Do people still believe everyone decended from Adam and Eve?

[Subduction Zone]

God's ways are not our ways. A lawyer would never take on a punishment, because a lawyer is a human being. Why do you think Jesus is not God? Mithras was not born of a virgin. He was born out of a rock. The rock birth is commonly depicted in Mithraic reliefs. Mithras emerges fully grown and naked except for a Phrygian cap, and he's holding a dagger and torch. In some variations, flames shoot out from the rock, or he's holding a globe in his hand." It is true that Mithraic sanctuaries were designed to look like caves, but nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus described as having been born in a cave. The idea is first mentioned in the letter of Barnabas at the beginning of the second century.

It is time to start to admit when your "logic" fails.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since nobody has all the answers and some things have no answer, isn't that a form of faith?

Nope. When one does not have an answer the honest thing to do is to admit it. Some people have a tendency to make up answers instead of being honest. That is faith.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Simple logic. Adam and Eve were created perfect. When they sinned they were still much closer to the perfection they were created with than their future offspring. There was no problem for their children to marry and have children. That is the only way humankind produced at that time.

By the time Moses lived genetic defects were already far worse along and it was wrong for relatives to intermarry and procreate with each other that is why God gave that mandate to the nation of Israel. And why it is stupid and wrong up to this day.

Have you ever seen inbred people? There's no such thing as degradation in genetics as defects would be there at the start from day one making it impossible for just two people alone to create a viable base population.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Since nobody has all the answers and some things have no answer, isn't that a form of faith?

That's called moving the goal posts.
I gave an example of a faithless act, an area where knowledge and scientific law have rendered faith needless and useless. I construct an electric circuit, the laws of electricity mandate what will happen.

 

[danieldemol]

Jesus dying for our sins would be like a lawyer agreeing to take the punishment for the crime that the person they are defending committing. We can't understand God because God's ways are not our ways. We would never agree to accept the punishment of the crime that another person committed, but God is different.

There are historical examples of humans being prepared to stand in for other humans for punishment, are you unaware of them?
Take this as but one example of such;

A Nigerian boy was sentenced to 10 years for blasphemy. Then people started offering to serve part of it
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...c76f10-0171-11eb-b92e-029676f9ebec_story.html

There are actually laws in some countries preventing someone else from serving the sentence of the convicted, see for example the Legal QA in this link from https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-someone-go-to-jail-on-another-persons-behalf--1213964.html

If no one ever wanted to serve on another's behalf then no one would bother to make a law against it.

 

[Skywalker]

It is time to start to admit when your "logic" fails.

Justin Martyr said in the second century that Mithras's caves was a demoniacal imitation of the tradition that Jesus was born in a cave. Scholar Ernst Benz "has shown conclusively that this Christian tradition does not come from a dependency on Mithraism, but rather from an ages old tradition in Palestine itself of holy shrines in caves." There is no doubt that the Christian tradition does not stem from the Mithraic account. Mithras being born on December 25 is not a parallel. We don't know the date Jesus was born. The earliest date celebrated by Christians was January 6-in fact, it's still celebrated by many churches in the East. Of course, December 25 is very close to the winter solstice. This was the date chosen by emperor Aurelian for the dedication of his temple to Sol Invictus, the god called the 'Unconquerable Sun.' Mithras was closely associated with Sol Invictus; sometimes they're depicted shaking hands. This is apparently how Mithras became associated with December 25." The day that date became Christmas for Christians seems to be in 336, a year before the death of Constantine, the first Roman emperor to embrace Christianity. We know that before his conversion, he worshiped Sol Invictus.

We know for sure that Constantine made Sunday, or the Lord's Day, an official holiday, even though Christians had already been observing it as the day on which Jesus was resurrected. So it's conceivable Constantine also may have appropriated December 25 for the birthday of Christ. We know that Christian emperors and popes suggested that instead of simply banishing pagan ceremonies that they appropriate them for Christianity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Justin Martyr said in the second century that Mithras's caves was a demoniacal imitation of the tradition that Jesus was born in a cave. Scholar Ernst Benz "has shown conclusively that this Christian tradition does not come from a dependency on Mithraism, but rather from an ages old tradition in Palestine itself of holy shrines in caves." There is no doubt that the Christian tradition does not stem from the Mithraic account. Mithras being born on December 25 is not a parallel. We don't know the date Jesus was born. The earliest date celebrated by Christians was January 6-in fact, it's still celebrated by many churches in the East. Of course, December 25 is very close to the winter solstice. This was the date chosen by emperor Aurelian for the dedication of his temple to Sol Invictus, the god called the 'Unconquerable Sun.' Mithras was closely associated with Sol Invictus; sometimes they're depicted shaking hands. This is apparently how Mithras became associated with December 25." The day that date became Christmas for Christians seems to be in 336, a year before the death of Constantine, the first Roman emperor to embrace Christianity. We know that before his conversion, he worshiped Sol Invictus.

We know for sure that Constantine made Sunday, or the Lord's Day, an official holiday, even though Christians had already been observing it as the day on which Jesus was resurrected. So it's conceivable Constantine also may have appropriated December 25 for the birthday of Christ. We know that Christian emperors and popes suggested that instead of simply banishing pagan ceremonies that they appropriate them for Christianity.

A strawman does not refute an argument. The claim is not that the Jesus story is a one hundred percent retelling of Mithraism. The argument is that it appears that many elements of the Jesus mythology appear to have been borrowed from Mithraism and other sources. There is no direct copying of one source only.

 

[metis]

We know that Christian emperors and popes suggested that instead of simply banishing pagan ceremonies that they appropriate them for Christianity.

The "Mass for Christ" was not and is not a "pagan ceremony"-- it's a Catholic Christian religious service.

For the Pagan celebration of "Yule", see this: Yule - Wikipedia

 

[Skywalker]

A strawman does not refute an argument. The claim is not that the Jesus story is a one hundred percent retelling of Mithraism. The argument is that it appears that many elements of the Jesus mythology appear to have been borrowed from Mithraism and other sources. There is no direct copying of one source only.

Mithras was not a great traveler or master with twelve disciples. He was a god, not a teacher. People say that there was a parallel between Jesus and Mithras in that both of their followers were promised immortality. That can be inferred, but certainly that was the hope of most followers of any religion. So, that's not surprising.

Another supposed similarity is that MIthras sacrificed himself for world peace. That's reading Christian theology into what's not there. He didn't sacrifice himself-he killed a bull. Mithras wasn't buried in a tomb and he didn't rise after three days. We don't know anything about the death of Mithras. We have a lot of monuments, but we have almost no textual evidence, because this was a secret religion. But I know of no references to a supposed death and resurrection. Richard Gordon declare in his book, Image and Value in the Greco-Roman World that there is "no death of Mithras"-and thus, there cannot be a resurrection.

Mithras was not considered the Good Shepherd, the Way, the Truth, and the Life. That's reading Christian theology into Mithraism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mithras was not a great traveler or master with twelve disciples. He was a god, not a teacher. People say that there was a parallel between Jesus and Mithras in that both of their followers were promised immortality. That can be inferred, but certainly that was the hope of most followers of any religion. So, that's not surprising.

Another supposed similarity is that MIthras sacrificed himself for world peace. That's reading Christian theology into what's not there. He didn't sacrifice himself-he killed a bull. Mithras wasn't buried in a tomb and he didn't rise after three days. We don't know anything about the death of Mithras. We have a lot of monuments, but we have almost no textual evidence, because this was a secret religion. But I know of no references to a supposed death and resurrection. Richard Gordon declare in his book, Image and Value in the Greco-Roman World that there is "no death of Mithras"-and thus, there cannot be a resurrection.

Mithras was not considered the Good Shepherd, the Way, the Truth, and the Life. That's reading Christian theology into Mithraism.

Correct. Once again no one is claiming that they stole all of the ideas of Mithraism. Why do you keep making "So what?" arguments. The point is that it looks a lot like they took some of the ideas of Mithra when they made their myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The "Mass for Christ" was not and is not a "pagan ceremony"-- it's a Catholic Christian religious service.

For the Pagan celebration of "Yule", see this: Yule - Wikipedia

For once young Luke may be right. He did not say that it was a pagan ceremony he said that the early church appropriated the ceremonies and your source appears to support that:

"Later departing from its pagan roots, Yule underwent Christianised reformulation,[1] resulting in the term Christmastide."

 

[Skywalker]

Correct. Once again no one is claiming that they stole all of the ideas of Mithraism. Why do you keep making "So what?" arguments. The point is that it looks a lot like they took some of the ideas of Mithra when they made their myth.

Why do you think some of the ideas from Mithraism are in the Bible? There really is no sacramental meal in Mithraism that parallels the Lord's supper. Clearly, the Christian meal was based on the Passover, not on a mystery religion. In the book, The Roman Cult of Mithras, it says, "this earthly meal is a ritual reproduction of the celebration of his victory which Mithras preformed with the sun-god before their joint ascension in the Sun's chariots. The ritual meal was probably simply a component of regular common meals. Such meals have always been an essential part of religious assembly; eating and drinking together creates community and renders visible the fact that those who take part are members of one and the same group." Oxford's Yarnold said that Cumont's systematic description of Mithraic liturgy in Christian terms-particularly referring to the Mithraic meal as communion-"is now seen to be misleading, not to say mischievous". There is no connection between the Christian and Mithraic ceremonies. "Nothing in any of the sources we have leads to a viable theory that the origin of the Christian meal is to be found in Mithraism, nor for that matter may one derive the Mithraic meal from the Christian."

The Christian sacrament is centered in the Jewish tradition of the Passover feast and the specifically historical recollection of Jesus's last acts, while the Mithraic feast has its origins in Mazdean (that is, Persian) ceremonies. There is simply no need to link these two events together in terms of derivation or direct influence."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you think some of the ideas from Mithraism are in the Bible? There really is no sacramental meal in Mithraism that parallels the Lord's supper. Clearly, the Christian meal was based on the Passover, not on a mystery religion. In the book, The Roman Cult of Mithras, it says, "this earthly meal is a ritual reproduction of the celebration of his victory which Mithras preformed with the sun-god before their joint ascension in the Sun's chariots. The ritual meal was probably simply a component of regular common meals. Such meals have always been an essential part of religious assembly; eating and drinking together creates community and renders visible the fact that those who take part are members of one and the same group." Oxford's Yarnold said that Cumont's systematic description of Mithraic liturgy in Christian terms-particularly referring to the Mithraic meal as communion-"is now seen to be misleading, not to say mischievous". There is no connection between the Christian and Mithraic ceremonies. "Nothing in any of the sources we have leads to a viable theory that the origin of the Christian meal is to be found in Mithraism, nor for that matter may one derive the Mithraic meal from the Christian."

The Christian sacrament is centered in the Jewish tradition of the Passover feast and the specifically historical recollection of Jesus's last acts, while the Mithraic feast has its origins in Mazdean (that is, Persian) ceremonies. There is simply no need to link these two events together in terms of derivation or direct influence."

Because there are clear similarities. I do believe that you mentioned some of them. And no one is saying that it was a one hundred percent copy. The fact that there are differences does not mean that they did not get ideas from Mithraism. Of course many of their ideas are similar to all sorts of myths. Myths tend to borrow from each other liberally.

 

[Skywalker]

Because there are clear similarities. I do believe that you mentioned some of them. And no one is saying that it was a one hundred percent copy. The fact that there are differences does not mean that they did not get ideas from Mithraism. Of course many of their ideas are similar to all sorts of myths. Myths tend to borrow from each other liberally.

What similarities did I mention? Nobody said it's a hundred percent copy, but many parallels have been discredited. What allegations of plagiarism do you think stand to scrutiny?

 

[Skywalker]

Because there are clear similarities. I do believe that you mentioned some of them. And no one is saying that it was a one hundred percent copy. The fact that there are differences does not mean that they did not get ideas from Mithraism. Of course many of their ideas are similar to all sorts of myths. Myths tend to borrow from each other liberally.

Osiris didn't resurrect he became a zombie. That is no parallel to Jesus' resurrection, for which there is strong historical support.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Osiris didn't resurrect he became a zombie. That is no parallel to Jesus' resurrection, for which there is strong historical support.

There is no historical support that I am aware of. And please do not quote the doctored quotes of Josephus.

And where did you get the idea that Osiris was a zombie? Please quote and link a valid source. Remember Christian sources about other religions are almost never valid. It would be like going to a Muslim source to make a claim about Christianity.

 

[Skywalker]

There is no historical support that I am aware of. And please do not quote the doctored quotes of Josephus.

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are orderly. The Gospel of Peter includes a bizarre passage about a talking cross and the risen Jesus with his head extending beyond the clouds. The gospels were written forty years after Jesus died. Scholars such as Arthur J. Dewey, associate professor of Theology at Xavier University in Cincinnati, date the early stage of the Gospel of Peter to the middle of the first century.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are orderly. The Gospel of Peter includes a bizarre passage about a talking cross and the risen Jesus with his head extending beyond the clouds. The gospels were written forty years after Jesus died. Scholars such as Arthur J. Dewey, associate professor of Theology at Xavier University in Cincinnati, date the early stage of the Gospel of Peter to the middle of the first century.

Only somewhat orderly. They are also self contradictory at times. They cannot seem to agree on the day of the crucifixion. How many people showed up, how many angels were there, and what was said.

And the earliest of gospels was 40 years after the fact. The last was up to 80 years after it. But the gospels are not historic evidence. They are the claim. I am waiting for historic evidence of the resurrection. It appears that there is none.

 

[Skywalker]

Only somewhat orderly. They are also self contradictory at times. They cannot seem to agree on the day of the crucifixion. How many people showed up, how many angels were there, and what was said.

And the earliest of gospels was 40 years after the fact. The last was up to 80 years after it. But the gospels are not historic evidence. They are the claim. I am waiting for historic evidence of the resurrection. It appears that there is none.

The disciples believed that Jesus had actually returned from the dead and had appeared to them. There are three strands of evidence for this: Paul's testimony about the disciples; oral traditions that passed through the early church; and the written works of the early church.

Paul is important because he reports knowing some of the disciples personally, including Peter, James, and John. Acts confirms this. And Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:11 that whether 'It was I or they, this is what we preach,' referring to the resurrection of Jesus. So in other words, Paul knew the apostles and reports that they claimed-just as he did-that Jesus had returned from the dead.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The disciples believed that Jesus had actually returned from the dead and had appeared to them. There are three strands of evidence for this: Paul's testimony about the disciples; oral traditions that passed through the early church; and the written works of the early church.

Paul is important because he reports knowing some of the disciples personally, including Peter, James, and John. Acts confirms this. And Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:11 that whether 'It was I or they, this is what we preach,' referring to the resurrection of Jesus. So in other words, Paul knew the apostles and reports that they claimed-just as he did-that Jesus had returned from the dead.

Another argument refuted by "So what?"

I am still waiting for your supposed evidence.