The Christmas Hoax

[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."

[Zhavric]

Excellent article. Have you seen my thread explaining that Jesus never really existed?

Can't wait to see what the Christians have to say about this one...

[RickSp]

Yes indeed, the solstice is the "real meaning of Christmas".

I am intrigued by the similarities between Jesus and Mithras, a Persian god whose worship predated Jesus by several centuries.

Mithras was known for :
Birthdate on December 25
Virgin birth
Twelve followers
Killing and resurrection
Miracles
Morality
Mankind's savior
Known as the Light of the world
Followers used cross as a symbol

The similarities continue. The site of the temple of Mithras in Rome is now the Vatican.

Some Similarities Between Mithraism and Christianity
Mithraism
Jesus as a Reincarnation of Mithra

[Cephus]

There's no question whatsoever that Christians stole the holiday, just like they stole the overwhelming majority of their holidays. Christmas? Stolen. Easter? Stolen. All Hallow's Eve? Stolen. Most of them were stolen, simply because it made it easier for them to convert people to their side by keeping people's celebrations intact, just redirecting the purpose.

[Zhavric]

Rick, Mithras was clearly the "warm up" for Christianity. In my readings, the biggest and really only failure of Mithrasism was it didn't appeal to commoners. Mithra was a god / religion for kings & emperors not commoners and nobodies.

Christianity took Mithrasism, a few other pagan myths, and the stories of a handful of Jewish Rabbis in an attempt to "re-judify" Judea and provide a religion that would appeal to people who were being persecuted for following it. Jesus succeeded where Mithras failed in that Jesus had a little something for everyone. He could be worshipped by commoners AND kings.

[Destroyer]

Quote by: RickSp Mithras was known for : Birthdate on December 25 Virgin birth Twelve followers Killing and resurrection Miracles Morality Mankind's savior Known as the Light of the world Followers used cross as a symbol The similarities continue. The site of the temple of Mithras in Rome is now the Vatican.

Another village atheist? When will you guys actually start being skeptics and research the propoganda you constantly spout? Did it ever strike you as odd that for all these "similarities" they list, they never show you these "similarities' in the Mithraic texts themselves?! That's because these similarities don't exist and anyone who actually researches this, KNOWS this:

1. Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds.

There is no support for the idea that Mithra was born of a virgin. And since nowhere in the New Testament does it state that Jesus was born on December 25th, this could not be called a comparison. Also, Mithra was formed within a solid mountain, not within a cave. While, logically, a cave was left behind once Mithra dug himself out, saying he was born in a cave is wrong. There are texts suggesting that shepherds were present at Mithra’s birth and helped dig him out of the mountain, but these are Roman texts dating to no earlier than the 2nd century A.D., and thus were most likely influenced by the New Testament writings, instead of being an influence upon them.

2. He had 12 companions or disciples.

In the Persian version of the Mithra story, he has one disciple, Varuna. In the Roman version, he has two, Cautes and Cautopatres. The source for this claim seems to be an old carving of Mithra slaying a bull while 12 people watch on. That these 12 people are companions or disciples is not suggested, and besides, this carving dates to post-Christian times anyways, so if they WERE meant to be disciples of some sort, they were likely influenced by Christianity, not the other way around

3. He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.

There’s no references in any Mithraic literature to Mithra dying at all, much less being resurrected. There are some external sources suggesting that Mithra died (though how he died is not made clear), but these date to the 4th century at the earliest. I’d say that this would mean they were inspired by Christianity, but since they don’t mention any burial in a tomb or resurrection, I’d say we couldn’t call it ‘inspired’ at all.

Click here for more

And the list goes on and on and on.Research this stuff, try to find the similarities in the texts themselves (you won't) and quit believing EVERYTHING athests sites tell you.

Quote by: Zhavric Rick, Mithras was clearly the "warm up" for Christianity.

Support?

I'll tell you why this is false.

1: The "similarities" are spurious/don't exist (see above)
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.

Quote by: Zhavric Mithra was a god / religion for kings & emperors not commoners and nobodies

No, Mithra was extremely popular among Roman soldiers

Quote by: Wiki It was practiced in the Roman Empire since the first century BC[citation needed], and reached its apogee around the third through fourth centuries AD, when it was very popular among the Roman soldiers

[Zhavric]

I especially like where you posted the link from wiki and left in the "citation needed" bit.

The cult of Mithras was actually of very ancient lineage, traceable in one form or another through at least two thousand years. In origin it was the primordial sun-worship – the father of all religion. Iconography showed Mithras, in Phrygian cap and cloak, riding his fiery chariot across the sky. But it was also an eastern religion, reaching the Roman world from India via Persia. Traditional hostility with Persia did not favour Rome adopting a religion of its enemies. This changed however in the 60s BC when Pompey’s legions first entered Syria. Mithraism had so well established itself in the Commagene, Armenia and eastern Anatolia that whole dynasties of kings had called themselves ‘Mithradates’ (‘justice of Mithra’).

Rome’s troops took to the ‘machismo’ faith, with its ceremonies of male-bonding and triumph over death, of self-control and resistance to sensuality. Acolytes were required to descend into a pit, which was then covered by boards filled with holes, and the blood of a sacrificial bull above would shower onto them. Thus sanctified they could re-emerge from the pit ‘reborn’ in Mithras. This sacrament, the ‘taurobolia,’ was the Mithraic forerunner of the Christian baptism. Mithras’ rock tomb (and place of re-birth) – the ‘petra’ – was central to each Mithraeum. The rock connection was later re-worked into the legend of Saint Peter.

Legionaries took the cult with them into Palestine and back to Rome itself. Several hundred Mithraic monuments have been found in Rome (Coarelli, 1979). Adapted for Roman taste, the most popular Romanised form of Mithraism was Sol Invictus, the Unconquerable Sun, whose re-birth was celebrated as the climax of the mid-winter Saturnalia, on 25th December (Celsus tells us that in the Mithraic mysteries the soul moved through seven heavenly spheres, beginning with the leaden Saturn and ending with the golden Sun).

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 were all but identical.

Mithras had had twelve followers with whom he had shared a last sacramental meal. 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.

All this may surprise modern Christians but it was very familiar to the Church Fathers [See e.g. Justin, Origen, Tertullian], who filled their ‘Apologies’ with dubious rationales as to how Mithraism had anticipated the whole nine yards of Christianity centuries before the supposed arrival of Jesus – ‘diabolic mimicry by a prescient Satan’ being the standard explanation. Pagan critics were not slow to point to the truth: Christianity had simply copied the popular motifs of a competitive faith.

Mithras was proclaimed the principal patron of the empire by Aurelian in 274 AD (on December 25th he dedicated a temple to the sun-god in the Campus Martius). Mithraism was adopted by Diocletian in 307 AD and by Julian as late as 362 AD. The cult was driven from the scene over the next hundred years by furious and sustained attacks from Christianity.

Who would defend Mithras?

Mithraism lacked a professional clergy; it had no hierarchical organisation disciplined by common rules. Though popular throughout the empire, the cult's ceremonials had remained heavily dependent upon state patronage and support. When state funding was transferred to the Church by Constantine and his successors, Mithraism's fate was sealed.

Fatally, during the reign of Emperor Gratian (367-383 AD), its sanctuaries were sacked of their wealth and closed. Thirty years later, Theodosius made worship of Mithras punishable by death. The god had fallen – but the imagery and iconography of Mithras were expropriated wholesale by the more comprehensive and favoured cult of Christ. Onto Jesus’s head fell Mithras’s sun disc. Christian bishops assumed his headdress and mitre.

Bull Slayer
Eclipsed as it was in later centuries by the faith of Christ, Mithraism – or rather, its Romanised form Sol Invictus – was the first ‘universal religion’ of the Greco-Roman world.

Mithraism anticipated Christianity in all major respects bar one, and enjoyed a ‘reign’ of at least five centuries. It peaked around the year 300 AD when it became the official religion of the empire. At that time, in every town and city, in every military garrison and outpost from Syria to the Scottish frontier, was to be found a Mithraeum and officiating priests of the cult.

Mithraism was the ‘religion of choice’ of fishermen, merchants, and in particular, the military who adopted Mithras rather like latter-day soldiers would adopt St. Michael or St. George – Mithras slew bulls, St George slew dragons! Mithraism waged – and lost – a two-hundred year battle with the upstart religion of Christ, into which much of its ritual, and many of its practitioners, were subsumed.

Fatally, Mithraism had excluded women entirely, causing well-heeled Roman matrons with a pious frame of mind to explore first Judaism, and then Christianity. Also, unlike Christianity, it made no special overtures towards the uneducated, downtrodden and marginal elements of society. It was a religion chosen by emperors, not slaves.



Mithras Goes to Rome
The cult of Mithras was actually of very ancient lineage, traceable in one form or another through at least two thousand years. In origin it was the primordial sun-worship – the father of all religion. Iconography showed Mithras, in Phrygian cap and cloak, riding his fiery chariot across the sky. But it was also an eastern religion, reaching the Roman world from India via Persia. Traditional hostility with Persia did not favour Rome adopting a religion of its enemies. This changed however in the 60s BC when Pompey’s legions first entered Syria. Mithraism had so well established itself in the Commagene, Armenia and eastern Anatolia that whole dynasties of kings had called themselves ‘Mithradates’ (‘justice of Mithra’). (continued...)

[Zhavric]

Rome’s troops took to the ‘machismo’ faith, with its ceremonies of male-bonding and triumph over death, of self-control and resistance to sensuality. Acolytes were required to descend into a pit, which was then covered by boards filled with holes, and the blood of a sacrificial bull above would shower onto them. Thus sanctified they could re-emerge from the pit ‘reborn’ in Mithras. This sacrament, the ‘taurobolia,’ was the Mithraic forerunner of the Christian baptism. Mithras’ rock tomb (and place of re-birth) – the ‘petra’ – was central to each Mithraeum. The rock connection was later re-worked into the legend of Saint Peter.

Legionaries took the cult with them into Palestine and back to Rome itself. Several hundred Mithraic monuments have been found in Rome (Coarelli, 1979). Adapted for Roman taste, the most popular Romanised form of Mithraism was Sol Invictus, the Unconquerable Sun, whose re-birth was celebrated as the climax of the mid-winter Saturnalia, on 25th December (Celsus tells us that in the Mithraic mysteries the soul moved through seven heavenly spheres, beginning with the leaden Saturn and ending with the golden Sun).

Precursor of Christianity
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.

Miracle Birth
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 were all but identical.

Mithras had had twelve followers with whom he had shared a last sacramental meal. 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.


Popular Motifs
All this may surprise modern Christians but it was very familiar to the Church Fathers [See e.g. Justin, Origen, Tertullian], who filled their ‘Apologies’ with dubious rationales as to how Mithraism had anticipated the whole nine yards of Christianity centuries before the supposed arrival of Jesus – ‘diabolic mimicry by a prescient Satan’ being the standard explanation. Pagan critics were not slow to point to the truth: Christianity had simply copied the popular motifs of a competitive faith.

Mithras was proclaimed the principal patron of the empire by Aurelian in 274 AD (on December 25th he dedicated a temple to the sun-god in the Campus Martius). Mithraism was adopted by Diocletian in 307 AD and by Julian as late as 362 AD. The cult was driven from the scene over the next hundred years by furious and sustained attacks from Christianity.

Who would defend Mithras?

Mithraism lacked a professional clergy; it had no hierarchical organisation disciplined by common rules. Though popular throughout the empire, the cult's ceremonials had remained heavily dependent upon state patronage and support. When state funding was transferred to the Church by Constantine and his successors, Mithraism's fate was sealed.

Fatally, during the reign of Emperor Gratian (367-383 AD), its sanctuaries were sacked of their wealth and closed. Thirty years later, Theodosius made worship of Mithras punishable by death. The god had fallen – but the imagery and iconography of Mithras were expropriated wholesale by the more comprehensive and favoured cult of Christ. Onto Jesus’s head fell Mithras’s sun disc. Christian bishops assumed his headdress and mitre.

Faint echoes of the fallen god were to be heard in later Manichaeism.

In the 4th century, ordinary Christians had not yet acquired the abject humility and submissive behaviour that would characterise the brethren of later centuries. In church, they sang, danced and clapped.

And when they prayed it was facing to the East, with hands held wide and with face held up, not down – to greet their sun-god!!

Source.

There is no support for the idea that Mithra was born of a virgin.

That's a mischaracterization. Mithra, as stated above, was the son of the creator god who emerged from the "virgin" earth.

And since nowhere in the New Testament does it state that Jesus was born on December 25th, this could not be called a comparison.

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

There are texts suggesting that shepherds were present at Mithra’s birth and helped dig him out of the mountain, but these are Roman texts dating to no earlier than the 2nd century A.D., and thus were most likely influenced by the New Testament writings, instead of being an influence upon them.

Only the gospel of Mark had been written in the (very late) first century. There's absolutely ZERO evidence the other three gospels existed in the first century and no third party mention of them until 180 ce. Mithraism easily predates and existed with Christianity.

In the Persian version of the Mithra story, he has one disciple, Varuna. In the Roman version, he has two, Cautes and Cautopatres. The source for this claim seems to be an old carving of Mithra slaying a bull while 12 people watch on. That these 12 people are companions or disciples is not suggested, and besides, this carving dates to post-Christian times anyways, so if they WERE meant to be disciples of some sort, they were likely influenced by Christianity, not the other way around

The gospels only mention the death of two of Jesus' disciples and they all are attributed multiple deaths, ridiculous travels, and have absolutely ZERO evidence suggesting they ever existed. So, even if what you stated is true about Mithraism, it's right there with Christianity.

And please tell me you didn't try to claim that sun-worshippers aren't interested in death / rebirth of their god. You didn't actually claim that, did you?

[Destroyer]

Quote by: Zhavric Source.

Yes, and your propoganda site never offers any source or shows these "similarities' in the texts themselves....yet you believe every one of them blindly. WHen a Christian site says "X", you ask questions like, "how do we know this to be the case" and "why". When an obviously propaganda site says "X", you just believe it and post it like it's an authority on the subject.

And what was the purpose of posting all of that? I'm familiar with Mithraism (though your 'source' apparently isn't given it's blatant falsehoods) and most of it didn't address or refute my claim, namely that the "similarities" are spurious and the sites claiming there are similarities never show you the Mithraic texts themselves and just make these "similarities" up themselves. In fact, what you just posted confirmed exactly what I had been saying. They listed some "similarities" but never showed us these similarities in the texts themselves...like how they mentioned Mithra apparently having 12 followers (without providing support)even though I've already shown this to be false. You're trying to move us backwards in this debate, Rick claimed that Mithra had 12 followers, I pointed out that there is no evidence for this and that the only texts we have say 2 followers, then you come in and repeat that Mithra had 12 followers even though this has already been disproven. What you need to do next is provide evidence that Mithra had 12 followers, don't waste your time though, there is none, your conspiracy site made that up. Did you think copy and pasting a whole bunch of text from a propaganda site run by an non-expert would impress someone?

That's a mischaracterization. Mithra, as stated above, was the son of the creator god who emerged from the "virgin" earth.

"emerged from the virgin earth"! LOL! Is this the desperate measure Christ-myther's must go to in order to find similarities? Calling the earth a "virgin"?!

Because we all know that being formed from solid rock is the EXACT same as being born of a woman whom had not had sex.

You're making your desperation all too apparent. We both know you haven't heard a Christ-myth theory you didn't like...from Jesus=Julius to Jesus=Jesii to Jesus=Teacher of Righteousness etc. etc. Your posts have all the markings of someone who WANTS something to be true DESPITE the evidence to the contrary. I think I'll create a website alleging that Jesus was really Alexander the Great. I'll make up a fanciful story and provide no support, then I'll watch as you post the crap I made up on some message board and cite my made up story as an authority...

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

This doesn't refute the point in the least. No Christian believes nor does it say in the NT that Jesus was born on the 25th of December, this is just the day we celebrate his birth...thus this "similarity" is patently false.

Only the gospel of Mark had been written in the (very late) first century.

I bet you don't know how scholars have come to date it in the first century...

(Hint: Internal Evidence)

There's absolutely ZERO evidence the other three gospels existed in the first century and no third party mention of them until 180 ce. Mithraism easily predates and existed with Christianity.

How does it easily predate Christianity when this one similarity from Mithraism was in the 2nd Century (the same as when you date the "other" three gospels) and the other contrived "similarities" don't come to us from texts until the 4th Century? Of course Mithraism was around when Christianity was, but none of these contrived "similarities" show up until centuries later....and even then the "similarities" are often completely forced/made up (ie calling the earth a virgin)

Also, I bet you can't tell me how we date these Mithraic texts...

(Hint: Internal Evidence)

I've also noted your blatant inconsistancy as well. Matthew, Luke and John weren't written until the 2nd Century (according to you and other non-experts) because we don't have any copies of them until them until then and internal evidence doesn't count at all (even though it does for every other text in antiquity)...but you believe Mark was written in the 1st Century even though the external evidence for Mark is the same as the other gospels and it is dated to within the 1st Century SOLEY on internal evidence.

The gospels only mention the death of two of Jesus' disciples and they all are attributed multiple deaths, ridiculous travels, and have absolutely ZERO evidence suggesting they ever existed. So, even if what you stated is true about Mithraism, it's right there with Christianity.

I'm not here to debate your assinine Christ-myth assumptions. You claimed that Christianity borrowed from Mithraism because Mithra had 12 followers, however not one Mithraic texts says this ANYWHERE. However, those that wrote of Jesus' life mention him having 12 disciples, whether this is true or not is outside the realm of THIS debate - the point is, this story, whether historical or contrived, was not borrowed from Mithra.

And please tell me you didn't try to claim that sun-worshippers aren't interested in death / rebirth of their god. You didn't actually claim that, did you?

I claimed that there is absolutely no reference to Mithra being resurrected...how you became this confused about the actual claims being made is beyond me.

[Destroyer]

It seems the village atheists of this site are caught up in a theory that has been refuted for 100's of years (that Christianity borrowed from pagan religions), so let's review what has been stated here, just for clarity:

Quote by: RickSP Mithras was known for : [post list of supposed similarities]

Quote by: Destroyer 1. Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds. There is no support for the idea that Mithra was born of a virgin. And since nowhere in the New Testament does it state that Jesus was born on December 25th, this could not be called a comparison. Also, Mithra was formed within a solid mountain, not within a cave. While, logically, a cave was left behind once Mithra dug himself out, saying he was born in a cave is wrong. There are texts suggesting that shepherds were present at Mithra’s birth and helped dig him out of the mountain, but these are Roman texts dating to no earlier than the 2nd century A.D., and thus were most likely influenced by the New Testament writings, instead of being an influence upon them. 2. He had 12 companions or disciples. In the Persian version of the Mithra story, he has one disciple, Varuna. In the Roman version, he has two, Cautes and Cautopatres. The source for this claim seems to be an old carving of Mithra slaying a bull while 12 people watch on. That these 12 people are companions or disciples is not suggested, and besides, this carving dates to post-Christian times anyways, so if they WERE meant to be disciples of some sort, they were likely influenced by Christianity, not the other way around 3. He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again. There’s no references in any Mithraic literature to Mithra dying at all, much less being resurrected. There are some external sources suggesting that Mithra died (though how he died is not made clear), but these date to the 4th century at the earliest. I’d say that this would mean they were inspired by Christianity, but since they don’t mention any burial in a tomb or resurrection, I’d say we couldn’t call it ‘inspired’ at all.

At this point some of the supposed similarities have already been debunked, I posted a link to a site that debunked the rest. Then Zhavric comes into the debate and...posts things that have already been refuted, particularly this paragraph:

Quote by: Conspiracy site that Zhavric wrongs assumes is credible Mithras had had twelve followers with whom he had shared a last sacramental meal. 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.

I've already shown that Mithra didn't have 12 followers and that he didn't resurrect from the dead but Zhavric I suppose felt like parroting exactly what Rick said that had already been refuted?! So what of the other supposed similarities?

Quote by: Conspiracy site Mithras had had twelve followers with whom he had shared a last sacramental mea

The closest thing the Mithraic religion has to Jesus’ last supper is the celebration of a meal Mithra had with the sun god after slaying the bull. But nowhere is this called a ‘eucharist’ or ‘Lord’s Supper’, and since it happened AFTER Mithra’s ‘sacrifice’ and not before (as Jesus’ was), it’s hardly a comparison. As for the quote, the earliest quote along these lines in Mithraic texts dates to post-Christian times and, besides that, wasn’t said by Mithra, but by Zarathustra.

Quote by: Conspiracy site His many titles included ‘the Truth,’ ‘the Light,’ and ‘the Good Shepherd.’

Mithra was never called any of these things, even in the Roman version of Mithraism

Quote by: Conspiracy site He (Mithra)had sacrificed himself to redeem mankind.

He did not slay himself or sacrifice himself in any sense

The same goes for the rest of the supposed "similarities", see the previous link I provided.

CHALLENGE for Zhavric and Co.: Please show me the similarities of Christianity and Mithraism in the text themselves. If you cannot do this, than please admit that you have done NO research in this regard and just blindly believed non-expert atheist sites.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Destroyer CHALLENGE for Zhavric and Co.: Please show me the similarities of Christianity and Mithraism in the text themselves. If you cannot do this, than please admit that you have done NO research in this regard and just blindly believed non-expert atheist sites.

What foolishness. Given that there is zero documentation of any sort of the alleged Jesus during his lifetime, it requires a certain chutzpah to ask for the "original texts" from the Persian regarding Mithras. I presume that you are aware that the cult of Mithras, as a secret sect, did not maintain texts comparable to the Bible. So your challenge is bullshit, as I am sure that you are aware.

Lets return to the original topic - are you denying that the early Christians piggy-backed onto pagan religions by choosing the solstice as the notional birthdate of their messiah? You are not claiming that Jesus was born in Bethelhem on Saturnalia are you?

[Destroyer]

Quote by: RickSp What foolishness. Given that there is zero documentation of any sort of the alleged Jesus during his lifetime, it requires a certain chutzpah to ask for the "original texts" from the Persian regarding Mithras.

I never asked you to quote the original texts. But if you are saying Mithra had 12 followers or was resurrected etc. , you must be getting this from some sort of Mithraic text, correct (as we DO have these texts despite you implying that we don't)? I mean, that's how we know of Mithraic teachings, through the texts we have (the Persian and Roman versions), whether they be copies or not. So if these similarities truly exist, it should be no problem for you to quote these similarities from the texts themselves.

Unfortunately for you and the rest of the foolhardy atheists holding to this baseless assumption, none of the Mithraic texts we have says ANYTHING about Mithra having 12 companions or being resurrected etc., none of this is mentioned in either the Persian or Roman versions of the story. Thus, these sites where you are getting this information are making this up...and you're believing it. There's absolutely NO evidence for any of these similarities and your inability to come up with any evidence speaks volumes.

Lets return to the original topic - are you denying that the early Christians piggy-backed onto pagan religions by choosing the solstice as the notional birthdate of their messiah? You are not claiming that Jesus was born in Bethelhem on Saturnalia are you?

It depends on what you mean by "piggy-backed". If you mean that they copied it in order to be like them, then no. Before the time of Christ and after his death, December 25th was a HUGE pagan holiday where various pagan religions would celebrate the decline of winter and their various gods of agriculture etc. would soon return. The Christian church tried to get rid of this pagan holiday, but they couldn't...so, in order to combat this pagan holiday, they started their own celebration of Christ's birth on this day (they called it the Feast of the Nativity). So this is not a matter of "piggy-backing", it's a matter of trying to combat a pagan holiday and starting your own celebration on the same day to detract form the pagan celebration...and apparently it worked as no one celebrates these other pagan gods on this day and the 25th of December is known throughout the world as the day we celebrate Christ's birth. And no, I'm not claiming that Christ was actually born on this day, I know of no Christian who believes this, the information in the New Testament points towards sometime in the spring.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Destroyer I never asked you to quote the original texts. But if you are saying Mithra had 12 followers or was resurrected etc. , you must be getting this from some sort of Mithraic text, correct (as we DO have these texts despite you implying that we don't)? I mean, that's how we know of Mithraic teachings, through the texts we have (the Persian and Roman versions), whether they be copies or not. So if these similarities truly exist, it should be no problem for you to quote these similarities from the texts themselves. Unfortunately for you and the rest of the foolhardy atheists holding to this baseless assumption, none of the Mithraic texts we have says ANYTHING about Mithra having 12 companions or being resurrected etc., none of this is mentioned in either the Persian or Roman versions of the story. Thus, these sites where you are getting this information are making this up...and you're believing it. There's absolutely NO evidence for any of these similarities and your inability to come up with any evidence speaks volumes.

LOL. If you knew anything about the cult of Mithras you would know that there are no "Mithraic texts" as such, a point I made previously. Most of what is know of the cult is from secondary accounts, inscriptions on monuments and from reliefs. Your prattling about "Mithraic texts, speaks volumes about your lack of knowledge of the topic. Sounds like you have been quoting from Christian sources, which are not known for their veracity either.

Quote by: Destroyer It depends on what you mean by "piggy-backed". If you mean that they copied it in order to be like them, then no. Before the time of Christ and after his death, December 25th was a HUGE pagan holiday where various pagan religions would celebrate the decline of winter and their various gods of agriculture etc. would soon return. The Christian church tried to get rid of this pagan holiday, but they couldn't...so, in order to combat this pagan holiday, they started their own celebration of Christ's birth on this day (they called it the Feast of the Nativity). So this is not a matter of "piggy-backing", it's a matter of trying to combat a pagan holiday and starting your own celebration on the same day to detract form the pagan celebration...and apparently it worked as no one celebrates these other pagan gods on this day and the 25th of December is known throughout the world as the day we celebrate Christ's birth. And no, I'm not claiming that Christ was actually born on this day, I know of no Christian who believes this, the information in the New Testament points towards sometime in the spring.

That is an amusing if convoluted spin.

[Destroyer]

Quote by: RickSp If you knew anything about the cult of Mithras you would know that there are no "Mithraic texts" as such, a point I made previously. Most of what is know of the cult is from secondary accounts, inscriptions on monuments and from reliefs.

Yes and those secondary accounts as well as the inscriptions say nothing of Mithra resurrecting from the dead or having 12 followers. When I refer to "mithraic texts" I'm not referring to originals(nor have I ever claimed I was), but the texts and/or monuments that we DO have that refer to Mithra.Thus there is NO evidence for these supposed similarities,they are invented by atheist sites. And since you've provided ZERO evidence for these similarities, you lose this debate.

That is an amusing if convoluted spin.

Concession accepted.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Destroyer Yes and those secondary accounts as well as the inscriptions say nothing of Mithra resurrecting from the dead or having 12 followers. When I refer to "mithraic texts" I'm not referring to originals(nor have I ever claimed I was), but the texts and/or monuments that we DO have that refer to Mithra.Thus there is NO evidence for these supposed similarities,they are invented by atheist sites. And since you've provided ZERO evidence for these similarities, you lose this debate.

No, just an acknowldegement that playing your games is a waste of time. The history of the cult of Mithras is well established and your silly banter does nothing to change that. Franz Cumont's massively documented Texts and Illustrated Monuments Relating to the Mysteries of Mithra published in 1894 is the generally accepted scholastic source and does indeed describe marked similarities in the cult of Mythras and Christianity. So your assertion that "there is NO evidence for these supposed similarities, they are invented by atheist sites" is uniformed, to be polite.

[Zhavric]

The similarities between Mithraism and Christianity are glaring and obvious. I'm not surprised Destroyer has found an apologist site and concluded it's the only one that can be trusted as a source. Well, since you're into trusting Christian sources, let's look at one:

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.

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS & RESEARCH MINISTRY

The site goes on to attempt to refute these claims using Christian propaganda as though one set of fairy tales can debunk another. Point being that the similarities between the two faiths isn't an issue. The issue is how much influence one had on the other.

For the rest of the discussion, let's go to the sources: Franz Cumont from whom most of our knowledge of Mithraism comes.

Cumont writes:

It was customary to represent him between two youthful figures, one with an uplifted, the other with an inverted, torch. These youths bore the enigmatic epithets of Cauti and Cautopati, and were naught else than the double incarnation of his person (Figs. 18 and 29). These two dadophori, as they were called, and the tauroctonous hero formed together a triad, and in this "triple Mithra"

A trinitarian god?

The tradition ran that the "Generative Rock," of which a standing image was worshipped in the temples, had given birth to Mithra. on the banks of a river, under thes hade of a sacred tree, and that shepherds alone, 1 ensconced in a neighboring mountain, had witnessed the miracle of his entrance into the world... Worshipfully the shepherds drew near, offering the divine infant the first fruits of their flock and their harvests...

Sheapards present at his birth?

The god with whom Mithra first measured his strength was the Sun. The latter was compelled to render homage to the superiority of his rival and to receive from him his investiture. His conqueror placed upon his head the radiant crown that he has borne in his daily course ever since his downfall. Then he caused him to rise again, and extending to him his right hand concluded with him a solemn covenant of friendship.

A god above him with whom he's allied / closely affiliated who he must humble himself in front of? After being defeated, he rises again and finds friendship in that god?

In a Last Supper, which the initiated commemorated by mystical love feasts, he (Mithras) celebrated with Helios and the other companions of his labors the termination of their common struggles. Then the gods ascended to the Heavens.

A last supper? An ascencion to heaven?

What I found most intriguing was: