
You are confusing Christianity as it is in the Bible and Christianity as taught in Catholicism. There are no links between Mithranism and Christianity as it appears in the Bible. Mithra was born from a rock, not a virgin. Mirthra was a warrior, Jesus was a pacifist. Mithra killed a bull to create helpful things for humans, Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins. There are no similarities.
No Similarities? WRONG WRONG WRONG. In MOST major respects the theology of the two cults (Mithra and Christianity) are all but identical. Mithraism was one of the major religions of the Roman Empire which was derived from the ancient Persian god of light and wisdom. The cult of Mithraism was quite prominent in ancient Rome, especially among the military. Mithra was the god of war, battle, justice, faith, and contract. According to Mithraism, Mithra was called the son of God, was born of a virgin, had disciples, was crucified, rose from the dead on the third day, atoned for the sins of mankind, and returned to heaven. "BORN FROM A ROCK" (Virgin dawn) The theology of Mithraism was centred upon the dying/rising Mithra, emerging fully grown from the ‘virgin dawn’ or rock. The association of gods with rocks or stones is not surprising: fiery rocks falling from the sky (meteorites) and even sparks released by colliding stones would equally strike the simple mind as ‘evidence’ of a godly presence. Holy stones were anointed with oil. Mithra was fathered by the creator god Ahura-Mazda. Mithras’s supposed creation had occurred in a ‘time before men’, a cosmic creation in a celestial heaven. At no time was it believed that he had lived as a mere mortal and trod the earth. Mithraism's failure to have anthropomorphised its god into a man – something which was to be accomplished so successfully by Christianity – weakened the cult's appeal to the uneducated and opened the door to the competition. In all other major respects the theology of the two cults (Mithra and Christianity) were all but identical. Mithras had had twelve followers with whom he had shared a last sacramental meal. The evidence from a mithraeum at Dura Europus suggests members of the congregation and thiasos (sacred company) held a banquet in which eating, drinking and musical performances featured as well as religious ceremonial. He had sacrificed himself to redeem mankind. Descending into the underworld, he had conquered death and had risen to life again on the third day. The holy day for this sun god was, of course, Sunday (Christians continued to follow the Jewish Sabbath until the fourth century). His many titles included ‘the Truth,’ ‘the Light,’ and ‘the Good Shepherd.’ For those who worshipped him, invoking the name of Mithras healed the sick and worked miracles. Mithras could dispense mercy and grant immortality; to his devotees he offered hope. By drinking his blood and eating his flesh (by proxy, from a slain bull) they too could conquer death. On a Day of Judgement those already dead would be raised back to life. Wow! Talk about Deja Vu! Christianity is the resurrection of Mithraism. I knew they were similar, but Holy Cow, based on what you've posted here they are so perfectly identical it was a verbatim plagiarism! I had no idea they were that prefectly indentical. The fact that they had similarities, like blood sacrifices, is enough for me to dismiss them both as being similar folklore. But being that identical it's clear that it was a direct copy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess what i'm getting at spidey is this - i wont say absolutely for sure - but if i was looking to become a christian i would not be drawn to a Q&A type of discussion on line to find out if a faith based religion is real or not. I say that because it would take some kind of intervention from a bieng for me as it did originally. If i had not seen an extremely drastic change in a close friend, i would have never even concidered christinity or eead the bible or anything. that is why i question a cold hard faith fact discussion/arguement/debate type format for faith based things. try and look at it from this way - if the bulk of christians found jesus strictly from the book and then decided to start attending church and the people were acting very non christian for what ever reasons either in church or after church what would the faithful have accomplished? to me actions speak much louder than words - show me a mans words and i understand his speech, show me his life and i'll understand his heart. I don't know what you are getting at. Just be blunt, okay? Nuance doesn't work in forums. Either state what you are trying to say or don't, but this half way stuff leaves too much to the imagination. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I apologize spidey, my mistake, but you did use dogma and theology did you not? You nailed me. I was asked a question about my religious beliefs and I answered to discussing them. 
it's ok easy to do on a forum. all of us do it hahaha. It was sarcasm. I was asked about my religious beliefs and I answered. What? My beliefs aren't legitimate because they agree with a book? Beliefs are legitimate only if I made them up on my own? Seriously man, that's very bigoted and closed minded. I'll end there, because I won't let the shortsightedness of you or anyone else here bring me down to your level. nite spidey 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"God established a prohibition against incest in Leviticus 18:6-18. Prior to that time, human genes were pure enough to allow close relatives to have children without passing deformities to the children." Spider what is this now? Its sounds like a load of crap we might potentially need a dump truck to haul out of here. Care to elaborate? No, not to you. So you can’t justify this statement in other words. I figured as much. I didn’t think you were really hip to the entire genetics, DNA, biochemical instructions and biochemistry area of study. Thanks for clarifying that however. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow! Talk about Deja Vu! Christianity is the resurrection of Mithraism. I knew they were similar, but Holy Cow, based on what you've posted here they are so perfectly identical it was a verbatim plagiarism! I had no idea they were that prefectly indentical. The fact that they had similarities, like blood sacrifices, is enough for me to dismiss them both as being similar folklore. But being that identical it's clear that it was a direct copy. Does it bother you that most of those claims are completely false and those that are true are obviously coincidence? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"God established a prohibition against incest in Leviticus 18:6-18. Prior to that time, human genes were pure enough to allow close relatives to have children without passing deformities to the children." Spider what is this now? Its sounds like a load of crap we might potentially need a dump truck to haul out of here. Care to elaborate? No, not to you. So you can’t justify this statement in other words. I figured as much. I didn’t think you were really hip to the entire genetics, DNA, biochemical instructions and biochemistry area of study. Thanks for clarifying that however. I'm a computer programmer by trade, so I don't have any formal training in genetics. But I know enough about Mendel's Laws of Inheritance to know that my statement is valid. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 08/22/08 06:09 PM
|
|
You are confusing Christianity as it is in the Bible and Christianity as taught in Catholicism. There are no links between Mithranism and Christianity as it appears in the Bible. Mithra was born from a rock, not a virgin. Mirthra was a warrior, Jesus was a pacifist. Mithra killed a bull to create helpful things for humans, Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins. There are no similarities.
No Similarities? WRONG WRONG WRONG. In MOST major respects the theology of the two cults (Mithra and Christianity) are all but identical. Mithraism was one of the major religions of the Roman Empire which was derived from the ancient Persian god of light and wisdom. The cult of Mithraism was quite prominent in ancient Rome, especially among the military. Mithra was the god of war, battle, justice, faith, and contract. According to Mithraism, Mithra was called the son of God, was born of a virgin, had disciples, was crucified, rose from the dead on the third day, atoned for the sins of mankind, and returned to heaven. "BORN FROM A ROCK" (Virgin dawn) The theology of Mithraism was centred upon the dying/rising Mithra, emerging fully grown from the ‘virgin dawn’ or rock. The association of gods with rocks or stones is not surprising: fiery rocks falling from the sky (meteorites) and even sparks released by colliding stones would equally strike the simple mind as ‘evidence’ of a godly presence. Holy stones were anointed with oil. Mithra was fathered by the creator god Ahura-Mazda. Mithras’s supposed creation had occurred in a ‘time before men’, a cosmic creation in a celestial heaven. At no time was it believed that he had lived as a mere mortal and trod the earth. Mithraism's failure to have anthropomorphised its god into a man – something which was to be accomplished so successfully by Christianity – weakened the cult's appeal to the uneducated and opened the door to the competition. In all other major respects the theology of the two cults (Mithra and Christianity) were all but identical. Mithras had had twelve followers with whom he had shared a last sacramental meal. The evidence from a mithraeum at Dura Europus suggests members of the congregation and thiasos (sacred company) held a banquet in which eating, drinking and musical performances featured as well as religious ceremonial. He had sacrificed himself to redeem mankind. Descending into the underworld, he had conquered death and had risen to life again on the third day. The holy day for this sun god was, of course, Sunday (Christians continued to follow the Jewish Sabbath until the fourth century). His many titles included ‘the Truth,’ ‘the Light,’ and ‘the Good Shepherd.’ For those who worshipped him, invoking the name of Mithras healed the sick and worked miracles. Mithras could dispense mercy and grant immortality; to his devotees he offered hope. By drinking his blood and eating his flesh (by proxy, from a slain bull) they too could conquer death. On a Day of Judgement those already dead would be raised back to life. http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html Mithra had 1 or 2 followers, depending on the version of Mithranism you are talking about, but not 12. Mithra didn't die. Mithra wasn't called "the shepherd" Mithra wasn't called the truth or the light. Sunday was only holy to Mithranians of the Roman variety. Since all Roman gods had a holy day once a week, it was a 1 in 7 chance that it would match up with the traditional day of worship for Christians. But as the New Testament makes clear, all days are equal to the Christian, because they all belong to the Lord. You have choosen to believe lies. Look up any book about Mithra or any SCHOLARLY source and you will see that the similarities you are convinced of are lies intended to delegitimize Christianity. So can you recommend an unbiased scholarly source for Mithra? By unbiased it cannot be a Christian source with an obvioius adenda JB P.S. Here are my sources: Sources: Malachi Martin, The Decline & Fall of the Roman Church (Secker & Warburg, 1981) Kevin Butcher, Roman Syria & the Near East (British Museum, 2003) Dan Cohn-Sherbok, The Crucified Jew (Harper Collins,1992) Michael Parenti, History as Mystery (City Lights, 1999) Leslie Houlden (Ed.), Judaism & Christianity (Routledge, 1988) Alan Hall, History of the Papacy (PRC, 1998) Helen Ellerbe, The Dark Side of Christian History (Morning Star & Lark, 1995) Peter De Rosa, Vicars of Christ (Bantam Press, 1988) John G. Jackson, Christianity Before Christ (American Atheist Press, 1985) S. Angus, The Mystery Religions (Kessinger Publishing, 2003) Antonia Tripolitis, Religions of the Hellenistic Roman Age (Eerdmans,2002) David Ulansey, The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries (OUP, 1991) Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity (Eerdmans, 2003) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spider wrote:
What? My beliefs aren't legitimate because they agree with a book? God established a prohibition against incest in Leviticus 18:6-18. Prior to that time, human genes were pure enough to allow close relatives to have children without passing deformities to the children. You clearly make up your own stuff Spider. There is nothing in the Bible about human genes being pure enough to allow close relatives to procreate without deformities prior to Leviticus. Clearly the Jews just decided to write this in on their own at this time. Moreover it wouldn't even make sense. The more pure genes are the less closely you can procreate. It would work precisely the opposite that you suggest anyway. You're beliefs are entirely your own imagination. You just make stuff up and convince yourself of it. I agree with Jeannie, you aren't intentionally lying to anyone, you're just totally delusional. You make up stuff and believe it yourself. There nothing in the bible about genes being to pure prior to the time of Leviticus. I just read it. There's nothing that could even remotely be taken to even suggest that given the widest berth of abstraction. It simply doesn't say why God made these laws at the time. It just states what the laws are. In fact, in verses 27 and 30 it clearly states that these abominations have been committed before this time. Implying that they have always been considered to be abominations. But that flies in the face of the very story of creation (and after the flood with Noah and his family). Clearly the authors of the Bible weren't real smart. But there's no way that Leviticus could be used to support what you just claimed about genes because versus 27 and 30 deny that interpretation. You're personal interpretations of the Bible are just that Spider; - You own personal views, and they have absolutely nothing to do with the doctrine itself because clearly you aren't even paying attention to the details. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"God established a prohibition against incest in Leviticus 18:6-18. Prior to that time, human genes were pure enough to allow close relatives to have children without passing deformities to the children." Spider what is this now? Its sounds like a load of crap we might potentially need a dump truck to haul out of here. Care to elaborate? No, not to you. So you can’t justify this statement in other words. I figured as much. I didn’t think you were really hip to the entire genetics, DNA, biochemical instructions and biochemistry area of study. Thanks for clarifying that however. I'm a computer programmer by trade, so I don't have any formal training in genetics. But I know enough about Mendel's Laws of Inheritance to know that my statement is valid. I’m afraid it isn't valid. Several inheritable traits or congenital conditions in humans are classical examples of Mendelian inheritance. Their presence is controlled by a single gene that can either be of the autosomal dominant or recessive type. People that inherited at least one dominant gene from either parent usually present with the dominant form of the trait. Only those that received the recessive gene from both parents present with the recessive phenotype. In other words, two blue eyed parents can ONLY produce blue eyed offspring because both sides are recessive/recessive. If a blue gets with a brown, the brown eyes or dominant trait is more likely to become the phenotype. The phenotype is what we actually see. Now a blue and a brown can also produce a blue eyed infant if the brown eyed parent has a recessive blue, because then you can potentially have recessive/recessive come up again. It’s a genetic role of the dice. So now explain to me how these two humans, created by god, and if you buy into Genesis 2, from Adam's rib, how they are not sharing their genetic coding in some respect and how their children would have not been incestuously manufactured from this union. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So can you recommend an unbiased scholarly source for Mithra? By unbiased it cannot be a Christian source. JB How about atheist? http://englishatheist.org/mithra/mom02.htm I'm no expert on Mithra, I only know what I have read online. But what I can tell you is that none of the scholarly sources I have found mention most, if not all of the similarities you are convinced of. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
hinkypoepoe
on
Fri 08/22/08 06:31 PM
|
|
1. I was taught that God was all loving, all knowing supreme being. That's all fine and good, but it seems to me, from the Bible... Be good and do exactly what he says and don't sin...don't even think of sinning or this all loving God is going to throw me into the pit of hell. God is supposed to be like our father, if this is true, it is my OPINION that he is saying, "I love you unconditionally, now behave or I'm throwing you into the furnace... So much for love....
Easy one: God does not put you in hell…much like life… you put your self in hell by the choices you make.The bible is a guide from god to help you stay clear of sin. God is with out sin. Man eat from the tree of knowledge and saw good and evil. He then proceeded to screw up the world from that point on. We fall away from Gods perfection when we sin. Hell is a place away from Gods presence. God can not tolerate or be in the presence of sin.Jesus died and his blood cleard our sin away..we just have to ask for gods forgivness and mercy in the name of Jesus. He loves us so much that he gave his own sons life over to a us. Its called free willby the way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An old-Iranian god of light, contracts and friendship. He also maintains the cosmic order. Sometimes mentioned as the son of Ahura Mazda, he assists him in his struggle against the forces of evil, represented by Angra Mainyu. Mithra was born from a rock (or a cave). He fought with the sun and managed to capture the divine bull and slayed it before he ascended to heaven. From the blood of the bull came forth all the plants and animals beneficial to humanity.
Mithra With the emerging of Zoroastrianism, he was reduced to the status of Yazata. In the Avesta he was portrayed as having ten thousand ears and eyes, and he rides in a chariot pulled by white horses. In the 4 century BCE his popularity rose and again he held a high position in the Persian pantheon. Eventually his cult spread beyond Iran and Asia Minor and gradually became a mystery cult. The ascetic religion of Mithraism (to which only men were allowed) became increasingly popular among the Roman soldiers around 100 CE and at that time Mithra was known in Rome as 'Deus sol invictus' ("the unconquered sun"). Even the Roman emperor Commodus was initiated into Mithra's cult. When Constantine the Great was converted to Christianity in 312 CE, Mithraism started to decline and after a temporary revival under Julius the Apostate (331-363) the cult disappeared for good. Mithra was worshipped in Mithraea, artificially constructed caves that represented his birth-cave. The ceiling looked like the starry sky and at the sides benches where placed for the ritual meals. In the center of the Mithraea was a niche which held a relief of the god, dressed in Phrygian clothing (short tunic and cloak, long trousers and a hat with a curled tip), who kills a bull. The Mithraea were spread all over the Roman empire and some 50 of these caves still exist in Rome today. He is also known as Mitra in the Indian Veda. CULT HELLO CULT HELLO IT IS NOT THE SAME IT IS NOT THE SAME This is more along the lines of Greek Myths.......oh you people so reach it's making me laugh hysterically...... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
to me actions speak much louder than words - show me a mans words and i understand his speech, show me his life and i'll understand his heart. they do, and the words and actions of some of the professed non-religious here speak very loudly and not much of it is pleasant. I am nice to all people until I see how unkind they really are. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spider wrote:
What? My beliefs aren't legitimate because they agree with a book? God established a prohibition against incest in Leviticus 18:6-18. Prior to that time, human genes were pure enough to allow close relatives to have children without passing deformities to the children. You clearly make up your own stuff Spider. There is nothing in the Bible about human genes being pure enough to allow close relatives to procreate without deformities prior to Leviticus. Clearly the Jews just decided to write this in on their own at this time. Moreover it wouldn't even make sense. The more pure genes are the less closely you can procreate. It would work precisely the opposite that you suggest anyway. You're beliefs are entirely your own imagination. You just make stuff up and convince yourself of it. I agree with Jeannie, you aren't intentionally lying to anyone, you're just totally delusional. You make up stuff and believe it yourself. There nothing in the bible about genes being to pure prior to the time of Leviticus. I just read it. There's nothing that could even remotely be taken to even suggest that given the widest berth of abstraction. It simply doesn't say why God made these laws at the time. It just states what the laws are. In fact, in verses 27 and 30 it clearly states that these abominations have been committed before this time. Implying that they have always been considered to be abominations. But that flies in the face of the very story of creation (and after the flood with Noah and his family). Clearly the authors of the Bible weren't real smart. But there's no way that Leviticus could be used to support what you just claimed about genes because versus 27 and 30 deny that interpretation. You're personal interpretations of the Bible are just that Spider; - You own personal views, and they have absolutely nothing to do with the doctrine itself because clearly you aren't even paying attention to the details. You really need to learn the art of brevity. The Bible doesn't mention genes, that's true. But your very limited understanding of the BIble is hampering you. God called everything he created "very good". Nothing in our world is good, Jesus taught "only God is good". To God, you are either perfect (good) or you are not perfect (sinful). For God to call the universe "good" must mean that the universe was perfect when created. But since mankind sinned, the universe was changed so that it was no longer good, to match the humans. Nearly perfect humans would lack any defective genes. Nearly perfect parents would produce nearly perfect children. It's not hard logic. I'm sure you will make an arguement to disagree with me, but I won't be answering. Talking about subjects which are so clear with a "Bible scholar" such as yourself is fruitless. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is more along the lines of Greek Myths.......oh you people so reach it's making me laugh hysterically......
You think that Christianity isn't along the line of Greek Myths? No you have me laughing hysterically.
Winged angels? Demons with red skin and pointed tails? The God truning people into pillars of salt? Flooding out the entire planet to flush away the sinners? Oh, yeah, and the need for blood sacrifices? How is it any different from the Greek Myths? It's every bit as incredulous. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Fri 08/22/08 06:37 PM
|
|
Demons with red skin and pointed tails? No comment on this one, none is required. Remember, Abra studied the Bible for 40 years, so nobody correct him on this. incredulous unwilling to admit or accept what is offered as true Christianity cannot be incredulous, since Christianity is a belief system and not a sentient entity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move.
-- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spider wrote:
What? My beliefs aren't legitimate because they agree with a book? God established a prohibition against incest in Leviticus 18:6-18. Prior to that time, human genes were pure enough to allow close relatives to have children without passing deformities to the children. You clearly make up your own stuff Spider. There is nothing in the Bible about human genes being pure enough to allow close relatives to procreate without deformities prior to Leviticus. Clearly the Jews just decided to write this in on their own at this time. Moreover it wouldn't even make sense. The more pure genes are the less closely you can procreate. It would work precisely the opposite that you suggest anyway. You're beliefs are entirely your own imagination. You just make stuff up and convince yourself of it. I agree with Jeannie, you aren't intentionally lying to anyone, you're just totally delusional. You make up stuff and believe it yourself. There nothing in the bible about genes being to pure prior to the time of Leviticus. I just read it. There's nothing that could even remotely be taken to even suggest that given the widest berth of abstraction. It simply doesn't say why God made these laws at the time. It just states what the laws are. In fact, in verses 27 and 30 it clearly states that these abominations have been committed before this time. Implying that they have always been considered to be abominations. But that flies in the face of the very story of creation (and after the flood with Noah and his family). Clearly the authors of the Bible weren't real smart. But there's no way that Leviticus could be used to support what you just claimed about genes because versus 27 and 30 deny that interpretation. You're personal interpretations of the Bible are just that Spider; - You own personal views, and they have absolutely nothing to do with the doctrine itself because clearly you aren't even paying attention to the details. You really need to learn the art of brevity. The Bible doesn't mention genes, that's true. But your very limited understanding of the BIble is hampering you. God called everything he created "very good". Nothing in our world is good, Jesus taught "only God is good". To God, you are either perfect (good) or you are not perfect (sinful). For God to call the universe "good" must mean that the universe was perfect when created. But since mankind sinned, the universe was changed so that it was no longer good, to match the humans. Nearly perfect humans would lack any defective genes. Nearly perfect parents would produce nearly perfect children. It's not hard logic. I'm sure you will make an arguement to disagree with me, but I won't be answering. Talking about subjects which are so clear with a "Bible scholar" such as yourself is fruitless. Who are you addressing here? So the genes are perfect because poof! God says they are? The OP was asking WHY would this union NOT be considered incestuous? I am asking the same question here. What of the offspring of Adam and Eve? What would have prevented them from having inherited mutations in a single gene? This would have been in keeping with Mendel's law. I’m not exactly sure what would happen but cystic fibrosis maybe? Lung problems, any number of physical abnormalities. So what prevents all of this from occurring? Simply because they are "sin free"? That's preposterous. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure you will make an arguement to disagree with me, but I won't be answering. Talking about subjects which are so clear with a "Bible scholar" such as yourself is fruitless. I beg your pardon your High Holiness. You were just 'saved' last year when you first logged onto the forums and now you're the Pope. I didn't realize it worked that quick. In fact, if I remember correctly you were the Pope when you first logged on, so I guess it was an instantaneous enlightenment. My point still holds true though. Your proclamation can't possible be true because you stated that God changed the laws at this time, but verses 27 and 30 clearly state that this was always an abomination in prior times. Face it, you're wrong. It doesn't take an expert to realize that what you are claiming flies in the face of what the text actually says. Anyone can who can read can see that Spider. You're no expert Bible Scholar. You're just an individual claiming to speak for God. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You really need to learn the art of brevity. The Bible doesn't mention genes, that's true. But your very limited understanding of the BIble is hampering you. God called everything he created "very good". Nothing in our world is good, Jesus taught "only God is good". To God, you are either perfect (good) or you are not perfect (sinful). For God to call the universe "good" must mean that the universe was perfect when created. But since mankind sinned, the universe was changed so that it was no longer good, to match the humans. Nearly perfect humans would lack any defective genes. Nearly perfect parents would produce nearly perfect children. It's not hard logic. I'm sure you will make an arguement to disagree with me, but I won't be answering. Talking about subjects which are so clear with a "Bible scholar" such as yourself is fruitless. Who are you addressing here? So the genes are perfect because poof! God says they are? The OP was asking WHY would this union NOT be considered incestuous? I am asking the same question here. What of the offspring of Adam and Eve? What would have prevented them from having inherited mutations in a single gene? This would have been in keeping with Mendel's law. I’m not exactly sure what would happen but cystic fibrosis maybe? Lung problems, any number of physical abnormalities. So what prevents all of this from occurring? Simply because they are "sin free"? That's preposterous. could explain why the human race is so fckd up...  |
|
|
|
|
