The fallacy of Jesus dying for our sins (By Shabir Ally)

[serp777]

Yes!!! Or better yet, it is only a fact that computers work during the exact moment that an individual person is experiencing a computer "working". Beyond that, it is not a fact. In order for it to be a "fact", you must be able to define what exactly it is that defines a computer "working", which any definition would be superfluous at best. Then you must be able to prove that computer's "work" in every possible scenario.




Strawman, never made any such argument.



Exactly, and a theory is nothing more than an opinion. Some more substantiated with evidence than others. Trust me I understand the scientific method just fine.





I agree with you that evolution is a gradual process, but I also believe that there were, at exactly one point in time, exactly two humans that held all of the traits that would allow a modern scientist to qualify them as "human", or at least "homo sapiens".

But on that note we could argue what qualifies as "human", but no matter what species you, or anyone else would qualify as humans, be it Neanderthal, Australopithecus, homo erectus, homo sapiens or otherwise, I know at a specific point in time, there were exactly two of these "beings" that held all of the traits that we would qualify as "human".



It depends on the society. In American society 18. By numerical standards, age 20, as that person would no longer be a "teenager". In other societies, it would be age 12, 13, 14, or when a person completed a task that qualified them as an "adult" within the confines of that society. Regardless of the definition, there is exactly one point in time, when said person becomes and "adult" according to the laws of any given society.



I believe your argument was something along the lines of, "So you don't believe in evolution, so I guess you don't believe in this, this, this, and that". You may have intended to be arguing that disagreeing with evolution is like disagreeing with another aspect of scientific inquiry, but the argument/attack you presented was a generalization of another person's opinion concerning certain scientific fields based upon their opinion of an altogether different scientific field.





Touché





I dunno, but that seems like an analogy about surviving and dangers to me.



That's an argument of perspective and opinion. Most notably, the definition of sin, and the probability that we will commit it. As the things that we consider "sinful" decrease, so does the probability that we will commit sin. If we're going strictly by the "ten commandments" definition of sin, I don't personally find those things hard to avoid, so according to my perspective God did not place me in an environment where I would likely sin.

Lastly, there is a difference in the parent vs. God analogy in the last statement you made. While it could be argued that a creator God gave us the "ability" to sin, the parent does not give the child the "ability" to sin, in the analogy you provided the parent gives the child the "opportunity" to sin. God gives both in my opinion, opportunity and ability. But just because you are given the ability and opportunity to do something, does not mean that the person responsible for providing you with the opportunity and ability, is responsible for you exercising your ability given the opportunity, especially when free will is given at the same time.

"If God were to tell you, would you have the ability to hear what he/she had to say?"



Depends on your conception of God. Also, giving a student the answers is not always the best way to learn, would you not agree?



Indeed, their is always a need for balance in all things. If you know your child is about to do something that would endanger his/her life, of course you do everything in your power to stop them. But if you child/student is persistent in pursuing an action that could cause them minor/moderate harm after repeated warnings, and extensive energy exertion on your part, it becomes apparent, at least for me, that is inevitable that they will experience whatever it is that they seek to experience, and the best course of action is just to guide them along the way.

Parenting styles are just an opinion, but there is evidence to support that certain styles promote more successful children.

The authoritative parenting style: A guide for the science-minded parent

"Prove to me that computer's work while I am not experience a "working" computer."

This is a bizarre kind of self -centered magical thinking; you observing something does not determine the facts of reality. Facts exist regardless of a person's experience or observations.

" In order for it to be a "fact", you must be able to define what exactly it is that defines a computer "working", which any definition would be superfluous at best. "

So there is no such thing as facts then in your view, since it depends on superfluous definitions? How exactly do you define a fact then? You must first define what a fact would be in order to define a suitable criteria for which I can define working as a fact.

" I know at a specific point in time, there were exactly two of these "beings" that held all of the traits that we would qualify as "human"."

You first admitted that we could disagree, on numerous criteria for how you would define human because there are so many factors and variables. What if someone had a genetic mutation that prevented the development of hands, or perhaps a new feature such as a tail? Are they suddenly not human because several of their attributes changes? It's a slippery slope you're going down. You claim that you know there had to be two humans, so you need to provide the model for which to judge their humanness.

Therefore how could we possibly know that there were two humans or even say that there were a specific number? But let's just say for the sake of things that you could somehow define humans by attributes (which I don't agree you can unless you have a very broad definition). Well there wouldn't have to be two humans at first. It's possible that multiple humans could be concieved at the same time and all get that final correct. Maybe then you'd have three or four humans simultaneously. Or, maybe there was only one human at first, who bred with the other non humans (cross species breeding is possible) to create a human, non human hybrid, which then eventually led to the human race. I'd argue that a 99.9999% human and a human can be considered the same thing since there is no such thing as a 100% human anyways. We all have genetic mutations. It is simply impossible to say what percentage of genetic material constitutes a human, although we could give reasonable bounds.

"That's an argument of perspective and opinion. Most notably, the definition of sin, and the probability that we will commit it. As the things that we consider "sinful" decrease, so does the probability that we will commit sin. If we're going strictly by the "ten commandments" definition of sin, I don't personally find those things hard to avoid, so according to my perspective God did not place me in an environment where I would likely sin."

Well everything is a opinion in your opinion so i already knew that. First, why would we go by the ten commandments? It's pretty easy to fail adultery, or fail not going to church on the sabbath, or fail "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" considering there are thousands of religions, or fail "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain", or fail "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image". And furthermore, God knew the outcome before he created us. So to revise the analogy, it would be like the parents knowing the future, and then knowing their child was going to injure itself, then proceeding to place it in a room full of dangerous objects anways. The survival and danger thing is not the point of the analogy by the way, which I think you understand given that first sentence. The danger and survival is supposed to connect to committing a sin.

And additionally, God put many people in many places where it's easy to sin. The fact that you don't think it's hard isn't applicable to everyone. How about psychopaths, or people who grew up in tribes not knowing about the ten commandments? Or how about people who grew up in India believing in polytheism?

"While it could be argued that a creator God gave us the "ability" to sin, the parent does not give the child the "ability" to sin, in the analogy you provided the parent gives the child the "opportunity" to sin. God gives both in my opinion, opportunity and ability."

Exactly so it's even worse. He additionally gave extremely strong desires to sin and made it impossible not to sin in certain terrible circumstances, or if you grew up knowing the wrong religion/society/culture.

"It depends on the society. "

Proving my point. The definition is not exact at all.

My adherence to this particular theory of science, does not however, affect my belief in other unrelated fields of science, as you postulated against St. Frank

The difference is that evolution has ironclad evidence, and that theory does not. It would be like agreeing with one valid mathematical proof and yet disagreeing with a different valid mathematical proof on the grounds that it was a different proof. Likewise, in science both medicine and evolution have mounds of evidence supporting them. if you agree with one but disagree with the other, then you disagree with the scientific method, which begs the question of why you agree with one but not the other,s ince the scientific method equally generated both. And, as you've agreed evolution is relevant for medicine.

 

[nash8]

This is a bizarre kind of self -centered magical thinking; you observing something does not determine the facts of reality. Facts exist regardless of a person's experience or observations.

I'm not saying observation determines the facts of reality, I'm saying that "proof" that something is a fact is dependent upon observation, or direct experience. I think we can both agree that stars exist, but if I had never been outside, you would not be able to "prove" to me that stars exist, unless you took me outside and showed them to me. Now, you could show me pictures of the stars, and that would suffice, but it is still based on my observation. Any verbal attempt to persuade me would simply be based on my decision of whether you were trustworthy or not.

Direct experience is the only way for something to be "proven" as a fact in my opinion, and even then we must rely that our five senses did not deceive us, which the senses are not always reliable.

So there is no such thing as facts then in your view, since it depends on superfluous definitions? How exactly do you define a fact then? You must first define what a fact would be in order to define a suitable criteria for which I can define working as a fact.

Other than mathematics, and direct experience I don't think there are such things as facts. Everything other than direct experience is relying on someone else's honesty, and if I do consider them honest, then I must consider their ability to accurately report the results of an experiment.

So for something to be a fact you, must be able to demonstrate to me that I can experience it for myself, whatever it is that you are trying to persuade me of. In the case of a computer working, I would agree with you that it is a fact that a computer works at given point in time, because I myself have experienced a working computer.

However, by making the general statement "computers work", you are making such a broad statement that it is easy to poke holes in your "factual statement". Do computer's work all of the time? Of course they don't, as I have personally experienced numerous computers not working. And I would wager to say you have experienced the same. By providing one counter-example to the "fact" that computers worked, I have disproven your statement that "computers work".

You first admitted that we could disagree, on numerous criteria for how you would define human because there are so many factors and variables. What if someone had a genetic mutation that prevented the development of hands, or perhaps a new feature such as a tail? Are they suddenly not human because several of their attributes changes? It's a slippery slope you're going down. You claim that you know there had to be two humans, so you need to provide the model for which to judge their humanness.

In all honesty, I have found it hard to find a generally specific set of traits that qualify something as human, which I personally find odd as there has to be a set of guidelines for qualifying everything otherwise the classification system doesn't work. For example, if you don't have a spine then you can't be classified as a vertebrate. So to be a human, you would have to have a spine.

As far as the hand/tail thing goes, anatomical classifications are generally not as accurate as there are many different species/genus/phylums and even more diverse classification levels that share the same traits. But there are a few that are distinctly human, at least in relation to primates. Bipedalism, increased brain size, lengthened ontogeny, decreases sexual dimorphism, as well as more precise gripping strength.

I think the more precise way to qualify "humanness" would be genetics, but I am nowhere near knowledgeable enough in genetics to be able to have a discussion with you about the specific genetics that would qualify a human. And I know that even within humans there are genetic differences, such as black and white people have, I believe, exactly a one gene difference that causes more melanin to be produced.

Lastly we would both have to agree on what qualifies one as human. Does the genus "homo" make one human? Or does a human have to be specifically of the species "sapien"? Either way, I would still argue that there were exactly two "humans" at one specific point in time, that had all of the qualities, both anatomically and genetically, that would qualify them as human, regardless of what classification you used to qualify them as such.

Therefore how could we possibly know that there were two humans or even say that there were a specific number? But let's just say for the sake of things that you could somehow define humans by attributes (which I don't agree you can unless you have a very broad definition). Well there wouldn't have to be two humans at first. It's possible that multiple humans could be concieved at the same time and all get that final correct. Maybe then you'd have three or four humans simultaneously. Or, maybe there was only one human at first, who bred with the other non humans (cross species breeding is possible) to create a human, non human hybrid, which then eventually led to the human race. I'd argue that a 99.9999% human and a human can be considered the same thing since there is no such thing as a 100% human anyways. We all have genetic mutations. It is simply impossible to say what percentage of genetic material constitutes a human, although we could give reasonable bounds.

Because there had to be a "first" human born that had all of the genetic mutations necessary to be qualified as humans, regardless of what classification you used, and if there was a first, then there had to have been a second as well. Now there could have been more than two humans born at exactly the same second that both had the necessary mutations, both physically and genetically, but I find that more improbable than one being born after another, even if those particular human's reign as "the only humans on earth" only lasted a matter of seconds.

Secondly, it's a threshold that qualifies something as human, regardless of the classification, rather than having 100% of something. That's how the classification system works.

I already listed the anatomical/physical traits earlier, specifically the ability to create human vocal phonemes, a specific brain capacity measured in number of neurons, bipedalism, tooth structure, and other traits. A "human" must have all these, and I'm sure it could be more accurately measured by genetics, but I'm not knowledgeable enough in genetics to speak about what these genes would be.

On the cross species breeding front, all humans outside of sub-Saharan Africans have about 6% Neanderthal DNA, but it's also hypothesized that modern Humans all came from a small area of sub-Saharan Africa, so Neanderthal's must have evolved outside of this area, then interbred with modern humans that migrated outside of the area at a later date. So cross-breeding in possible, and in large part did create modern humans, but genetics also show that it was impossible for cross-breeding to result in the formation of humans.

Recent African origin of modern humans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lastly, while researching for this, I came across information that almost "proves" p) that humans came from, at least, a common mother due to mitochondrial genetic evidence.

Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A single "Adam" is more difficult to prove, and thus more unlikely, at least from a genetic evidentiary standpoint.

Y-chromosomal Adam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And here's a good overview of human biology that goes into better detail about all the information that I presented.

Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And here is an overview of the classification system. I know there are requirements, or traits that creatures have to have, or not have, in order to be qualified in each one, I just can't seem to fine a specific definition for qualifying in the genus "homo", or the species "sapien".

 

[nash8]

Well everything is a opinion in your opinion so i already knew that. First, why would we go by the ten commandments? It's pretty easy to fail adultery, or fail not going to church on the sabbath, or fail "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" considering there are thousands of religions, or fail "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain", or fail "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image".

I just went by the moral code, with regard to the religion that was in the OP. It is not necessarily my personal moral code. My own only personal morality is simply forcing someone to do something that is against there will, except for in the defense of ones own life. According to my own personal definition of sin, I don't think it is very hard to not sin at all.

And furthermore, God knew the outcome before he created us.

Only if you consider God to be omniscient, which I don't necessarily believe myself, and is not necessarily a specific quality for God.

So to revise the analogy, it would be like the parents knowing the future, and then knowing their child was going to injure itself, then proceeding to place it in a room full of dangerous objects anways. The survival and danger thing is not the point of the analogy by the way, which I think you understand given that first sentence. The danger and survival is supposed to connect to committing a sin.

Again, this is only pertinent if you consider God to be omniscient, and if you have a definition of sin that is contrary to your definition of human nature. Also, I know the danger is supposed be connected to sin. What I'm saying is that if the danger is connected to sin, and survival/not being hurt in a dangerous room is connected to not sinning, then God must have known what he was doing, because if he placed us in a room full of dangerous objects, we, as humanity, have done a great job to avoid them, or avoiding sin.

And additionally, God put many people in many places where it's easy to sin. The fact that you don't think it's hard isn't applicable to everyone. How about psychopaths, or people who grew up in tribes not knowing about the ten commandments? Or how about people who grew up in India believing in polytheism?

Again, I was using the ten commandments because it was the religion used in the OP. It's not necessarily my own code of morality. Secondly, I would argue that tribes not exposed to modern senses of "morality" are actually more "moral" than modern society, and I don't know what people in India believing in polytheism has to do with anything, but I don know that the majority of the population of India are Hindu, which is essentially a monotheistic religion with polytheistic representations. All the different deities are simply different manifestations of Brahmin, they are all essentially the same God.

Psychopaths do present an interesting point though, as they do not necessarily follow my own personal sense of morality, but they are the exception more so than the norm.

Exactly so it's even worse. He additionally gave extremely strong desires to sin and made it impossible not to sin in certain terrible circumstances, or if you grew up knowing the wrong religion/society/culture.

I don't think God did give us an extremely strong desire to sin. I don't think as a whole, humans have a strong desire to force people to things against their will, unless they are defending their own livelihood. Although I will say that what humans currently believe to be their "livelihood" is misrepresented. And I don't believe most religions/societies/cultures go against that either.

Proving my point. The definition is not exact at all.

I agree the definition of sin is not exact at all, so how can you say that humans have a predisposition to sin, when there is no exact definition of sin in the first place.

The difference is that evolution has ironclad evidence, and that theory does not.

Exactly my point, I believe in a scientific theory that does not have ironclad evidence, nor is it generally supported by the scientific community in general anymore, but just because I don't believe in the most evidentially supported theory in one aspect of science, doesn't mean that I don't believe in the most evidentially supported theory in another aspect of science, as I definitely support the theory of evolution, but I also have my discrepancies with it as well.

I also don't believe in a lot of theories of medicine that have "ironclad evidence", one example such being chemo-therapy, but if I broke a bone I'd definitely want it set and splinted, and if I had a severed artery or vein, I'd definitely want surgery.

My point being, just because you don't believe in one "evidentially" supported theory in one aspect of science, doesn't mean that you don't believe in other evidentially supported theories within the same or different fields of science.

It would be like agreeing with one valid mathematical proof and yet disagreeing with a different valid mathematical proof on the grounds that it was a different proof.

Math and science are two altogether different avenues. Math only works along a specifically defined arena given specific parameters. Naturalistic scientific inquiry does not have the same specifically defined parameters.

Likewise, in science both medicine and evolution have mounds of evidence supporting them. If you agree with one but disagree with the other, then you disagree with the scientific method, which begs the question of why you agree with one but not the other,s ince the scientific method equally generated both. And, as you've agreed evolution is relevant for medicine.

Did you not read the link that I posted regarding medicine. Many prescription medicines had "mounds of evidence" to support their benefits, as that's the only way they were approved by the FDA, only to find out that they actually caused more harm than they did good. I see commercials for birth control pills that caused significant harm all the time. The same goes for Prozac, and numerous other medications and procedures as well. The scientific method derived all of these medications and procedures that were essentially horribly flawed.

In summary, the scientific method is not infallible, and is essentially only as good as the design of the hypothesis and the experiment that is designed to test the hypothesis, as well as the accurate gathering of data to support or refute the hypothesis. If any one of these areas fall short, as they often due, then the whole system falls. Often, these deficiencies can carry on for decades, and even centuries due to rigidity in academic circles, competition for funding, and corruptive forces(usually with regard to corporate funding), or even just because of intellectual dishonesty, and/or ignorance in procedures.

The Corruption of Science in America -- Puppet Masters -- Sott.net
How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public's Expense (2012) | Union of Concerned Scientists
The Corruption of Science
Not even trying: the corruption of real science

Just to name a few.

 

[joelr]

Resurrection

Many cases of resurrection from the dead, are handed down in the ancient mythologies. Mithras, the "Mediator" of Persia, is said to have risen after three days. So also, Quexalcote, of Mexico, Osiris of Egypt, and others.

Some of these, after their resurrection, ascended into heaven. Chrishna, after rising from the dead, and appearing to his disciples, ascended to Brahma, in heaven. [Brahma=Abraham, cf. Lk 16:22: "The poor man [Lazarus] died and was carried by the angels to the Bosom of Abraham."]

Confession and Remission of Sins

These doctrines prevailed anciently in India; also among the ancient Persians, and Parsees. In China, the invocation of Omito was held to remit the punishment of the greatest crimes.

The doctrines of Original Sin, Fall of Man, and Endless Punishment are all found in the religious systems of several ancient nations.

Sprinkling with water was a religious ceremony of much antiquity. This may in some degree account for the changes of the form of Christian baptism from immersion to sprinkling. The practice prevailed among the ancient Romans.

The Sacrament or Eucharist has also an ancient original. It was practiced by the Brahmins of India, and was introduced into the mysteries of Mithras. It prevailed, also, among the ancient Mexicans.

The Golden Rule was taught hundreds of years before Christ, by Confucius, Aristotle, and many others.

 

[nash8]

Resurrection

Many cases of resurrection from the dead, are handed down in the ancient mythologies. Mithras, the "Mediator" of Persia, is said to have risen after three days. So also, Quexalcote, of Mexico, Osiris of Egypt, and others.

Some of these, after their resurrection, ascended into heaven. Chrishna, after rising from the dead, and appearing to his disciples, ascended to Brahma, in heaven. [Brahma=Abraham, cf. Lk 16:22: "The poor man [Lazarus] died and was carried by the angels to the Bosom of Abraham."]

Confession and Remission of Sins

These doctrines prevailed anciently in India; also among the ancient Persians, and Parsees. In China, the invocation of Omito was held to remit the punishment of the greatest crimes.

The doctrines of Original Sin, Fall of Man, and Endless Punishment are all found in the religious systems of several ancient nations.

Sprinkling with water was a religious ceremony of much antiquity. This may in some degree account for the changes of the form of Christian baptism from immersion to sprinkling. The practice prevailed among the ancient Romans.

The Sacrament or Eucharist has also an ancient original. It was practiced by the Brahmins of India, and was introduced into the mysteries of Mithras. It prevailed, also, among the ancient Mexicans.

The Golden Rule was taught hundreds of years before Christ, by Confucius, Aristotle, and many others.

What's your point?

 

[joelr]

What's your point?

That Jesus dying for our sins is just a re-hash of older mythology.
From a time when sacrifice was believed to be a part of the natural order. That god or gods actually required it and it was justified.

In some cultures there was some type of drinking the victims blood or consuming part of the victim as the one being sacrificed was looked on as "holy" and performing a great service to the community.

We see traces of this in communion where catholics eat and drink of Jesus's body.
And traditionally, as Joseph Campbell notes, the priests did believe there was a transformation from wine to blood in that practice.

That's not really "traces" that is pretty plain, consuming the sacrificed to gain their "holy-ness".

 

[Britedream]

That Jesus dying for our sins is just a re-hash of older mythology.
From a time when sacrifice was believed to be a part of the natural order. That god or gods actually required it and it was justified.

In some cultures there was some type of drinking the victims blood or consuming part of the victim as the one being sacrificed was looked on as "holy" and performing a great service to the community.

We see traces of this in communion where catholics eat and drink of Jesus's body.
And traditionally, as Joseph Campbell notes, the priests did believe there was a transformation from wine to blood in that practice.

That's not really "traces" that is pretty plain, consuming the sacrificed to gain their "holy-ness".

I think you raised very valid and interesting points here, if you can provide a reference to that.

 

[nash8]

That Jesus dying for our sins is just a re-hash of older mythology.
From a time when sacrifice was believed to be a part of the natural order. That god or gods actually required it and it was justified.

In some cultures there was some type of drinking the victims blood or consuming part of the victim as the one being sacrificed was looked on as "holy" and performing a great service to the community.

We see traces of this in communion where catholics eat and drink of Jesus's body.
And traditionally, as Joseph Campbell notes, the priests did believe there was a transformation from wine to blood in that practice.

That's not really "traces" that is pretty plain, consuming the sacrificed to gain their "holy-ness".

I can find correlation in almost anything. For example:

1. All serial killers drink water.
2. Water causes people to become serial killers.

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation. If you are trying to argue that there are older myths woven into the fabric of Christianity, than I would not argue with you, as I to would agree there are. However, this interweaving of older myths into Christianity in no way implies that Jesus was a mythical character. It is natural for older myths and beliefs to become interwoven in a newly forming religion, even if said religion was formed around a historical character.

I will agree with you on two accounts though. The early Catholic priest's definitely believed that the Eucharist literally transformed into Jesus' body and blood when it was being consumed, there's actually even a term for it that I can't remember off the top of my head.

I will also agree with you that the idea that Jesus' dying for our sins was a re-hash of older mythology. However, I also don't believe that that particular doctrine, at least the "atonement theory" which is the most prevalent theory today, was not an original Christian Doctrine, and does not even show up in church father's writings until pretty late... 200 AD or so, and even then it is not the most prominent theory.

The atonement theory of sacrifice doesn't start to become very prominent, until late in the first millennia, and even more so when the Catholic Church began exchanging salvation under this premise for money.

Lastly, Mithras did not show up until after, and during at the earliest, Jesus' life on Earth, so there's no way that the story could be based of Mithras.

Mithraic mysteries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[joelr]

I think you raised very valid and interesting points here, if you can provide a reference to that.

Joseph Campbell speaks on the specifics of this in Power of Myth. He was also recounting a story of a re-enactment of a tribal sacrifice of a young woman whom the tribe each ate a small piece of. Joseph was with a catholic priest who found the practice vulgar and Joseph took the opportunity to point out that eating the body and blood of the sacrificed Jesus is a tad similar.

 

[joelr]

I can find correlation in almost anything. For example:

1. All serial killers drink water.
2. Water causes people to become serial killers.

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation. If you are trying to argue that there are older myths woven into the fabric of Christianity, than I would not argue with you, as I to would agree there are. However, this interweaving of older myths into Christianity in no way implies that Jesus was a mythical character. It is natural for older myths and beliefs to become interwoven in a newly forming religion, even if said religion was formed around a historical character.

I will agree with you on two accounts though. The early Catholic priest's definitely believed that the Eucharist literally transformed into Jesus' body and blood when it was being consumed, there's actually even a term for it that I can't remember off the top of my head.

I will also agree with you that the idea that Jesus' dying for our sins was a re-hash of older mythology. However, I also don't believe that that particular doctrine, at least the "atonement theory" which is the most prevalent theory today, was not an original Christian Doctrine, and does not even show up in church father's writings until pretty late... 200 AD or so, and even then it is not the most prominent theory.

The atonement theory of sacrifice doesn't start to become very prominent, until late in the first millennia, and even more so when the Catholic Church began exchanging salvation under this premise for money.

Lastly, Mithras did not show up until after, and during at the earliest, Jesus' life on Earth, so there's no way that the story could be based of Mithras.

Oh gosh, don't use Wiki for that type of research. The books copied onto Wiki have been scrubbed of comparative mythology. You have to go to Egyptologists and archeologist for starters.
Mithra is far far older than Christ.

I'm sure you're right about atonement, it's being discovered more and more that there are much later dates on much of the gospels and such. The crucifixion didn't show up until later either. Jesus was put on something smaller, a board or stake.



Mithra: The Pagan Christ
by Acharya S/D.M. Murdock

(The following article is adapted from a chapter in Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled, as well as excerpts from other articles, such as "The Origins of Christianity" and "The ZEITGEIST Sourcebook.")

"Both Mithras and Christ were described variously as 'the Way,' 'the Truth,' 'the Light,' 'the Life,' 'the Word,' 'the Son of God,' 'the Good Shepherd.' The Christian litany to Jesus could easily be an allegorical litany to the sun-god. Mithras is often represented as carrying a lamb on his shoulders, just as Jesus is. Midnight services were found in both religions. The virgin mother...was easily merged with the virgin mother Mary. Petra, the sacred rock of Mithraism, became Peter, the foundation of the Christian Church."

Gerald Berry, Religions of the World

"Mithra or Mitra is...worshipped as Itu (Mitra-Mitu-Itu) in every house of the Hindus in India. Itu (derivative of Mitu or Mitra) is considered as the Vegetation-deity. This Mithra or Mitra (Sun-God) is believed to be a Mediator between God and man, between the Sky and the Earth. It is said that Mithra or [the] Sun took birth in the Cave on December 25th. It is also the belief of the Christian world that Mithra or the Sun-God was born of [a] Virgin. He travelled far and wide. He has twelve satellites, which are taken as the Sun's disciples.... [The Sun's] great festivals are observed in the Winter Solstice and the Vernal Equinox—Christmas and Easter. His symbol is the Lamb...."

Swami Prajnanananda, Christ the Saviour and Christ Myth

Because of its evident relationship to Christianity, special attention needs to be paid to the Persian/Roman religion of Mithraism. The worship of the Indo-Persian god Mithra dates back centuries to millennia preceding the common era. The god is found as "Mitra" in the Indian Vedic religion, which is over 3,500 years old, by conservative estimates. When the Iranians separated from their Indian brethren, Mitra became known as "Mithra" or "Mihr," as he is also called in Persian.

By around 1500 BCE, Mitra worship had made it to the Near East, in the Indian kingdom of the Mitanni, who at that time occupied Assyria. Mitra worship, however, was known also by that time as far west as the Hittite kingdom, only a few hundred miles east of the Mediterranean, as is evidenced by the Hittite-Mitanni tablets found at Bogaz-Köy in what is now Turkey. The gods of the Mitanni included Mitra, Varuna and Indra, all found in the Vedic texts.

(skipping to the middle)

Mithra and Christ


Over the centuries—in fact, from the earliest Christian times—Mithraism has been compared to Christianity, revealing numerous similarities between the two faiths' doctrines and traditions, including as concerns stories of their respective godmen. In developing this analysis, it should be kept in mind that elements from Roman, Armenian and Persian Mithraism are utilized, not as a whole ideology but as separate items that may have affected the creation of Christianity, whether directly through the mechanism of Mithraism or through another Pagan source within the Roman Empire and beyond. The evidence points to these motifs and elements being adopted into Christianity not as a whole from one source but singularly from many sources, including Mithraism.

Thus, the following list represents not a solidified mythos or narrative of one particular Mithra or form of the god as developed in one particular culture and era but, rather, a combination of them all for ease of reference as to any possible influences upon Christianity under the name of Mitra/Mithra/Mithras.

Mithra has the following in common with the Jesus character:

Mithra was born on December 25th of the virgin Anahita.
The babe was wrapped in swaddling clothes, placed in a manger and attended by shepherds.
He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
He had 12 companions or "disciples."
He performed miracles.
As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.
He ascended to heaven.
Mithra was viewed as the Good Shepherd, the "Way, the Truth and the Light," the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah.
Mithra is omniscient, as he "hears all, sees all, knows all: none can deceive him."
He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper."
Mithra "sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers."
Mithraism emphasized baptism.

(skip to ending)

It is obvious from the remarks of the Church fathers and from the literary and archaeological record that Mithraism in some form preceded Christianity by centuries. The fact is that there is no Christian archaeological evidence earlier than the earliest Roman Mithraic archaeological evidence and that the preponderance of evidence points to Christianity being formulated during the second century, not based on a "historical" personage of the early first century. As one important example, the canonical gospels as we have them do not show up clearly in the literary record until the end of the second century.

Mithra's pre-Christian roots are attested in the Vedic and Avestan texts, as well as by historians such as Herodotus (1.131) and Xenophon, among others. Nor is it likely that the Roman Mithras is not essentially the same as the Indian sun god Mitra and the Persian, Armenian and Phrygian Mithra in his major attributes, as well as some of his most pertinent rites.

Moreover, it is erroneously asserted that because Mithraism was a "mystery cult" it did not leave any written record. In reality, much evidence of Mithra worship has been destroyed, including not only monuments, iconography and other artifacts, but also numerous books by ancient authors. The existence of written evidence is indicated by the Egyptian cloth "manuscript" from the first century BCE called, "Mummy Funerary Inscription of the Priest of Mithras, Ornouphios, Son fo Artemis" or MS 247.





These many written volumes doubtlessly contained much interesting information that was damaging to Christianity, such as the important correspondences between the "lives" of Mithra and Jesus, as well as identical symbols such as the cross, and rites such as baptism and the eucharist. In fact, Mithraism was so similar to Christianity that it gave fits to the early Church fathers, as it does to this day to apologists, who attempt both to deny the similarities and yet to claim that these (non-existent) correspondences were plagiarized by Mithraism from Christianity.

"Regardless of attempts to make Mithraism the plagiarist of Christianity, the fact will remain that Mithraism was first."

Nevertheless, the god Mithra was revered for centuries prior to the Christian era, and the germane elements of Mithraism are known to have preceded Christianity by hundreds to thousands of years. Thus, regardless of attempts to make Mithraism the plagiarist of Christianity, the fact will remain that Mithraism was first, well established in the West decades before Christianity had any significant influence.


There is a much much longer, sourced article this is taken from at D.M. Murdock's site in the Mithra article.

I encourage anyone to check her credentials, she will produce original hieroglyphics if need be. And reads hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and similar.

 

[outhouse]

Because there had to be a "first" human born that had all of the genetic mutations necessary to be qualified as humans, regardless of what classification you used, and if there was a first, then there had to have been a second as well. Now there could have been more than two humans born at exactly the same second that both had the necessary mutations, both physically and genetically, but I find that more improbable than one being born after another, even if those particular human's reign as "the only humans on earth" only lasted a matter of seconds.


.

It doesn't work like that bud.

It is entirely false.

There was no first, there was no second. You could not tell the difference between 10,000+ or 10,000 - or more.


The changes are so small we are FACTUALLY talking about a time period, not an individual.

 

[nash8]

Oh gosh, don't use Wiki for that type of research. The books copied onto Wiki have been scrubbed of comparative mythology. You have to go to Egyptologists and archeologist for starters.
Mithra is far far older than Christ.

Mithra is far older than Christ, Mithras or Mithraism is not. Although Mithras is most likely a Romanized/Greek version of the Zoroastrian God Mithra, much of the practices, customs, traditions, and symbols (not all), were very different in the Romanized "mystery religion" of Mithraism. Modern scholarship classifies the latter as a religion distinctly it's own.

MITHRAISM ? Encyclopaedia Iranica

I'm sure you're right about atonement, it's being discovered more and more that there are much later dates on much of the gospels and such. The crucifixion didn't show up until later either. Jesus was put on something smaller, a board or stake.

I've read articles that say the exact same thing. It would seem that we would be able to find out fairly easily what he was crucified on, considering the number of crucifixions in Rome, that there would be some type of record of what was generally used, but I dunno.

Mithra: The Pagan Christ
by Acharya S/D.M. Murdock

(The following article is adapted from a chapter in Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled, as well as excerpts from other articles, such as "The Origins of Christianity" and "The ZEITGEIST Sourcebook.")

I'm surprised Outhouse didn't have an aneurism from someone quoting Acharya S on the forums. He must not have seen it. .

Secondly, while Acharya S does have a degree in Classics, from a respectable university. An undergraduate degree in Classical History, does not necessarily mean that you are versed in NT studies, or in Classical Jewish studies, both of which would be more acclimated to studying the historical Jesus. However, it does give her some ability to comment on the effect of Roman influences on the development of the movement, which is important because "Romanized" areas are most likely where the movement begin to take hold and flourish.

"Both Mithras and Christ were described variously as 'the Way,' 'the Truth,' 'the Light,' 'the Life,' 'the Word,' 'the Son of God,' 'the Good Shepherd.' The Christian litany to Jesus could easily be an allegorical litany to the sun-god. Mithras is often represented as carrying a lamb on his shoulders, just as Jesus is. Midnight services were found in both religions. The virgin mother...was easily merged with the virgin mother Mary. Petra, the sacred rock of Mithraism, became Peter, the foundation of the Christian Church."

Gerald Berry, Religions of the World

As I stated earlier, Mithras was a Romanized version of the Zoroastrian deity Mithra. The worship of Mithras may have derived from the Persian deity, but the worship practices of the two may have been far different. Mithraism in Rome was basically the religion of the military of Rome, and almost strictly Male. It was an initiatory, exclusive, and hierarchal religion that was more similar to a cult than a religion.

It is speculated that this particular branch of religion did not start until the 1st century, so it is possible that it started at the same time or later as Christianity not before. However, considering that it was a very prominent religion in Rome prior to the Rise of Christianity, and that it was the primary religion of Rome's military, I find it highly plausible that aspects of it were intermingled into Christianity, but I find it very implausible that Christianity was based on it's tenets considering they started at almost the same time.

Lastly, as the author states, the evidence to support her theories is based on parallels between the two ideologies. Again, correlation does not imply causation. I could find similarities between any two religions, and one that started far later than the other, and claim that the older one was in reality based on some early form of the later one, but that would not necessarily mean that was the case.

On another side note, I've heard rumor that Constantine almost chose Mithraism as the "favored" religion of Rome due to it's prominence with the military.

"Mithra or Mitra is...worshipped as Itu (Mitra-Mitu-Itu) in every house of the Hindus in India. Itu (derivative of Mitu or Mitra) is considered as the Vegetation-deity. This Mithra or Mitra (Sun-God) is believed to be a Mediator between God and man, between the Sky and the Earth. It is said that Mithra or [the] Sun took birth in the Cave on December 25th. It is also the belief of the Christian world that Mithra or the Sun-God was born of [a] Virgin. He travelled far and wide. He has twelve satellites, which are taken as the Sun's disciples.... [The Sun's] great festivals are observed in the Winter Solstice and the Vernal Equinox—Christmas and Easter. His symbol is the Lamb...."

From what I can tell, the observation of Jesus' birth on December 25th was created to merge Pagan traditions with Christianity to make it more accessible to Pagans after it became the major religion within Rome. Whether it was the Saturnalia festival, or the observation of Mithras' Birth, or natalis Invicti, the celebration of the unconquerable sun or a combination of the many celebrations (most likely scenario in my opinion), it happened in the 4th century and was not a tradition amongst early Christians. The same parallel goes for the Easter celebration.

Secondly, Mithra was born of a rock, not a Virgin. Mithras' also has various different representations, some of which are in stark opposition to the modern conception of Jesus, although they relate more closely to my own personal view of Jesus as a Luciferian archetype.

Mithraic mysteries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mithraic mysteries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Swami Prajnanananda, Christ the Saviour and Christ Myth

Because of its evident relationship to Christianity, special attention needs to be paid to the Persian/Roman religion of Mithraism. The worship of the Indo-Persian god Mithra dates back centuries to millennia preceding the common era. The god is found as "Mitra" in the Indian Vedic religion, which is over 3,500 years old, by conservative estimates. When the Iranians separated from their Indian brethren, Mitra became known as "Mithra" or "Mihr," as he is also called in Persian.

Again, it's hard to tell what aspects of the original Zoroastrian deity survive in the Roman form of Mithraism, and which were created/adopted from other religions already existing in Rome. And from what I understand the Indian Vedic Mitra is an altogether different deity than the Zoroastrian one, and definitely different from the Roman one.

Also, from what I understand, in both the Roman and Iranian conception, Mithra is associated with the Sun God, but is not the Sun God himself.

 

[nash8]

Mithra and Christ

Mithra has the following in common with the Jesus character:

Mithra was born on December 25th of the virgin Anahita.

I'd like to see some information regarding this, as I've heard it spoken of elsewhere, but have only seen information that Mithra was born of a rock. I've seen Anahita described as his "cohort" but never as his virgin mother.

The babe was wrapped in swaddling clothes, placed in a manger and attended by shepherds.

Haven't seen any info regarding this either, but I'd be interested if you have any.

He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.

Same thing could be said for the centerpiece of thousands of religions both before and after Christianity. It really doesn't hold any weight in my opinion.

He had 12 companions or "disciples."

This was most likely a later addition to the Christian tradition. As far as I'm aware the was no reference to Jesus having specifically 12 disciples, and I would wager to say it was a later addition to the tradition, to accommodate Pagan converts.

He performed miracles.

Really????

As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.

I've never seen Mithra refered to as "the great bull of the sun", it is said that he slayed a the Great Bull, but not that he was "the great bull of the sun". I've never seen that he sacrificed himself for world peace either. The whole bull thing seems specific to Roman Mithraism as well. So it doesn't predate Christianity.

He ascended to heaven.

He was already in Heaven from the beginning. In Zoroastrian myth, he was a part of the trio of Ahura Mazda, which is basically the three aspects of the creator deity. As far as I'm aware, there's no mythology where he comes to earth then ascends back to heaven. He is both on earth and in the heavens simultaneously, somewhat omnipresent I guess.

Mithra was viewed as the Good Shepherd, the "Way, the Truth and the Light," the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah.

I've seen Mithra referred to as the deity of pastures and shepherds, but I've never seen him referenced as any of the others. Can you provide sources for that?

Mithra is omniscient, as he "hears all, sees all, knows all: none can deceive him."

This is true, but I don't necessarily think Jesus was considered omniscient while he was down on the ole' rock. Could be wrong though. In any case, so were almost all "creator deities", which Jesus could or could not be qualified as.

He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.

I'm familiar with the Lion references, but not that of the lamb. Even so, the lion references are almost the exact opposite representation of that of Jesus. At least in general conception. The Lion was almost the representation of an evil deity, or at the least a representation of self importance and personal knowledge.

His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.

From what I know there is little evidence to support that early Christians met on Sunday. I would find it most likely that they would have met on the Sabbath, or Saturday, as Early Christianity was most likely more Jewish than not. Secondly, would the sacred day of Sunday be applied specifically to Roman Mithraism or Persian Mitra. If it is the former, than it definitely did not precede Christianity by 100's of years.

His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper."

This is true, but as far as I know was only a part of Roman Mithraism, which did not predate Christianity.

Mithra "sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers."

Was this part of Roman Mithraism, or the earlier traditions. In any regard, I'm not aware of Jesus marking people on their foreheads.

Mithraism emphasized baptism.

So did many aspects of Judaism, especially the Essenes, which existed a long time prior to Jesus, and would have been much more likely to affect the tradition rather than foreign religion considering that Christianity grew out of, and at the beginning was, essentially Jewish.

 

[nash8]

It is obvious from the remarks of the Church fathers and from the literary and archaeological record that Mithraism in some form preceded Christianity by centuries. The fact is that there is no Christian archaeological evidence earlier than the earliest Roman Mithraic archaeological evidence and that the preponderance of evidence points to Christianity being formulated during the second century, not based on a "historical" personage of the early first century. As one important example, the canonical gospels as we have them do not show up clearly in the literary record until the end of the second century.

This is borderline deception. Christianity as a prominent religion does not begin until the second century, but the movement began much, much earlier than that, and can be attested to by many documents regarding the matter. You must realize that the Christian tradition was an oral one for the beginning of its life. It was the religion of the poor and downtrodden who could not read or write, and had no use for written documents. It was only once the tradition caught hold amongst prominent, relatively wealthy, Hellenistic Jews that it became recorded in words. This does not mean that the movement started when written documentation became available.

Mithra's pre-Christian roots are attested in the Vedic and Avestan texts, as well as by historians such as Herodotus (1.131) and Xenophon, among others. Nor is it likely that the Roman Mithras is not essentially the same as the Indian sun god Mitra and the Persian, Armenian and Phrygian Mithra in his major attributes, as well as some of his most pertinent rites.

Yes and no, Mithra definitely has pre-Christian roots, but it is verly likely that the Roman Mithras was very different than the previous iterations. That is why Roman Mithraism is classified as it's own distinct religion separate from previous Mithra oriented religions. While there are some similarities there are also significant differences, many of which are not pertinent to comparisons of Christianity.

These many written volumes doubtlessly contained much interesting information that was damaging to Christianity, such as the important correspondences between the "lives" of Mithra and Jesus, as well as identical symbols such as the cross, and rites such as baptism and the eucharist. In fact, Mithraism was so similar to Christianity that it gave fits to the early Church fathers, as it does to this day to apologists, who attempt both to deny the similarities and yet to claim that these (non-existent) correspondences were plagiarized by Mithraism from Christianity.

Early church father's downed every religion that was not orthodoxy. They even condemned other Christian traditions. In all honesty I don't think either tradition took from the other. I think they both developed almost simultaneously, and then when Christianity "won out", elements of Mithraism were adopted into Christianity to make it more accessible to those that followed Mithras. This would be especially important because the large majority of the Roman Army were followers of Mithras, so it would not have been wise to have Mithraism, the religion of the military, at odds with Christianity, the religion of the common people. Constantine was trying to unite Rome under religion, not destroy Rome with a religious civil war.

"Regardless of attempts to make Mithraism the plagiarist of Christianity, the fact will remain that Mithraism was first."

Poppycock, there's no way of telling whether Roman Mithraism, or Christianity came first. They were in all account contemporaneous.

Nevertheless, the god Mithra was revered for centuries prior to the Christian era, and the germane elements of Mithraism are known to have preceded Christianity by hundreds to thousands of years. Thus, regardless of attempts to make Mithraism the plagiarist of Christianity, the fact will remain that Mithraism was first, well established in the West decades before Christianity had any significant influence.

There is absolutely no way to establish the creation/establishment of a religion of antiquity to decades, and to claim as such nonsense as a fact is ridiculous.

There is a much much longer, sourced article this is taken from at D.M. Murdock's site in the Mithra article.

I encourage anyone to check her credentials, she will produce original hieroglyphics if need be. And reads hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and similar.

Trust me, there's no need for anyone knowledgeable on the subject to check her credentials. She is well known round these parts to those interested in the topic. While she definitely has some credentials, she doesn't even have a graduate degree in classical studies, and those that have spent their entire life dedicated solely to NT studies do not support her arguments, and furthermore they are generally not supported by those within her specific discipline that are far more versed on the subject than she. Lastly, Hieroglyphics would have very little to do with the topic at hand.

 

[nash8]

It doesn't work like that bud.

It is entirely false.

There was no first, there was no second. You could not tell the difference between 10,000+ or 10,000 - or more.

The changes are so small we are FACTUALLY talking about a time period, not an individual.

I disagree, the way the classification system works, as far as I know. A living creature has to have specific qualities and/or lack specific qualities for it to be classified into a specific category... Family, Genus, Species etc. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

So logically according to this classification system there had to be a "first human" born with these specific traits. Of course it matters what one would classify as "human". Such as would any creature classified under the Genus "Homo" be considered human, or would it specifically have to be under the species "sapiens" or would it have to be specifically "modern man" homo sapiens sapiens?

Regardless, in my opinion there still, had to be a "first human" born with all of the traits that modern scientists would classify as "human" regardless of the definition of human. Especially, if you consider the leading archeological theory that modern humans descended from a small population of about 200,000 or so in a small area of Africa. Logically, there had to be a "first" that had different traits than it's parents that would allow it to be classified as a different genus/species.

I'm not arguing that we are all related to only two humans, as there likely would have been many born at around the same time, all with mutations/traits that modern scientists would qualify as human, that weren't direct descendants of the first "human" born. I'm just saying chronologically, not evolutionally, speaking that there had to be a human that was "born first".

With that being said, the mitochondrial eve theory does present compelling evidence that we are all derivative of only one female, at least as I understand it. As the mitochondrial gene is passed down only matriarchaly, and is distinct from female to female. So at some point, we would have to be related to only on "mother", although there could have been other "human women" existing at the same time whose offspring/lineage did not survive, and therefore was not able to pass on her mitochondrial genetics.

It's the same thing with the chicken and the egg. The egg had to have come first, because what gave "birth" to the chicken would not be qualified as a chicken, as mutations would have occurred in the first "chicken egg" that the parents of the chicken did not have, that would qualify it as "a chicken". At some point, there has to be one species/genus/other classification that gives birth to a new classification of creature, otherwise evolution wouldn't work.

P.S. the guy I replied to the posts before this one made an Acharya S reference, and made a challenge at the end of his post to "check her credentials". I figured you didn't read his long post, otherwise we would have heard something about it by now.

 

[nash8]

Lastly, here's a website that does a better job explaining the true similarities and differences between Mithraism and Christianity.

Mithras and Jesus

Mithras and Christianity

Outhouse, wasn't Roger Pearse the guy that you knew that popped up here for a little while back. He didn't seem to fond of RF lol, but if these pages are his, he's definitely got some good info, and I definitely wouldn't mind his opinion around here.

 

[Britedream]

"Both Mithras and Christ were described variously as 'the Way,' 'the Truth,' 'the Light,' 'the Life,' 'the Word,' 'the Son of God,' 'the Good Shepherd.' The Christian litany to Jesus could easily be an allegorical litany to the sun-god. Mithras is often represented as carrying a lamb on his shoulders, just as Jesus is. Midnight services were found in both religions. The virgin mother...was easily merged with the virgin mother Mary. Petra, the sacred rock of Mithraism, became Peter, the foundation of the Christian Church."

I truly believe , what you said is no less than the truth, Quran confirms what you said.
[KORAN [9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair [Hebrew: Ezra] is the son of God, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of God, these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may God curse them, how did they diverge from the right path to the wrong one.]