The Christmas Hoax

[Cephus]

Quote by: rez 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.

Christianity is false if the things that it teaches are not factually true, which it is pretty simple to demonstrate is the case. The fact that we can show that Christianity stole from the pagans for simple expediency is even more evidence that Christianity is a heap of dog droppings.

We can do the same things without all the religious dogma and nonsense attached, thank you very much.

[Cephus]

Quote by: rez 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.

The fat man with the white bear? Wow, that's one I hadn't heard before.

What you're not understanding here is that regardless of the fact that you get presents, the Santa Claus story is a myth. Regardless of where you get your morals from, the Jesus story is a myth. There is no heaven, there is no God, there is no afterlife, it's all a bunch of hooey. Just because you manage to glean something useful out of all the nonsense doesn't mean the nonsense is worthwhile. It just means your BS filter works particularly well.

[Apokalupsis]

Quote by: RickSp More personal attacks, I see Apo. Rather boring and predicatble.

In order for it to be "more", there would have to be at least 1. I've never personally attacked you Rick. That's what you have been accused of by other members of Volconvo. Pointing out and explaining what an ad hom fallacy is, as well as making mention that not reading opponent's arguments and responding with a "nuh-uh" post, is not a personal attack, it is an exposure of how such a response, is truly, a "non-response" (as well as being highly fallacious). I never asked you to take my word for it, I even provided many independent sources on elementary fallacious theory (specifically the ad hom) for your convenience. Apparently, those links haven't been clicked yet, no?

[RickSp]

Apo, you appear to have nothing on topic to add, save your own pompous rants. You claim you have never attacked me as you attack me. Please. Doesn't it get tiresome?

[RickSp]

Quote by: rez 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.

Heaven save us from our typos. I really like this one. I think I prefer the "fat man with a white bear" to "a fat man with a white beard".

Shall we blame Thomas Nast and Clement Moore for our modern Santa Claus or shall we push it back to the Dutch Sinter Klaas? Or does it matter? Folklore can be fun as long as we remember that is what it is.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Prove to me that God doesn't exist; you can't, no more than I can prove he does exist. Arguing over His existance is ridiculous

Let's stop with this Pointless arguement and get back to Christmas.

The fact that Christmas is a Pagan date doesn't bother me one bit. The early leaders obviously were looking for a date and picked one that already had a significance. To expect us to know the birthday of a man who was considered insignificant till long after His death is stupid.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: RickSp Apo, you appear to have nothing on topic to add, save your own pompous rants. You claim you have never attacked me as you attack me. Please. Doesn't it get tiresome?

You're kidding, right?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Prove to me that God doesn't exist; you can't, no more than I can prove he does exist. Arguing over His existance is ridiculous

No. Stating all that and then assuming the positive rather than the negative is ridiculous.

The fact that Christmas is a Pagan date doesn't bother me one bit. The early leaders obviously were looking for a date and picked one that already had a significance. To expect us to know the birthday of a man who was considered insignificant till long after His death is stupid.

So, then you're okay with the idea of early church fathers attempting to re-write history and drawing from pagan sources. Interesting...

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Apokalupsis 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?

When we have considerable evidence suggesting the manuscripts were fabricated long, long after the fact, it does indeed make a difference. Christians claim that the gospels were all written in the first century, but there's no evidence to support this for all of them.

An original manuscript dating from the first century would go a long way to proving all the gospels existed at the time Christians allege.

[Zhavric]

Furthermore, I'm not questioning Cumon'ts expertise of Mithraism, what I'm questioning are the parellels between Christianity and Mithraism.

This isn't that hard, Nan, so don't muddy the waters. This statement is the most telling of everything you've posted. Cumont is an expert on Mithrasism and found parallels between it and Christianity based on artifacts / his research / etc. I've presented his research. You've countered with an Evangelical with a clear doctrinal axe to grind. Come to think of it, your "Miami of Ohio" buddy never explains why Cumont's expertise is wrong. He just says it is.

So, what we have here is a researcher who did his homework (Cumont) and you trying to discredit him with a fairly well veiled appeal to authority.

Allow me to explain the objections to Cumont's work:

Cumont's approach had significant problems. Most important, there is no known Iranian myth in which Mithra has anything to do with killing a bull. Cumont seized instead on an Iranian creation myth in which Ahriman, the embodiment of evil, kills a bull from whose blood and body spring all the living creatures of the earth. He claimed that this myth must have existed in a variant form in which the good god Mithra replaced the evil Ahriman as the bull slayer. Cumont's eminence was such that his theories remained virtually unchallenged for more than 70 years.

The Iranian connection, and with it Cumont's interpretation of the tauroctony, came under concerted attack at the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies, held at the University of Manchester in 1971. Several scholars, chief among them John Hinnells of Manchester and R.L. Gordon of the University of East Anglia, suggested that Mithraism had in fact been created as a completely new religion somewhere in the Greco-Roman world and that it had merely adopted the name of the Iranian god to give itself an exotic flavor and an aura of antiquity.

If the tauroctony did not represent an Iranian myth, what did it represent? Starting in the mid-1970's, several scholars (including Roger Beck of the University of toronto, Stanley Insler of Yale University, Michael Speidel of the University of Hawaii, Alessandro Bausani of the University of Rome and me) put forward new interpretations of the tauroctony (and of Mithraism) based on the hypothesis that the picture is actually a star map.

Source.

So, the objections to Cumont's work were never to the parallels between Mithrasism & Christianity, but rather the origins of Mithrasism. So please explain why these parallels are false.

[Destroyer]

Quote by: Zhavric Cumont is an expert on Mithrasism and found parallels between it and Christianity based on artifacts / his research / etc. I've presented his research. You've countered with an Evangelical with a clear doctrinal axe to grind.

Now you're just lying. I countered by pointing out that he presents NO evidence for his claims of Christian borrowing, the "similarities" he does present come from the 4th Century and the fact that there is no casal link to support borrowing.

I can't debate someone who continually lies and chooses to only address 1 sentence of my post while ignoring all the rest. Let's review the main issue here:

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

Quote by: Destroyer 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.

You said Cumont's statements were true because of the artifacts and early texts that support his statements...yet you continually refuse to provide these artifacts and early texts that show that Christianity borrowed from Mithraism. Quit dodging and get to it already. If you can't support this, then admit you can't.

Allow me to explain the objections to Cumont's work: The Iranian connection, and with it Cumont's interpretation of the tauroctony, came under concerted attack at the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies, held at the University of Manchester in 1971. Several scholars, chief among them John Hinnells of Manchester and R.L. Gordon of the University of East Anglia, suggested that Mithraism had in fact been created as a completely new religion somewhere in the Greco-Roman world and that it had merely adopted the name of the Iranian god to give itself an exotic flavor and an aura of antiquity.

Thank you for posting that Zhavric because this is one of the EXACT points I brought up earlier. Namely how Cumont assumes the Persian Mithra was the same as the Roman Mithra, even though it wasn't and the Roman Mithra, where he gets all his parellels, the texts we have on this version of Mithraism comes from the 4th Century!

So please explain why these parallels are false.

1: Shifting the burden of proof
2: Because no evidence is presented for them.

For goodness sakes, man. This is why people don't take Christ-mythers seriously. You have, throughout this debate, COMPLETELY ignored ANYTHING that proves you wrong, then post a few off-topic posts and then sometime later pop back into the debate focusing on 1 sentence of a post that doesn't really have much to do with the topic of debate. You have on numerous occasions completely distorted my position (saying my whole argument was a wiki quote etc) and just downright been dishonest throughout. If you were RickSp, I would understand, but you're someone I know is intelligent so your only exuse is being purposely obtuse here.

And we've already been over this 100 times. You ignore it each time. "Cumont sez so" is no argument, it's a conclusion supposedly based on evidence....evidence supposedly from artifacts and early texts, NONE of which you have provided support Christian borrowing. I have continually asked you to provide such evidence (that you said you could provide) and you ignore it each time. Let's review the problems with your "argument":

1: No evidence has been presented for it.
"Cumont sez so" is no more evidence for Christianity borrowing from Mithraism than "Ehrman sez so" is evidence for the existence of Jesus. These are conclusions supposedly based on evidence, true skeptics examine the evidence behind the conclusions...Christ-mythers aren't interested in doing this except when it opposes their "theory". Bottom line, Zhavric has stated that he could show me evidence that could back up Cumont's assertions, yet has REFUSED to do so 100% of the time. The only thing he had left was to tell me to, "go to the site I provided and look at the statues"...but these statues didn't support Christian borrowing and every one of the statues came from well after Christainity had been established (see below). The "similarities" are also very misleading - and example would be where Cumont arbitrarily called a hearty meal between two gods after they just slayed a cosmic bull a "last supper". This is absolutely NOTHING like the last supper of the Bible, thus showing Cumont will put misleading labels on erroneous events so that he may further his thesis.

2: The "similarities" presented come from well after Christianity had been established
All of the "similarities" that Zhavric presents comes from the Roman version of Mithra, the artifacts and statues alledgedly containing these similarities are from the 4th Century. Thus if any borrowing took place, it was Mithra borrowing from Christianity, not the other way around.

3: 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. Zhavric's only "defense" to this has been to say that they would have borrowed from it because it was popular...but it certainly wasn't popular among the Jews! Only among people who already worshipped pagan gods. So no 1st or 2nd Century Jew or Christian would borrow anything from a pagan religion that was completely detestable to them.

4: No casal link
As I pointed out earlier. I could find a lot of "similarities" in a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that one borrowed from the other. Zhavric's line of thinking has a tendency to convert parallels into influences and influences into sources without ANY evidence or casal link.


I'm not actually expecting Zhavric to address these problems with his argument, I've expressed them numerous times before only to have them completely ignore by him. I'm sure he'll respond to this by quoting where I said, "I countered by pointing out" and then posting some off-topic gibberish that had nothing to do with my actual post or the arguments I brought up. The fact that "Cumont sez so" is the only "evidence" presented by Zhavric and Co. for Christian borrowing should tell you the desperate measure they must go in order to hold up their fragile "theory". Zhavric claims that he can demonstrate Cumont's statements to be true based on artifacts and early texts that support these statments - yet he has continually refused to provide these artifacts and early texts that say Mithra had a "virgin birth" or had "12 followers" etc. I mean, for goodness sakes, Zhavric earlier called the earth a "virgin" in order to establish Christian borrowing. It's simply ridiculous and this is the reason the modern academic community no longer takes these "theories" seriously...or Christ-mythers seriously for that matter.

I'm reminded of the words of Michael Licona in reference to Earl Doherty complaining that modern academia wasn't taking him seriously:

Quote by: Licona (emphasis mine) The Jesus mythers will continue to advance their thesis and complain of being kept outside of the arena of serious academic discussion. They carry their signs, “Jesus Never Existed!” “They won’t listen to me!” and label those inside the arena as “Anti-Intellectuals,” “Fundamentalists,” “Misguided Liberals,” and “Flat-Earthers.” Doherty & Associates are baffled that all but a few naïve onlookers pass them by quickly, wagging their heads and rolling their eyes. They never see that they have a fellow picketer less than a hundred yards away, a distinguished looking man from Iran. He too is frustrated and carries a sign that says “The Holocaust Never Happened!” ... Doherty could miss my meaning here and think, “Oh, but we have so much evidence for the holocaust! We have living eyewitnesses and photographs!” But my point is that just as some deny the holocaust in spite of strong evidence, others deny the existence of Jesus in spite of strong evidence. Moreover, if a person has strong emotional reasons for denying a well-evidenced position (e.g., Doherty has a very low opinion of Christians and the President of Iran hates Jews), it will be difficult for any amount of evidence to convince him of his error until he is able to deal with those emotions, and thereby allowing his horizon to mature.

I think I'll let Zhavric have the last word unless he actually addresses the main points of my post. There's simply no point in "debating" with someone who continually ignores the main points of your posts and completely distorts the parts he does address. This is the typical Christ-myther tactic, they don't like Christianity, so any evidence supporting Christianity defaults to "false" and any theory AGAINST Christianity, no matter how little evidence there is, defaults to "true" and all who oppose are automatically accused of having a "clear doctrinal axe to grind". It's absurd and it's the reason many just ignore them...

[Jack]

But my point is that just as some deny the holocaust in spite of strong evidence, others deny the existence of Jesus in spite of strong evidence.

He makes a nonsensical comparison. The quantitiy and quality of evidence of the holocaust is substantial. The same cannot be said of the evidence of Jesus.

[Apokalupsis]

Quote by: RickSp Apo, you appear to have nothing on topic to add, save your own pompous rants.

Of course I have something to add. I'm addressing Zhavric. Please read posts before responding Rick. btw, what have you added to the debate here exactly?

You claim you have never attacked me as you attack me. Please. Doesn't it get tiresome?

Pointing out an error that you have made, is not attacking your Rick. And it doesn't get tiresome, because it hasn't been done. In order for something to be tiresome, it would have to be done quite a bit, no? That part usually comes first Rick. It's like a prerequisite and stuff.

Quote by: Zhavric When we have considerable evidence suggesting the manuscripts were fabricated long, long after the fact, it does indeed make a difference.

OK, you may have posted this elsewhere, but I have missed it. What considerable evidence are you referring to? And how "long", is "long, long after the fact"?

Christians claim that the gospels were all written in the first century, but there's no evidence to support this for all of them.

Hmmm...I'll have to re-examine my sources on that. What evidence is there that they were written after the 1st century though?

An original manuscript dating from the first century would go a long way to proving all the gospels existed at the time Christians allege.

Perhaps. But it certainly isn't required for ANY other ancient work and we do not doubt the copies of those works, despite having substantially less of them. Why not apply the same standards across the board? Why push the goal posts back just for Christianity*?

*I'm not referring to events being true as is recorded in the Bible, I'm referring to the DATING of the original writings themselves. They could be written when scholars think they were, yet still not contain absolute historical fact in the writings themselves. I'm only speaking of the dating, not the events being factual or lack thereof.

[Zhavric]

I'd love nothing more than to consider Christianity the innocent play-by-play writings of honest men who were simply writing down exactly what they saw. That's simply not the case.

It's important to draw a distinction between historians who are chronicling events for a salary and individuals attempting to start a religion. The individuals looking to invent Christianity allegedly "chronicled" events which are quite obviously impossible. Based on their claims and the fact they had an agenda beyond simply writing down what happened, we must hold them to a greater degree of scrutiny.

As for the gospels themselves, we have a set of books that allegedly depict monumental magical events in an era & region of highly literate individuals who couldn't be bothered to write anything about the incarnate god who allegedly showed up. The first gospel written, Mark, depicts a Jesus almost completely devoid of miracles and doesn't mention the virgin birth. Scholars and apologists have no conclusive evidence of when the others were written and apologists use "internal evidence" to date them.

If I write the following sentence on a piece of paper today:

"Journal Entry for today: I can't wait to go to New York next week and climb to the top of the Twin Towers."

... using internal evidence, you'd have to conclude that it was written pre 9/11/01. Internal evidence is of no use to us.

Furthermore, there are only a handful of Christian writings that mention anything remotely like the gospels until much later in the second century. The first recorded third party mention of the gospels doesn't come till 180 ce.

The truth is that the gospel Jesus never existed, but was a composite work of earlier myths (like Mithrasism) and stories of local folk heroes / rabble rousers who happened to be Rabbis named "Jesus". Josephus mentions several of them, establishing them during and before the gospel Jesus.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: LeoGold Here's an interesting exceprt from the book entitled "Suns of God" by Acharya S who maintains a website Truth Be Known Several cool videos on this subject can be found here: YouTube - Solar Mythology - Origins of religious belief The Christmas HOAX - Jesus is NOT the "Reason for the Season" by Acharya S The December 25th birthday of the sun god is a common motif globally, dating back at least 12,000 years as reflected in winter solstices artfully recorded in caves. "Nearly all nations," says Doane, commemorated the birth of the god Sol to the "Queen of Heaven" and "Celestial Virgin." The winter solstice was celebrated in countless places, including China and Persia, the latter regarding the solar Lord and Savior Mithra's birth. In Rome, a great festival called "Saturnalia" was celebrated from December 1st to the 23rd. The winter solstice festival in Egypt included the babe in a manger brought out of the sanctuary. Regarding the date of the "Christmas Feast," the Catholic Encyclopedia ("Christmas") remarks: "The well-known solar feast...of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date...." Ancient Greeks celebrated the birthday of Hercules and Dionysus on this date, as the ancient authority Macrobius (c. 400 AD/CE) maintained. Even the Greek father god, Zeus, was supposedly born at the winter solstice. The "Christmas" festival was celebrated at Athens and was called "the Lenaea," during which time, apparently, "the death and rebirth of the harvest infant Dionysus were similarly dramatized..." The Greco-Syrian sun god Adonis - the "Adonai" of the Bible - was also born on December 25th, a festival "spoken of by Tertullian, Jerome, and other Fathers of the Church, who inform us that the ceremonies took place in a cave, and that the cave in which they celebrated his mysteries in Bethlehem, was that in which Christ Jesus was born." Nor is the winter solstice celebration a purely "Pagan" concept, as the Jews also observed it in reference to the birth of their god, Yahweh. The "Feast of Illumination," "Feast of Lights" or "feast of the Dedication," occurred in winter (John 10:22-23; Josephus's Antiquities XII, 7.7)¹ and represented the "ancient Hebrew Winter Solstice Feast." The reference in the gospel of John states: "It was the feast of the Dedication at Jerusalem; it was winter..." (RSV) The passage in Josephus's Antiquities (XII, 7.7) refers to the eight-day festival celebrated by the Jewish hero Judas Maccabeus (190 BCE-160 BCE), the "festival of the restoration off the sacrifices of the temple." This 8-day festival is called by Josephus simply "Lights," as in the "festival of Lights." Known as "Hannukah," this "feast of Lights" represents a "restoration" of the ancient temple sacrifices. Regarding this Hannukah feast, in "The White Goddess" (469), Robert Graves says: "The rabbinical account is that this eight-day festival which begins on the twenty-fifth day of the month Kislev, was instituted by Judas Maccabeus and that it celebrates a miracle: at the Maccabean consecration of the Temple a small cruse of sacred oil was found, hidden by a former High Priest, which lasted for eight days. By this legend the authors of the Talmud hoped to conceal the antiquity of the feast, which was originally Jehovah's birthday as the Sun-god and had been celebrated at least as early as the time of Nehemiah (Maccabees, I, 18)."... In addition, Indians for millennia have celebrated the winter solstice, as a cardinal point, the new year and, presumably, the birth of the sun god. In the Indian solstice celebration--a "great religious festival"--there is "rejoicing everywhere." As in the West, the Indians "decorate their houses with garlands, and make presents to friends and relatives," a "custom of very great antiquity." One way the Brahman priests of Orissa have celebrated the solstice is by carrying images of "the youthful Krishna to the houses of their disciples and their patrons, to whom they present some of the red powder and tar of roses, and receive presents of money and cloth in return." Thus, in India the winter solstice has been as much a major holiday as it was anywhere, which is to be expected in a land permeated with sun worship for millennia.... Concerning the winter solstice festival in Ireland, the author of "Christian Mythology Unveiled" relates: "The Baal-fire feast, or meeting, was a great festival in Ireland, on the 25th of December, and midsummer eve. Baal, or Bel, was a name of the sun all over the east." It is important to note that the "December 25th" birthdate only applies to the age and hemisphere in which the winter solstice falls on December 21-24. In other ages, the solstice month is different, changing with the precession of the equinoxes every 2150 years. The December 25th birthdate is that of the sun, not a "real person," revealing its unoriginality within Christianity and the true nature of the Christian godman. "Christmas" was not incorporated into Christianity until 354 AD/CE. In reality, there is no evidence, no primary sources which show that "Jesus is the reason for the season."

You may accept, endorse, promote any material as long as it serves you for variety of purposes. Technically, you provide no means to support your claims, except others' concepts that come without hard-core exhibit in that matter, except for some speculations, assumptions, etc. with alleged logical determinations.

Why does that bother you whether people believe in Jesus ?

People may believe whatever or whoever they want to. That is their option, choice, privilege, etc. That is None of your business, definitely, unless you are about to proclaim yourself the planet Earth' ruler and take over the reign.
(Even successful - though, you encounter an opposition that is going to bring you down as quickly as you arose to that post.)

Do you think your inforamation - regardless of the sense it may carry - is going to change my business' financial status, position, etc. and/or influence my private life ?
Tons of you and/or alike are not going to change anything, and become a subject of irony, jokes, etc. (in my eyes, at least).
Your article is yet another example on yourself (and alike), instead, and the way you parents and/or guardians have upbrought you, indeed.
(Why do you post a data on your private life ? )

Have you expected me to change my view on some religious acpects ?
What is the purpose of your thread ?
Express yourself ? Is that the reason ?
Do you want me to polemize ? What is the subject, then, since material you post provides not enough and/or sufficient data ?

P.S.
It has become manical habit to express onself on Internet, regarless of provided material. XXI century trends.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Cephus Christianity is false if the things that it teaches are not factually true, which it is pretty simple to demonstrate is the case. The fact that we can show that Christianity stole from the pagans for simple expediency is even more evidence that Christianity is a heap of dog droppings. We can do the same things without all the religious dogma and nonsense attached, thank you very much.

Being stolen from pagans does not mean it is bull, it means that people should stop being so foolish as to see the stories literally, but as myths from which we can draw knowledge, wisdom and morality. This is what pagans and heathens do.

[rez]

Quote by: G. Adams Being stolen from pagans does not mean it is bull, it means that people should stop being so foolish as to see the stories literally, but as myths from which we can draw knowledge, wisdom and morality. This is what pagans and heathens do.

Thank you Adams.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Rainbow Why does that bother you whether people believe in Jesus ?

For centuries, Christians were in the habit of MURDERING other Christians who believed that Jesus' story was slightly different. It's important to keep perspective here. No, Christians usually don't do that sort of thing anymore, but Christianity, itself, is a propaganda. Like any other propaganda it can be used to swing the will of people into doing things they wouldn't otherwise do (like going to war or voting for people who will shaft them).

Also, I'd like nothing more than for Christians to admit that Jesus is a story not unlike Santa Claus. We both know that's simply not the case. Christians insist that Jesus actually existed as a real person which is demonstrably false.

I have no problem with a grown person believing in Santa Claus as a metaphor for being nice to others & generous. I do have a problem when a grown adult insists there are flying reindeer warming up at the north pole and may be (under the right circumstances) willing to murder me if I say they're flying aardvarks or simply not real.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Prove to me that God doesn't exist; you can't, no more than I can prove he does exist. Arguing over His existance is ridiculous

Prove to me that Allah doesn't exist. Prove to me that Enki doesn't exist. Prove to me that Krishna doesn't exist. Prove to me that Santa Claus, unicorns and leprechauns don't exist. Come on, put up or shut up..

The fact that Christmas is a Pagan date doesn't bother me one bit. The early leaders obviously were looking for a date and picked one that already had a significance. To expect us to know the birthday of a man who was considered insignificant till long after His death is stupid.

Funny, if you look in the Bible, Jesus was born sometime in early summer, going by the description. You'd expect them to be able to figure that out, wouldn't you?