The Christmas Hoax

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Compugasm

[Destroyer]

Zhavric, that was a rushed response(your response). I spent quite a long time trying to respond to each of your points and all I get back is several appeals to authority, a response to one of my subpoints (wiki) and a strawman that failed to address 95% of my posts.

Wikipedia that can be edited by anyone is a better source than an expert on the subject.

Strawman. And a horrible one at that as I only used wiki to show that Cumont's theories are no longer accepted by the acedemic community. That was only 1% of my overall argument.

Also, you convienently ignored my other quote by another historian who says Cumont's methods are "misleading". It doesn't take an expert to figure out that if someone provides NO evidence for their claims, then it probably isn't true.

The two sources we have for Mithrasism and Franz Cumont is one of them. He's an expert on the subject. It's his research that he's delved into. What books would he use as reference exactly? His research is from actual archeological sites and Mithraic artifacts (which are pictured extensively on the site).

This statement is borderline retarded. Franz Cumont is not a "source" on Mithraisism. Franz Cumont CONSULTS sources such as archeological sites and texts, just like all other historians do. And I think you know full-well that I'm not demanding Cumont (who wrote over a 100 years ago) tell us books he read on the subject. Rather, if he says, "Mithra was born of a virgin" or "Mithra had 12 followers", he show or tell us where he got this information. Historians don't just make stuff up Zhavric, they consult ancient artifacts and texts in or to determine what probably happened in the past. But we never see the actual evidence ourselves, all we have is Franz Cumont making most of this stuff up and atheists parroting it without looking it up themselves...or folks like yourself demanding that I just "take his word for it", even though he gives us no evidence.

are a sort of reverse appeal to authority fallacy; That would be when one is presented expert testimony and discounts it for no valid reason.

I have a very valid reason: He gives no evidence.

Example
Bart Ehrman, a liberal non-Christian New Testament historian recently wrote a book, in the book, one part reads "Jesus went to Jerusalem...." Now, what if I started a thread that alledged Jesus of Nazereth, at one time, went to Jerusalem. The "evidence" I use to show this is this:

"Jesus went to Jerusalem"
-Bart Ehrman

And then say I quoted a few other historians who all said the same thing. You ask for evidence, I say, "what more do you want I've quoted experts who have actually studied this, what book would they reference?!". This is the same retarded logic you are using here, Bart Ehrman saying "Jesus went to Jerusalem" is not evidence that Jesus went to Jerusalem, it's a conclusion BASED on evidence...namely of 1st and 2nd Century documents that all testify that Jesus went to Jerusalem.

I'm saddened that I'd have to explain to you what evidence actually looks like, but Cumont stating "Mithra did X just like Jesus did" is not evidence that Mithra did X, it's a conclusion supposedly based on evidence. So what you need to do is quote me any ancient text and/or monument etc that says Mithra was resurrected or had a last supper. You wouldn't just accept "Jesus went to Jerusalem" because "experts say so", you'd ask for evidence and ancient texts that support this conclusion. Thus, anyone who is at least HALFWAY skeptical would demand evidence, you don't, you just want us to "take his word for it" (appeal to authority).

IYou've attempted to discount the testimony of exper historians without providing any counter evidence

Shifting the burden of proof. No evidence was presented in the first place. I'm merely asking you to provide evidence, you keep responding with: "But...but, he's an expert, just BELIEVE HIM!!!"

I'm at a loss to think of a more dishonest argument, save one.

Would this be your own post?

Provide an impartial, reliable source that directly refutes Cumont or concede that you are unable to.

1: There is nothing to refute as no evidence has been presented by Cumont or yourself in the first place
2: Please at least establish that Cumont is "impartial" before demanding that I find an "impartial" source. Given his blatant falsehoods (ie "Jesus had 12 followers") I'd say that's pretty good evidence that he is extremely partial/biased

I was amused by your assertion of "A triad is very different from a trinity.". ... We're all very familiar with Christianity's attempt to sound "deep" by declaring three different gods are one god / one god is three different gods

No, no, no. Christianity absolutely does NOT declare that "three different gods are one god". That would be an extreme logical contradiction. But thank you for demonstrating your lack of knowledge on the concepts being argued here.

Very simply put, the Trinity is 1 "what"(God) and 3 "who's"(Father, Son and Holy Spirit). A triad is 3 "what's"(gods) and 3 "who's". The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that there is one God in all the universe and that this God consists of 3 persons. A triad teaches that there are at least 3 gods and these three gods are seperate and completely distinct and are gods of their various domains (fire, water, sun etc.).

but the fact is that Mithras was often depicted with two other aspects, one of which being a "father" figure (the sun)

Please support that one of the dadophori is a "father" figure and is the sun god. Your own article just referst to them as "youthful figures". I'm thinking you stretched the truth on this one to invent another "similarity", but we'll see what kind of support you bring.

It's a similarity.

No it's not. You've got 3 different gods and 1 God. The only "similarity" is that "Trinity" sounds sort of like "triad".

And at the very best, you've established the existence of one mundane "similarity" - but no causal link showing that Christianity borrowed from this religion. Especially given the 1st and 2nd Century Jewish and Christian attitues towards these pagan religions

Christianity is a composite of Mithrasism

1: You've presented NO evidence for this claim
2: The similarities you tried to prevent all come from the 4th century, so if anything was a composite of anthing, Mithraism would be a composite of CHristianity, not the other way around.

Attempting to discount the very obvious similarities of Mithrasism and Christianity on such small technicalities is ridiculous.

Which "similarities" (plural), would those be? You only made a vain attempt at supporting one (triad).

So, you're claims of Christianity borrowing from Mithra are false for several reasons:

1: No evidence has been presented for this
2: To say that a 1st or 2nd century Jew would borrow ANYTHING from these pagan religions is totally absurd. They were aware of these religions and thought of them as an abomination/heresy. So to say they borrowed ideas from that which they thought of as heresy is not only unsupported, it's totally untennable.
3: Even if the similarities you present are true (which they're not), the Mithra stories you are citing all come from the 4th Century and thus, it would be an example of Mithraism copying Christianity, not the other way around.

[Zhavric]

Strawman. And a horrible one at that as I only used wiki to show that Cumont's theories are no longer accepted by the acedemic community. That was only 1% of my overall argument.

Don't be ridiculous. Look at what's going on in the thread. I've provided an expert on the subject who has affirmed that Mithras and Christianity were closely related / borrowed from one another. Cumont also establishes the existence of Mithrasism during the mythmaking era of Christianity (late first century / early second century).

Your entire argument falls apart unless you can refute Cumont's assertions. For a person who made a big issue of sources earlier don't seem concerned with them now. Wiki is editable by anyone with a doctrinal axe to grind. If you want to demonstrate that Cumont's stances on Mithrasism are no longer held by the academic community, then do so by linking to an impartial & credible site stating just that. Don't go to a place where anyone can write anything and declare an expert unseated simply because SOMEONE (who you never reference...) said so.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Destroyer 1: No evidence has been presented for this

This just gets funnier.

The statement is obviously false. To dismiss Franz Cumont's massive documentation is ridiculous. Cumont's work was been well respected for over a century despite any ravings from Christian debunker sites. Your assertion that Cumont made "most of this stuff up" is foolish and obviously uninformed.

Quote by: Destroyer 2: To say that a 1st or 2nd century Jew would borrow ANYTHING from these pagan religions is totally absurd. They were aware of these religions and thought of them as an abomination/heresy. So to say they borrowed ideas from that which they thought of as heresy is not only unsupported, it's totally untennable.

So now you claim to be able to read the minds of early Christians? A remarkable if highly questionable talent. Not one that I would choose to rely on.

Quote by: Destroyer 3: Even if the similarities you present are true (which they're not), the Mithra stories you are citing all come from the 4th Century and thus, it would be an example of Mithraism copying Christianity, not the other way around.[/b]

Totally factually inaccurate.

You obviously are copying this nonsense from a Christian debunker site somewhere, probably the same one from whence you previously claimed that the comments about Mithras were all dreamed up by atheist websites.

You continually claim that we have not done our research and know nothing of which we speak yet your posts indicate that you fit that description best of all.

[Jack]

"...they're never able to substantiate this, only able to give us more quotes from people SAYING "Jesus did X" from 100's of years ago...no evidence. As I pointed out earlier, these "stories" are spurious at best, there is simply no evidence for them being anything other than a contrived lie blindly repeated by theist gospel writers in the bible."
The myths surrounding Mithra and Jesus are very similar in that respect.

The only "similarity" is that "Trinity" sounds sort of like "triad".

Trinity: trio: three people considered as a unit
Triad: A relationship involving three people, any three entities regarded as a unit.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Zhvaric Were that I was a Christian, I wouldn't be so hasty to point out the NT never states when, specifically, Jesus was born.

Why? This (the concept of Christmas not actually being Jesus' birthday but the overlapping of a Pagan holiday) is taught in Catholic grade schools so I don't see the big deal frankly.

And as close as the bible comes to stating the date of Jesus' birth, wasn't it around the time of one of the Roman censuses?

[Destroyer]

Quote by: Zhavric Your entire argument falls apart unless you can refute Cumont's assertions. For a person who made a big issue of sources earlier don't seem concerned with them now.

I will refute Cumont's assertions as soon as they are supported. Thus far the only "similarity" you have tried to support is the triad...but now you've even dropped that argument. And I am very concerned with sources, that's why I'm asking you to provide me the evidence behind Cumont's assertions.

But thank you for dodging 98% of my post. Don't worry though I'll soon be popping into your Jesus myth threads and the "evidence" I'll use to support his existence will be:

"Jesus existed"
-Bart Ehrman (NT historian)

"Jesus existed"
-Gerd Ludemann(NT historian

"Jesus existed"
-Michael grant (NT Historian)

etc.

Because, after all, we both know that a scholars word should suffice and there is no need to examine the evidence at all. Poor Form Zhavric. But congratulations on your massive appeal to authority, I'll be sure to hold you consistant to this logic in every thread you participate in

[RickSp]

Quote by: Destroyer I will refute Cumont's assertions as soon as they are supported. Thus far the only "similarity" you have tried to support is the triad...but now you've even dropped that argument. And I am very concerned with sources, that's why I'm asking you to provide me the evidence behind Cumont's assertions.

You provide nothing of substance or sources yourself and then demand evidence behind Cumont's work, which you promise to refute even prior to considering. Such is the view of a true believer.

Cumont has been widely admired for the last century.

Texts and Illustrated Monuments Relating to the Mysteries of Mithra (1894-1900, with an English translation in 1903) is the study that made his international reputation, by its originality and massive documentation.

Exerpts from his work are on line at THE MYSTERIES OF MITHRA

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Why? This (the concept of Christmas not actually being Jesus' birthday but the overlapping of a Pagan holiday) is taught in Catholic grade schools so I don't see the big deal frankly.

Nope. No big deal that the date was fabricated in the centuries that followed the initial myth making...

And as close as the bible comes to stating the date of Jesus' birth, wasn't it around the time of one of the Roman censuses?

Please tell me you're not a Chrisitan.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Destroyer I will refute Cumont's assertions as soon as they are supported. Thus far the only "similarity" you have tried to support is the triad...but now you've even dropped that argument. And I am very concerned with sources, that's why I'm asking you to provide me the evidence behind Cumont's assertions. But thank you for dodging 98% of my post.

98% of your post was predicated on the assumption that Cumont's work can be discarded. He's an expert on the subject. You've presented ZERO to suggest his work is anything BUT supported save an entry from wikipedia.

Don't worry though I'll soon be popping into your Jesus myth threads and the "evidence" I'll use to support his existence will be: "Jesus existed" -Bart Ehrman (NT historian) "Jesus existed" -Gerd Ludemann(NT historian "Jesus existed" -Michael grant (NT Historian) etc.

lol

Yes, I'm sure you'll thrill us with a long line of individuals who'll state, "The NT CLAIMS Jesus existed", but I don't anticipate you providing any actual evidence that the NT is truthful. As someone in this thread stated, a lie repeated a thousand times is still a lie.

Because, after all, we both know that a scholars word should suffice and there is no need to examine the evidence at all. Poor Form Zhavric. But congratulations on your massive appeal to authority, I'll be sure to hold you consistant to this logic in every thread you participate in

Ah, you seem to be confused about how an appeal to authorith fallacy functions. Allow me to demonstrate:

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

Source.

Please demonstrate that Cumont is NOT an expert in the field of Mithrasism or retract your claim.

Also, the NT is a form of propaganda which proves nothing to us, is demonstrably false, and has a doctrinal axe to grind... but we can discuss that in the other thread if you care to post to it.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Zhavric An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form: 1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. 2. Person A makes claim C about subject S. 3. Therefore, C is true. This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious. Source.

Well, not to cause problems, but that's not necessarily the case. Whether or not a person is a recognized expert, his expertise is only valid so long as it goes along with what is generally recognized as true within the field. If Hawking started making statements about the universe being made of strawberry jam and physics really was a recipe for s'mores, he'd be wrong, no matter how much of an expert he might be. You have only to look at the modern creationist movement to see this in action. Henry Morris, an expert in hydrology, has routinely made statements diametrically opposed to what science knows to be true, using his status as "expert" in an attempt to make them seem possible to his followers. Duane Gish, a biochemist, has done the same. In both cases, their expertise means nothing because their statements do not reflect the actual fields in which they claim expertise.

Of course, in this case, all Destroyer would have to do is prove that Cumont's statements were outside of what is generally accepted in the field and that's something he cannot do.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Cephus Of course, in this case, all Destroyer would have to do is prove that Cumont's statements were outside of what is generally accepted in the field and that's something he cannot do.

Yes, you're earlier part is correct. Destroyer, as I stated before, has committed the reverse of the appeal to the authority. When Stephen Hawking makes a claim about physics / the universe, one doesn't go to wiki and offer "people don't believe Hawking anymore". That's no rebuttal.

[Destroyer]

Quote by: Zhavric Yes, you're earlier part is correct. Destroyer, as I stated before, has committed the reverse of the appeal to the authority. When Stephen Hawking makes a claim about physics / the universe, one doesn't go to wiki and offer "people don't believe Hawking anymore". That's no rebuttal.

Yes, and I also provided a quote by a modern historian who said Cumont was "misleading". You keep ignoring that though. And the MAJORITY of my entire argument has been that YOU have to provide evidence for you claims. Thus far the ONLY evidence we've seen from the "Christianity borrowed from Mithra" side is:



"Cumont sez so".

You're convienently sticking you head in the sand and ignoring the largest parts of my argument and focusing on the one wiki quote. Please don't lie. We both know you've been ignoring large chunks of my posts. The wiki quote was only one sentence of a MUCH larger post that mainly dealt with your lack of evidence.

And Zhavric, please tell me why (given your alogic) the below isn't "evidence" for the existence of Jesus?

Quote by: Destroyer "Jesus existed" -Bart Ehrman (NT historian) "Jesus existed" -Gerd Ludemann(NT historian "Jesus existed" -Michael grant (NT Historian)

Also, in reference to Stephen Hawking,if he makes a statement about the nature of the universe, he usually gives us reasons to believe his statement is true beyond, "because I says so, fools".


Actually, maybe this would be a better way to do this...Zhavric, please tell me which of the below statements is true and which is false and why:

"Jesus existed"
-Bart Ehrman

"Christianity borrowed from Mithra"
-Franz Cumont

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Destroyer Actually, maybe this would be a better way to do this...Zhavric, please tell me which of the below statements is true and which is false and why: "Jesus existed" -Bart Ehrman "Christianity borrowed from Mithra" -Franz Cumont

Oh, that's easy. The second one is true and the first one is false.

Cumont is making a statement that's demonstrably true via the evidence he and other collected from artifacts and early writings.

Ehrman is drawing an assumption from texts with a clear and well defined doctrinal axe to grind. I'm sure he's researched it thoroughly. I'm sure the NT DOES, in fact, state that Jesus existed. However, we cannot use unsupported claims to support other unsupported claims. If you'd bother to show up to the Unraveling the Jesus Myth thread, we could discuss it further there.

As for your "historian"...

Edwin Yamauchi:

"Cumont's systematic description of Mithraic liturgy in Christian terms is now seen to be misleading, not to say mischievous. "

Since we're using wiki as a source...

He was sent to an Episcopalian school called Iolani in his seventh grade. In 1952 he shifted from a nominal church commitment to a personal, evangelical faith in Christ. In his senior high school year Yamauchi studied at a rural school and worked at a missionary farm known as the Christian Youth Center.

Yamauchi is a founding member of the Oxford Bible Fellowship church in Oxford, Ohio. He has been a supporter of the Inter Varsity Christian Fellowship throughout his career, and particularly at the campus of Miami University. He has contributed popular articles to periodicals like Christianity Today magazine on the resurrection of Christ and in response to controversial claims made about the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Yamauchi was featured in the widely read Christian apologetic work The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. He has given presentations on the Easter story to such universities as Cornell, Yale, and Princeton. He has also appeared in various television documentaries concerning the life of Christ.

Source.

Obviously, this guy doesn't have any sort of doctrinal axe to grind...

[xyzer]

Wow? Thousands of claims and counterclaims signifying????Nothing!
It seems to me the underlying cause of this discussion is do humans have different belief systems? I think most would agree they do.
Are these beliefs necessarily true? Depends on your own beliefs, does it not?
I join the skeptics on this one! I've observed a lot of misrepresentation and chicanery in humankind. Myths abound alongside invented reality. Humans tend to copy what they feel is necessary or true.

Producing scholarly opinion about ancient beliefs and celebrations does conflict with the reality of the present IMNSHO. Who the hell cares whether some humans are copycats? Who cares whether the early Christian scribes borrowed from other religions in recording their assumed beliefs? That is reality, like it or not!

Sure Christmas may well be what this thread refers to as a hoax. But does it really matter to those who believe? Are you criticised for your own beliefs?
Christmas does exist in the minds of many...

[Destroyer]

Quote by: Zhavric Oh, that's easy. The second one is true and the first one is false. Cumont is making a statement that's demonstrably true via the evidence he and other collected from artifacts and early writings. Ehrman is drawing an assumption from texts with a clear and well defined doctrinal axe to grind. I'm sure he's researched it thoroughly. I'm sure the NT DOES, in fact, state that Jesus existed. However, we cannot use unsupported claims to support other unsupported claims. If you'd bother to show up to the Unraveling the Jesus Myth thread, we could discuss it further there.

Excellent points Zhavric. You think Ehrman and the other scholars are wrong because they are working from faulty or non-existant data (NT, Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, Thallus, Clement, etc. etc. etc.). When Ehrman or any other historians says "Jesus existed", they will then show us the documents or artifacts etc. that support this claim and we can then determine if what they said was true based on the materials they are working from.

However, you said Cumont was right because of "the evidence" he collected...but you STILL have yet to show me any of this evidence. When Ehrman or others say "Jesus existed" you were immediately aware that they were working from the NT and other documents and were able to critisize their evidence...but when Cumont says "MIthra had 12 followers" or "MIthra had a last supper", what evidence has been offered in support of this? Nothing! I poured through the website you provided and couldn't find a single piece of supporting evidence...he did indeed show us statues of Mithra and some of them had inscriptions, but there was NO support for his claims of Mithra having 12 followers or worshiping on Sunday etc.

That's the point Zhavric. If Ehrman says "Jesus existed", we examine the evidence behind this claim, then determine whether it is faulty or not. If Cumont says "Christianity borrowed from Mithra" or "Mithra had 12 followers" we examine the evidence behind this claim...and find out there is none. The ONLY evidence you've offered in support of Christianity borrowing from Mithra is "Cumont sez so"...this is no more evidence than "Ehrman says so". We must examine the evidence behind this claim, thus far you have presented none.

So, where is your evidence Zhavric? You say Cumont's statement is "demonstrably true" based on artifacts and early texts, so, please show me or quote me the artifacts/inscriptions/early texts that say that Mithra had 12 followers/had a last supper etc etc. You claimed Cumont's statement was "demonstrably" true based on "artifacts" and "early texts" - so please demonstrate this to be true by showing and/or quoting these artifacts and early texts.

As for your "historian"...

You convienently left out his credentials and having a P.H.D in the field. But I digress, you've already completely dismissed wiki as a source so you can't very well use it as one now and you haven't established Cumont as "unbiased". The fact that he blatently misleads by saying Mithra had 12 followers when the Roman and Persian version of the story say otherwise should be enough to establish his bias/"doctrinal axe to grind".

P.S. You use that phrase WAY to much, time to come up with some new material

Other than having no evidence, you have yet to explain why 1st and 2nd Century Jews and Christians would borrow from that which they though was an abomination/heresy...you have also yet to explain how CHristianity borrowed from Mithraism when all the the alledged parallels you mention come from the 4th century and you have YET to show us a casal link that Christianity borrowed from Mithra. I could show you some "similarities" in a lot of things, but that doesn't mean one borrowed from the other, you have to show a casal link(you're commiting the "false cause" fallacy). Your line of thinking has a tendency to convert parallels into influences and influences into sources without ANY evidence or casal link. Most important though is your lack of evidence.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: xyzer Sure Christmas may well be what this thread refers to as a hoax. But does it really matter to those who believe? Are you criticised for your own beliefs? Christmas does exist in the minds of many...

Many (I'd even say most) Christians believe that the gospel Jesus actually existed and walked the Earth. They believe that if we had a time machine and a camera, we'd see something not unlike Mel Gibson's film take place just under 2000 years ago. Understanding that these events never actually happened as reported in the gospels is something Chritians are threatened by in the extreme (most anyway).

[Destroyer]

Quote by: xyzer I join the skeptics on this one

Which ones?

Mithras - SkepticWiki

Quote by: xyzer Sure Christmas may well be what this thread refers to as a hoax. But does it really matter to those who believe?

Of course if matters. Christians believe Jesus was a real person who walked the earth and performed miracles. If this is untrue and Jesus didn't exist and Christianity borrowed everything from pagan myths, then Christianity is false and Christians need to move on and find something better to do. This is something me and Zhavric agree on - and when me and Zhavric both are able to agree on something, it is generally accepted as 100% true

[rez]

Quote by: xyzer Sure Christmas may well be what this thread refers to as a hoax. But does it really matter to those who believe? Are you criticized for your own beliefs? Christmas does exist in the minds of many...

When people speak their beliefs as the truth, you will be criticized for them.

Quote by: Destroyer Of course if matters. Christians believe Jesus was a real person who walked the earth and performed miracles. If this is untrue and Jesus didn't exist and Christianity borrowed everything from pagan myths, then Christianity is false and Christians need to move on and find something better to do. This is something me and Zhavric agree on - and when me and Zhavric both are able to agree on something, it is generally accepted as 100% true

How is Christianity false if everything was borrowed from pagan myths? Christianity does not need to find something better to do, it is a reference for human kind to expand on those teachings and apply what is most relevant in present day society.