The Christmas Hoax

[Destroyer]

Quote by: rez How is Christianity false if everything was borrowed from pagan myths? .

This should be obvious. Because that would mean that Jesus didn't really have 12 followers, didn't have a last supper and most importantly, didn't resurrect from the dead. If all of these things are copied from pagan myths, then none of them happened and the Christian religion is false.

As Paul said (1 Cor. 15:14):
"And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

1 Cor 15:17
"And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins"

[xyzer]

Destroyer

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.

You miss my point! Or is it you make my point?
What one faction believes is true ( the tale of Jesus the savior and resultant religion)another faction may not agree with. That doesn't alter the original factions belief. They don't have to agree their beliefs are false and as you imply move on?
Humankind invented religions and humankind has a tendency to change things, as well as have a diversity of opinion and belief. It's the nature of the beast! To paraphrase...Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder!

[rez]

Quote by: Destroyer This should be obvious. Because that would mean that Jesus didn't really have 12 followers, didn't have a last supper and most importantly, didn't resurrect from the dead. If all of these things are copied from pagan myths, then none of them happened and the Christian religion is false. As Paul said (1 Cor. 15:14): "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." 1 Cor 15:17 "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins"

I know for damn sure the teachings are real and that is what matters! I have learned that things like resurrecting from the dead, turning human flesh into bread, water into whine, is hocas pocas. I learned that a fat man with a white bear doesn't fly over neighborhoods giving presents, but I do understand the story behind it. It is time to grow up and stop kidding yourself, there is more to this reality then those primitive stories you take as the literal truth.

[Destroyer]

Quote by: Zhavric Mithrasism, as a religion, has writings and artifacts. Jesus does not.

1: None of the writings and artifacts of Mithra mention him having 12 followers , having a last supper etc. THAT'S what you have to support.
2: Christianity, as a religion, has writings and artifacts.

Go to his website and you'll see pictured many of the Mithras artifacts he draws his information from.

I was already there, I didn't see one that mentioned or referenced the 12 followers of Mithra or Mithra eating a last supper or being born of a virgin etc etc.

Do you have your browser set to block images from websites?

Nope. The images that were shown didn't support the claim of Christian borrowing.

Cumont's writings demonstrate no doctrinal axe to grind.

Sure they do. He tries to draw ridiculous parellels that just don't exist. Like how he mentions Jesus having 12 followers even though the Roman and Persian versions of the story say one, maybe two. This shows that he will misconstue data whenever possible to forward his notion of Christian borrowing.

By the by, are you actually planning on showing up to the debate about Jesus I reference in my sig?

As soon as you admit that you can't find evidence for Christian borrowing. YOU claimed that Cumont's statements were "demonstrably" true based on artifacts and "early writings", yet you haven't demonstrated this to be true by showing me these artifacts and early writings that say Jesus had 12 followers or was born of a virgin etc. The only thing you have left is to tell me to go to a website with images of Mithra statues that don't support your conclusions. Demonstrate this to be true by showing or quoting the artifacts and texts that support your conclusion, or admit that you cannot.

[Apokalupsis]

This is an article I put together a few years ago as a response to a poster on another site. I thought it would be relevant here (especially re: Christmas origins and the claim of "hoax").

It's old, sorry it isn't sourced.
----------------------------------

A question was asked:

doesnt God hate Christmas trees? They were, after all, started by pagans to worship nature and it defiles God's image, right?

No, God doesn't hate Christmas trees. Let's start w/ the origins of Christmas.

The word "Christmas" comes from two old words: Christes maesse. It means, "the Mass of Christ." This comes from the Catholic Mass, that practice where the priest re-offers the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross during the time of Communion.

The origins of Christmas go back to before the time of Christ when many ancient cultures celebrated the changing of the seasons. In the northern hemisphere in Europe, for example, the winter solstice, which was the shortest day of the year, occurs around Dec. 25th. These celebrations were based on the decline of winter. Since during winter animals were penned, people stayed in doors, crops didn't grow, etc., to know that winter was half over and on its way out was a time of celebration.

In the ancient Roman system of religion, Saturn was the god of agriculture. Each year during the summer, the god Jupiter would force Saturn out of his dominant position in the heavenly realm and the days would begin to shorten. In the temple to Saturn in Rome, the feet of Saturn were then symbolically bound with chains until the winter solstice when the length of days began to increase. It was this winter solstice that was a time of celebration and exchange of gifts as the hardness of winter began to wane and the days grew longer.

December 25th specifically coincided the day of the birth of the sun-god named Phyrgia a culture in the ancient Balkans.

In the Roman Empire, by the time of Christ the winter festival was known as saturnalia. The Roman Church was unable to get rid of saturnalia, so early in the 4th Century, they adopted the holiday and tried to convert it a Christian celebration of the Lord's birth. They called it the Feast of the Nativity. This custom has been part of western culture ever since.

The Christmas Tree

One of the symbols of the life found in the celebration of saturnalia, was the use of evergreens. These plants which stayed green all year long, were often used in different cultures as symbols of life and rebirth. They were sometime decorated as a form of worship in some cultures in religious ceremonies dealing with fertility.

Mistletoe was considered a curative plant and was used in many ancient medicinal recipes. The Celts even believed that the plant, which is a parasite that lives on trees, contained the soul of the tree it lived on. The Druids used Mistletoe in their religious ceremonies. The Druid priests would cut it up and distribute it to the people who would place the cuttings over the doorways of their homes. This was supposed to protect the dwellers from various forms of evil.

What day was Jesus really born on?

No one knows for sure what month, not to mention which day, that Jesus was born on. Various theories have been raised that put Jesus' birth in April, October, and September. But no one knows for sure.

Additionally, our calendar is inaccurate. It is set about 4 years too late. This is known by comparing the biblical accounts of gospels and the extrabiblical records known about Quirinius, the governor of Syria (Luke 2:2) and Herod the Great (Matt. 2:19) who died in 4 B.C. in the year of Jesus' birth. Post-humorously, that would make Jesus, born in 4 B.C.

The practice of it being on the 25th stemmed from the early church attempting to detract from the pagan belief of saturnalia to the birth of Christ.

Should Christians celebrate Christmas?

Is the Christian free to celebrate a holiday that not only has pagan origins, but also is used by the unbelieving world a promotion of commercialism? In my opinion, it depends.

The Christians must hold his standard of righteousness and devotion to God above those of the world. The Old Testament says that we are to worship God in truth according to the dictates that He has established (Exodus 20:1-4; 24:12-31:18). Christmas was not established by God. In addition, there are no records at all of the early church celebrating the birth of Christ.

On the other hand, there are those who say we have freedom Christ and can celebrate any day we want to. Paul says, "All things are lawful, though not all are profitable" (1 Cor. 6:12).

Should we then participate in the celebration of a festival origins and exceeding commercialism?

It is my opinion that we are free to celebrate the day. This is why.

In the Bible in 1 Cor. 10:23-33, Paul speaks about meat sacrificed to idols. This meat was often sold in the meat market and the question arose, "Should a Christian each such meat?" Paul said in verse 25, "Eat anything that is sold in the meat market, without asking questions for conscience' sake." The origins of the meat were, essentially, pagan. Many animals were raised for the purpose of sacrificing to pagan deities and their meat was offered in the market place. In reference to this Paul said it was okay to eat the meat.

Christians have taken a pagan festival, and turned it into a Holy Day. There is nothing wrong with this.

OH...and God does not hate Christmas Trees. :)

[G. Adams]

Must we have this topic every year?? Can you not just bump the old ones so we don't have to see the same arguements rehashed again?

[Zhavric]

I was starting to wonder if Destroyer was Apok... Still could be... but I doubt it.

[Zhavric]

2: Christianity, as a religion, has writings and artifacts.

Of course it doesn't. In 90 generations of scholarship no one has turned up a copy or original of the NT dating before the second century save a few scraps of postage-stamp-sized parchment. As for artifacts? There isn't a one.

Instead, Christians have attempt to move the goal posts so as to count people mentioning Jesus as "evidence" Jesus existed. That any Christian would call Tacitus evidence Jesus existed is ridiculous.

[Apokalupsis]

Quote by: Zhavric I was starting to wonder if Destroyer was Apok... Still could be... but I doubt it.

Apok = Apok. Apok =/= Destroyer. I don't get involved in the more in depth religious arguments here (time consuming).

[Destroyer]

Quote by: Zhavric Of course it doesn't. In 90 generations of scholarship no one has turned up a copy or original of the NT dating before the second century save a few scraps of postage-stamp-sized parchment.

You said writings, not originals. And everything you just said is also true for Mithraism as well as most documents in antiquity (not having original texts etc)...I fail to see what this has to do with Christianity borrowing from Mithraism.

As for artifacts? There isn't a one.

Surely you aren't claiming we don't have ancient Christian pottery/paintings etc?!

I fail to see what this has to do with Christianity borrowing from Mithraism.

Instead, Christians have attempt to move the goal posts so as to count people mentioning Jesus as "evidence" Jesus existed. That any Christian would call Tacitus evidence Jesus existed is ridiculous.

Hmmm. Interesting tactic. Post something completely off-topic in an effort to avoid posting evidence you said you could demonstrate to be true. Quit trying to drive this off-topic, either, please provide evidence, concede that you cannot, or don't post in this thread

The Christmas Hoax

Quote by: Destroyer As soon as you admit that you can't find evidence for Christian borrowing. YOU claimed that Cumont's statements were "demonstrably" true based on artifacts and "early writings", yet you haven't demonstrated this to be true by showing me these artifacts and early writings that say Jesus had 12 followers or was born of a virgin etc. The only thing you have left is to tell me to go to a website with images of Mithra statues that don't support your conclusions. Demonstrate this to be true by showing or quoting the artifacts and texts that support your conclusion, or admit that you cannot.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Apokalupsis Apok = Apok. Apok =/= Destroyer. I don't get involved in the more in depth religious arguments here (time consuming).

Hahahahaa Yeah... Nan got me on that one. I'm not conceding the argument, but I did get pwnt when it came to remembering who's who.

[RickSp]

Destroyer, maybe someone will buy it for you for Christmas.

Mysteries of Mithra

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Destroyer Surely you aren't claiming we don't have ancient Christian pottery/paintings etc?!

Two different claims. I'm not claiming Mithras was anything other than a legend. You, as a Christian, claim that Jesus was an actual person (which he wasn't) which has quite a bit to do with this topic. Since Jesus wasn't real, it makes sense that early Christians would have borrowed from a religion they knew people would accept / was popular / sold well.

The only thing you have left is to tell me to go to a website with images of Mithra statues that don't support your conclusions.

What did you expect, Nan? Where do you think our knowledge of Mithrasism comes from? Honestly, you're the only one here or anywhere who seems to have issue with Cumont's expertise of Mithrasism save your very-obviously-biased historian who's a professor at the prestigious "Miami of Ohio", a school known more for football and parties than its academics.

[Destroyer]

Quote by: Destroyer The only thing you have left is to tell me to go to a website with images of Mithra statues that don't support your conclusions.

Quote by: Zhavric What did you expect, Nan? Where do you think our knowledge of Mithrasism comes from? Honestly, you're the only one here or anywhere who seems to have issue with Cumont's expertise of Mithrasism save your very-obviously-biased historian who's a professor at the prestigious "Miami of Ohio", a school known more for football and parties than its academics.

I ask you why you're linking me to pics that don't support your conclusions and you ask me "what did you expect"?!! I'm sorry but I expected you to support your conclusions. Our knowledge of Mithraism comes from the artifacts and "early texts" you mentioned (just like our knowledge of Jesus doesn't come to us from "Bart Ehrman", but the texts he references), none of which mention Mithra having 12 followers etc. Furthermore, I'm not questioning Cumon'ts expertise of Mithraism, what I'm questioning are the parellels between Christianity and Mithraism. He does indeed give us much info on Mithraism, but draws misleading parellels - like when he called a hearty meal between two gods who had just slain a cosmic bull a "last supper". There is a reason the "history of religions" school of thought is no longer thought credible by teh academic community, there's no evidence.

Lastly you're now trying to drag this thread backwards, quit debating dishonestly. YOU said the evidence of Christian borrowing was "demonstrably" true via the evidence of artifacts and early texts - for the last time, please support this claim and demonstrateChristian borrowing to be true by showing me the artifacts and early texts that say Mithra had 12 followers, was born of a virgin etc. This is easily the worst debating I've seen out of you in a while. Quit dodging what you said you could support.


P.S. Good grief man! I don't even know why you are still debating here. I've asked you repeatedly to demonstrate Christian borrowing to be true by showing the ancient texts/artifacts that support this claim(which is what YOU SAID YOU COULD DO) adn you keep dodging this, then post a couple off-topic posts and take 2 steps backwards in the debate. Poor form.

[Destroyer]

Zhavric responded to only one sentence of this post from the last page, then he posted a couple of off-topic posts in order to distract from him ignoring this post. This will not happen. If Zhavric can't address this post and provide the evidence he promised he could provide, then he shouldn't respond or he should admit that he cannot:


The Christmas Hoax

Quote by: Zhavric Mithrasism, as a religion, has writings and artifacts. Jesus does not.

1: None of the writings and artifacts of Mithra mention him having 12 followers , having a last supper etc. THAT'S what you have to support.
2: Christianity, as a religion, has writings and artifacts.

Go to his website and you'll see pictured many of the Mithras artifacts he draws his information from.

I was already there, I didn't see one that mentioned or referenced the 12 followers of Mithra or Mithra eating a last supper or being born of a virgin etc etc.

Do you have your browser set to block images from websites?

Nope. The images that were shown didn't support the claim of Christian borrowing.

Cumont's writings demonstrate no doctrinal axe to grind.

Sure they do. He tries to draw ridiculous parellels that just don't exist. Like how he mentions Jesus having 12 followers even though the Roman and Persian versions of the story say one, maybe two. This shows that he will misconstue data whenever possible to forward his notion of Christian borrowing.

By the by, are you actually planning on showing up to the debate about Jesus I reference in my sig?

As soon as you admit that you can't find evidence for Christian borrowing. YOU claimed that Cumont's statements were "demonstrably" true based on artifacts and "early writings", yet you haven't demonstrated this to be true by showing me these artifacts and early writings that say Jesus had 12 followers or was born of a virgin etc. The only thing you have left is to tell me to go to a website with images of Mithra statues that don't support your conclusions. Demonstrate this to be true by showing or quoting the artifacts and texts that support your conclusion, or admit that you cannot.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Destroyer As soon as you admit that you can't find evidence for Christian borrowing. YOU claimed that Cumont's statements were "demonstrably" true based on artifacts and "early writings", yet you haven't demonstrated this to be true by showing me these artifacts and early writings that say Jesus had 12 followers or was born of a virgin etc. The only thing you have left is to tell me to go to a website with images of Mithra statues that don't support your conclusions. Demonstrate this to be true by showing or quoting the artifacts and texts that support your conclusion, or admit that you cannot.

Why continue this foolish demand? Even if you may not be honest enough to admit it, it seems unlikely that even presenting Cumont's original research documenttion would satisfy you. As the true beliver that you are, no evidence is likely to ever suffice.

[Destroyer]

Quote by: RickSp Why continue this foolish demand?

Because Zhavric specifically stated that he could provide it.

As the true beliver that you are, no evidence is likely to ever suffice.

This statement should be applied to yourself. "Cumont sez so" is not evidence anymore than "Bart Ehrman says so" is evidence for Jesus. Skeptics examine the evidence behind the claims...you don't.

Since you mention evidence Rick, maybe you could list out for me all the supporting evidence that Mithra was born of a virgin, which is what you claimed earlier.

[Apokalupsis]

Destroyer, don't expect any sort of support from Rick. Most you'll get is being called a bigot or worse for the mere reason of having a view contrary to his own (see the imam/plane thread and other threads involving Islam for a plethera of examples). Not much in way of argumentation, nothing in way of support, but plenty in way of ad hominem fallacy commissions and emotions.

As far as the source material for Christianity however, does it make a difference Zhavric, that no original manuscripts exist? Does this somehow diminish its credibility? If so, how so?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Destroyer This statement should be applied to yourself. "Cumont sez so" is not evidence anymore than "Bart Ehrman says so" is evidence for Jesus. Skeptics examine the evidence behind the claims...you don't. Since you mention evidence Rick, maybe you could list out for me all the supporting evidence that Mithra was born of a virgin, which is what you claimed earlier.

Cumont's work has been respected in the archeoligcal community for over a century. I could care less if you choose to claim that he "made everything up", as you indeed claimed previously. This says more about you anything else, I fear.

And I do not believe I ever claimed that Mithras was "born of a virgin." I think I said "virgin birth". Mithras was said to be born from a mountian, so while his was a "virgin birth" no virgin was necessarily present.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apokalupsis Destroyer, don't expect any sort of support from Rick. Most you'll get is being called a bigot or worse for the mere reason of having a view contrary to his own (see the imam/plane thread and other threads involving Islam for a plethera of examples). Not much in way of argumentation, nothing in way of support, but plenty in way of ad hominem fallacy commissions and emotions.

More personal attacks, I see Apo. Rather boring and predicatble.