~Pam~

Oh I'm going to have to come back to this thread when I have more time! I watched a documentary about this on The History Channel last year. I already knew that the Christian calendar was inaccurate and that Jesus was actually born in 5 or 6 BC and I also knew that Biblical scholars suspected that the actual month of Jesus' birth was either April or September...but I didn't know about this new research about the Star of Bethlehem until I saw the show! They also said that they determined Jesus' actual birth to be April 17, 6 BC! They said that looking back at the alignment of the stars on April 17, 6 BC, that it showed that a very special King would be born in Judea. But not just any king...a DIVINE KING...the King of ALL Kings. I taped the show so I'll have to watch it again, but it was something about how Jupiter showed up as a morning star in Aries and the plants and stars all aligned to show the astronomers that a "King of Kings" would be born in Judea. Supposedly the sun, moon, Jupiter, Saturn, etc. all lined up in Aries...and...well...I have to watch the tape to remember the rest. It was some unbelievably rare type of alignment and because Judea was represented by Aries, then the Wise Men, who we already knew studied the stars, knew to go to Judea to look for this Divine King. I wish I could remember the details off-hand. Anyway, it was so interesting! Very neat that there is a book out about it now too!

Well according to the International Congress of Mithraic Studies (as well as by many other Mithraism scholars), there are still several inaccuracies in what you just typed out there...but I guess it doesn't really matter. What I understand your point to be is how can I believe in Jesus but dismiss similar Pagan gods as being myths, since I am well aware of the similarities. That is something that I would be happy to share with you. But again, that will have to be in a few days from now as it is a long story to type out and Christmas and family visits, etc. are taking up most of my time right now. But Hopefully, my story will shed some light on why I believe what I do. In the meantime, a very Happy Holidays to you and your family! :girl_hug:

Oh I hate when that happens! I had my reply half done and my computer froze! :girl_hug: Okay...short version...just to give you some background information: We are now talking about another Mithra cult, than we've previously been discussing. All along, we've been talking about the Roman Mithra followers that had their height of popularity around Jesus' time. The Mirtha myth we are speaking about now comes from the Iranian beliefs. Their beliefs are extremely different from each other. That's not actually important to know necessarily, I'm just letting you know since it's so easy to mix them up. Aside from the name of the "god" they worshiped (well technically the Roman god is Mithras and the Iranian god is Mithra), they had almost nothing in common. Okay, so now to the Iranian Mithra beliefs. Well you said it yourself, she wasn't a Virgin. She was considered eternally immaculte but wasn't an actual virgin in the sense that Mary, Jesus' mother, was. But I do understand what you are saying about similar "themes" though, and I understand you being confused as to why I accept Jesus' story as fact but dismiss any similar Pagan beliefs as simply a myth. What I'll do then, is tell you MY story. It's a long one though, so I will tell you after Christmas when I have more time since I still have Christmas presents to wrap and it's almost Christmas Eve! Perhaps after reading it, you will understand why I chose to believe.

No, I was referring to the amulet only. Well actually "I" wasn't, the author of that article was. The amulet is dated as being created at least two centuries AFTER the crucification of Christ. And according to some scholars, it may even be three or four centuries after Christ. In other words, if the dating is accurate, then there is no way that the New Testament (and specifically the story of Christ's crucification) could have been influenced by that. No, of course not. Why would I? I treat all religious artifacts equally (regardless of the specific religion). I remain skeptical of Christian artifacts as well, until I feel that there is enough proof to verify their authenticity. For example, in early December, it was announced that the tomb and sarcophagus of the Apostle Paul has been uncovered, including a cracked marble plaque with the words "Paul apostle martyr". It's highly interesting to me, and I have followed the story and will continue to do so, but I don't have enough evidence at this point to make a decision whether to believe it is in fact his tomb or not. But I will be very interested to find out the results of their testing...as well as taking special note of any objections to it's authenticity. I do the same with specific Pagan artifacts as well. If there is no question as to their authenticity, then I have no reason to doubt it.

I'm finally here! Now on to Mithra... BIRTH: Mithra, called the “god out of the rock”, was believed to have been born out of solid rock (“The Generative Rock”) and his worship was always conducted in a cave (since it was made of rock). Often in these “temples”, they would have a standing image of this rock, as well as a sculpture of Mirthra sacrificing the bull. They believed that this rock “gave birth” to Mithras on the banks of a river, under the shade of a sacred tree, and he emerged from the rock with a Phrygian cap on his head, and armed with a knife in one hand and holding a lit torch in the other. The so-called “virgin birth” story came a WAY after Jesus was born, died and was risen! It seems to trace back to Cumont’s work in the 1800’s, and was more recently published by Joseph Campbell…but…ummmm…..well, I think I’ll let you read this one for yourself: "Mithra...was born beside a sacred stream beneath a sacred tree. In works of art he is shown emerging as a naked child from the "Generative Rock," wearing his Phrygian cap, bearing a torch, and armed with a knife.....The earth has given birth - a virgin birth- to the archetypal Man." Skeptics of Christianity jumped on that bizarre wording (who in the world would call THAT a “virgin birth”…seriously?) and ran with it. Oh and I have a couple of pictures showing the “rock birth”: DECEMBER 25TH BIRTHDAY: This one strikes me as a bit funny because everyone knows Jesus wasn’t actually born on December 25 (at least I think that’s common knowledge)! That’s just the day we celebrate it! There is absolutely no mention of the date of Jesus’ birth in the Bible. And we totally DID take that date from the Pagan “gods”, including Mithra (and I had a list of a few others on that day and now I can’t find it!). Anyway, since no one knew the exact date of Jesus’ birth (only the year was known), the Roman Catholic Church was free to choose whatever date they wanted. Well, at the time, the Pagans had a big festival on December 25th to celebrate the annual return of the sun. It was a huge and loved festival, and since the Christian church was trying to convert the Pagans to Christianity, they wanted to make the transition be as smooth as possible. Since they knew that the Pagans wouldn’t want to give up their well-loved festival (much like we wouldn’t want to give up Christmas now), they decided to celebrate Christ’s birthday on that day too to make the transition easier (a decision that I personally do NOT agree with actually...but that's besides the point). But, of course, that day was never a part of Christian theology. It was just a tradition started by the Roman Catholic church. SUNDAY AS THE DAY OF WORSHIP: Yep, this is true. Unlike Christianity though, it was exclusively for men only. Husbands could not bring their wives or daughters to worship with them. AFTER-LIFE: In Christ's day, Mirthraism was actually one of Christianity's top rivals. I'm not sure if either influenced each other at that time or not, but they seemed to be on the right track with some of their major beliefs. They both believed in an after-life...specifically Heaven and Hell...and they believed that God provided them a path to salvation and a mediator between God and man. Christ being a mortal man, of course, but Mirthra in only a cosmogonic (astronomical) sense as he was believed to exist in the realm between Heaven and earth. They believed he was a sun god and he would appear in the sky at dawn and cross the firmament in a chariot drawn by four white horses. It was believed that he could take on the appearance of "diffused daylight". HIS DEATH: Well they don't believe that Mithras actually died. He is said to have been carried to heaven in his chariot, alive and well. When I go to Heaven, I'll have to look him up!

Greek mythology doesn't make any claims about Dionysus being cruxified whatsoever. At least it's not in any of my books. I looked it up on the internet though to see what you are referring to and found this article about the fake amulet: To the uninformed viewer, the amulet might appear to bolster claims that Christianity was influenced by the Bacchus/Dionysus tradition. But a closer look reveals problems with the amulet: 1. The image on the book cover is not a photograph of the actual amulet. Instead, it is an artist's rendition of the amulet. And the artist's rendition is not based on the actual amulet itself. Instead, it is based on a line drawing of the amulet, which is said to have been destroyed or lost during the Second World War. 2. The amulet is dated by scholars as having been created two centuries, or more, after the crucifixion of Jesus. If the dating is accurate, it would be impossible for the New Testament to have been influenced by it. 3. It is unknown if the amulet is truly of pagan origin. One of the first scholars to provide a date for the amulet was Robert Eisler, in his Orpheus - The Fisher. Eisler claimed that the amulet was created during the third or fourth century, which would be two or three centuries after the writing of the New Testament and its account of the crucifixion of Jesus. In fact, Eisler concludes, however reliably or unreliably, that the amulet does not show a crucified pagan but that it actually shows a crucified Jesus. And, it should be noted that Eisler was not a pro-Christian scholar. His writings provide ample evidence of antagonistism towards Christianity. A third century AD date for the amulet is assigned in Orpheus and Greek Religion, published in 1952, by WKC Guthrie, in a caption that explains an illustration of the amulet. In a 1993 reprint edition of Orpheus and Greek Religion, there is an added footnote that quotes a review from Otto Kern, a German scholar, in which Kern states that he believes the amulet "is almost certainly a fake." Kern also cites a few other scholars who question the authenticity of the amulet. The amulet, if indeed it ever existed, would function better as an example that pagans copied from Christianity, rather than the other way around. One of the early Christian writers who documented examples of pagan cults imitating Christian rites was Justin Martyr, who lived during the second century AD. From his perspective within the second century, he wrote that there were no examples of pagan traditions involving a pagan deity being crucified: "But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified; for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been put symbolically." - Justin Martyr's First Apology LV. Dionysus, as we recall, was a son of Zeus. And a second century AD source, one who was familiar with examples of paganism imitating Christianity, wrote that this was one element of Christianity that the pagans had not yet copied. Oh I have some good information on Mithra! I'll post it either later tonight or tomorrow, since I want to watch a video with my hubby!

Oh that poor guy!!! That was brutal! I can't believe how patient he was! I can't believe she said it was a "difference of opinion"! :doh: At least his update says he finally got a refund!

Oh I know!!! I didn't know whether to laugh or throw up when I first read that!!! EEEEWWW!!!!!

Oh this is an interesting topic! I’ve done much research on this one! Let’s examine these claims, shall we? Oh and before I begin, I appreciate the fact that you presented your views in a calm and intelligent manner. I was not offended by your post. Now let’s have some fun… (I’m odd and love this kind of stuff…bizarre, I know!) If you really examine the so-called similarities, they really aren’t so similar! Often times, skeptics of Christianity seem to purposely make much different details sound as similar as possible. I’ll talk a bit about the mythological characters that seem to come up the most often as paralleling Jesus’ life… HORUS & OSIRIS BIRTH: There are a couple of different version of his birth: Version 1: Hathor, who was represented by the cow whose milk supposedly brought forth the Milky Way, conceived a son by Ra, the Egyptian Sun God. Version 2: Isis (Hathor was supposedly Iris’ mother but then over time they were kind of considered one in the same) was Horus’ mother and she practiced magic to raise her husband, Osiris, from the dead so that she could bear a son by him that would avenge his death. With either versions, there is absolutely no indication of a virgin birth whatsoever. God, the Creator, was not Horus’ father and neither Hathor or Isis was a mortal woman. Horus was not born a human man, and he certainly wasn’t born to bring salvation to humankind. THE TRINITY: Skeptics suggest that the Christian Trinity was adapted from the idea that Osiris, Ra and Horus were of “one essence”. However, that’s not the case at all. Because Horus was born after the death of Osiris, they believed that he was the REINCARNATION of Osiris, who was supposed to avenge his father’s (Osiris’) death. Then throughout the centuries, the Egyptians eventually considered Osiris and Horus as one and the same. And then eventually, we see Horus (who some versions consider to be the son of Ra) also become the equivilant of Ra. I’m even confused by that one since they kind of changed their myth part-way through…but regardless, Christ was not reincarnated. In fact, Christians do not believe in reincarnation. And Christ most certainly didn’t come into this world to avenge anyone’s death! CRUCIFIXION AND RESURRECTION: Even the critics don’t claim that Horus was ever cruxified. Even after the eventual “merger” of Horus and Osiris, Osiris was not crucified. He was supposedly dismembered by Set (but different versions of this story appear as well) and Isis brought him back to live long enough to impregnate her but he wasn’t allowed to return to the world of the living. So there is a bit of a similarity there, but certainly not a “borrowed” story by any stretch of the imagination. THE NUMBER TWELVE: There are twelve signs of the Zodiac (which are associated to Horus because he was a sky “God”) and Jesus had 12 disciples. I have a dozen eggs in my refrigerator…maybe they connect somehow to Jesus too! SET AND SATAN (OH MAN YOU’LL WANT TO READ THIS ONE!): Horus battled Set. Jesus battled Satan. They have similar names. Lori and Laura are similar names too…so what? Much is said about these two though…so let’s examine their stories: Satan: Jesus fasted for 40 days in the wilderness and Satan tried to tempt Jesus by offering Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, if Jesus would agree to worship him. Jesus obviously wasn’t tempted and no violence occurred. Set: Now this is Set’s story: During battle, Horus rips off one of Set's testicles while Set gorges out Horus' eye. Set later tries to prove his dominance by initiating intercourse with Horus. Horus catches Set's semen in his hand and throws it into a nearby river. Horus later masturbates and spreads his semen over lettuce which Set consumes. Both Set and Horus stand before the gods to proclaim their right to rule Egypt. When Set claims dominance over Horus, his semen is found in the river. When Horus' dominance is considered, his semen is found within Set so Horus is granted rule over Egypt. "O that castrated one! O this man! O he who hurries him who hurries, among you two! These- this first corporation of the company of the justified... Was born before the eye of Horus was plucked out, before the testicles of Set were torn away. It is the day on which Horus fought with Set, who cast filth in the face of Horus, and when Horus destroyed the powers of Set. Then [set] appeared before the divine council and claimed the throne. But the gods gave judgment that Horus was the rightful king, and he established his power in the land of Egypt, and became a wise and strong ruler like to his father Osiris." Ummm…I don’t even think I need to comment on that one. Seriously, does ANYONE really think there are similarities here??? Aside from the Lori and Laura….ooppss…I mean Set and Satan’s names of course! DIONYSUS The main reason for the parallel here is that Dionysus was the (false) God of Wine and Jesus turned water into wine and that his father, Zeus, impregnated a (non-virgin) mortal women (by having an affair). It’s still a bit of a stretch to compare the two, but at least it’s closer. Let’s compare… VIRGIN BIRTH: Yet again, there are two different birth accounts concerning Dionysus, so we’ll look at them both: Version 1: Zeus, disguised as a mortal man, had an affair with and impregnated a mortal woman, Semele. Hera became very jealous and convinces Semele to ask Zeus to reveal his “God” form to her. Since no human can look upon a god and live, she instantly turned to ashes. Then Zeus rescues the unborn baby from Semels’s ashes and sews the baby into his thigh (yes, you read that right…his thigh). Version 2: This version says that Dionysus is the child of Zeus and Persephone. Hera becomes extremely jealous and tries to destroy the child by sending the Titans to kill him. Zeus tries to save the child but it was too late and the Titans had eaten (yes…eaten) everything but Dionysus' heart. Zeus then takes the heart and implants it into the womb of Semele. Well thankfully, baby Jesus wasn’t eaten…nor was he sown to anyone’s thigh. But a human woman was involved, so at least it’s a bit closer. Anyway, no virgin birth here either. DONKEY RIDE: Yep, Dionysus rode a donkey. So did Jesus. So have millions of other people. However, what makes this donkey ride worthy of comparison is the foliage the crowds were waving. Since Dionysus was the (false) God of Wine, crowds would wave branches entwined with ivy and grapes. This was a common occurrence for Dionysus. It wasn’t so much the “crowds” (as in general population) that waved these ivy and grapes branches, they were his entourage who traveled with him regularly. This happened to Jesus ONCE. It was during his triumphant entry into Jersusalem and the crowds spread palm leaves on the road (not ivy and grapes) as a sign of welcome. Now what’s really important is this…the Messianic prophesy that foretold that Jesus was to arrive into Jerusalem this way (written approx. 1400 BC) PRE-DATES Dionysus. So if anyone “borrowed” this story, it would be the Egyptians who did. But truthfully, I don’t think they took this story from the Messianic prophesies either. A donkey ride and some foliage really doesn’t make that impressive enough story to bother stealing, I wouldn’t think! WATER INTO WINE: As mentioned before,Dionysus was the (false) God of Wine so the fact that he supernaturally made wine doesn’t overly surprise me. Jesus did turn water into wine once (for a wedding) but he did hundreds of other miracles as well. The fact that ONE miracle is the same as a miracle some other “God” performs, isn’t all that impressive of a comparison. Now if Jesus called himself the “God of Wine”…or decided to be a wine-maker instead of a carpenter before being anointed, then we’d have something worth discussion! CURIXIFICATION AND RESURRECTION: They made no claims about Dionysus being cruxified. They did, however, claim that he was “reborn” when he was implanted into another woman’s womb because his mother turned to ashes…or when his heart was sown to Zeus’ thigh when he was eaten by the Titans (depending on the version of the story). Oh boy, after typing that, I don’t think I have to point out the differences, they are pretty obvious! LOL Oh but I should say that when we was “reborn” that it was supposed to symbolize the vegetation cycle (since he was also considered the god of agriculture and fertility of nature too), and certainly not the atoning of sin! So no cruxifiction, no dying for the salvation of humankind, nothing overly comparable to Christ. I know this post is getting really long now, so I’ll stop with these two since these were two of the main “Gods” that were mentioned in the original post. But I also have a ton of information on the (lack of) comparison between Jesus and Mithras and Attis as well. Krishna and Buddah too if anyone is interested. And quite a bit about other “lesser” (false) Gods as well. Oh but I just have to end with this more modern analogy I found. I thought it made an awesome point about how easy it is to find comparisons if we’re really looking for them! Kennedy Versus Lincoln: Lincoln was elected to congress in 1846. Kennedy was elected in 1946. Lincoln was elected president in 1860. Kennedy was elected in 1960. Both presidents were killed by an assassin’s bullet. Both presidents were killed on a Friday. Both assassins were killed before their trials. Both were presidents during times of major changes in civil rights. The names Lincoln and Kennedy both contain seven letters (This reminds me of the “oh my goodness, there are 12 disciples and 12 Zodiac signs!” argument). Both assassins were known by three names consisting of 15 letters. In other words, if you’re looking hard enough for comparisons, you’ll find them.

Oh oh...I haven't seen that side of her yet! Something to look forward to!

Oh good! I was worried about offending you! And actually I was more worried about another member flaming me, since I've never actually seen you flame a single person. In fact, I enjoy your posts because even though we disagree, you always present yourself in such a clam, intellegent way. I find your perspective quite interesting actually. But it is scary to answer these questions for me though since I've been flamed so very badly in the past, and I never know who might take offense to my beliefs. Thank you for your understanding!

LOL. Good point! :biggrin1:

Oh boy, I'll be honest with you, I really, really don't want to answer this question. I’ve been trying to avoid it…but God's not letting me away with that. :phanvan First of all, let me say that it is not up to any of us to judge your relationship (or lack of relationship) to God. Only God can judge you and determine your salvation. Therefore, I will only share the Word of God with you, through the Bible, and NOT give you my personal interpretation of the Scriptures. I hope you can understand and appreciate that. Oh and I also realize that you, and several other members here, do not recognize the Bible as a “Holy” document. I completely understand that and am not trying to push my beliefs on you or anyone else. I am simply answering your question, based on what it says in the Bible (*taking deep breaths because I don’t want to be flamed*) In Matthew 12:30, it says: "He who is not with me is against me..." The footnotes in my study Bible say: It's impossible to be neutral about Christ. Anyone who is not actively following him has chosen to reject him. Anyone who tries to remain neutral in the struggle of good against evil is choosing to be separated from God, who alone is good. To refuse to follow Christ is to choose to be on Satan's team. In Matthew 12:31-32, it says: "And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." The footnotes in my Bible say: The Pharisees had blasphemed against the Holy Spirit by attributing power by which Christ did miracles to Satan instead of the Holy Spirit. The unpardonable sin is the deliberate refusal to acknowledge God's power in Christ. It indicates a deliberate and irreversible hardness of the heart. Sometimes believers worry that they have accidentally committed this unforgivable sin. But only those who have turned their backs on God and rejected all faith have any need to worry. Jesus said that they can't be forgiven--not because their sin is worse than any other, but because they will never ask for forgiveness. Whoever rejects the prompting of the Holy Spirit removes himself or herself from the only force that can lead him or her to repentance and restoration by God. Matthew 10:33 says: "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." The footnotes say: Oh wait...there is no footnote for this Scripture. I guess they figure it's self-explanatory. John 14:6 says: Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." The footnotes say: Jesus says he is the only way to get to God the Father. Some people may argue that this way is too narrow. In reality, it is wide enough for the whole world, if the world chooses to accept it. Instead of worrying about how limited it sounds to have only one way, we should be saying, "Thank you, God, for providing a sure way to get to you!" Mark 3:29 says: "But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." The footnotes say: Essentially, this is speaking against Jesus (as in "Jesus is not the Son of God") or speaking against the Holy Spirit (as in "the Holy Spirit does not exist") is an unpardonable sin. It reveals a heart-attitude of unbelief and unrepentance. Deliberate, ongoing rejection of the work of the Holy Spirit is blasphemy because it rejects God Himself. The religious leaders accused Jesus of blasphemy, but ironically they were the guilty ones when the looked Jesus in the face and accused him of being possessed by Satan. Please keep in mind that these are not MY words. They are simply the Scriptures from the Bible and the footnotes that go along with them in my study Bible (so please don't flame me...you did ask! :phanvan ). These are the Words of God, through the Holy Bible, and it's up to each individual person to either accept them or reject them.