Whats the facination with Born Of a Virgin?

[Breathe]

Arachya S! That's the name! Oh, that was bothering me for a long time!

~matthew.william~

She is a joke, my friend, a dishonest woman who plays hard and fast with truth and facts, and hard and fast with intelligence.

Most scholars believe that a man named Jesus DID exist - he may have been Ye[ho]shua ben Yosef / Ye[ho]shua ben Mariam, a normal man - but most scholars believe he did exist - how much of it is fabrication, and how much of it is what he said versus syncretism, is open to debate.

I believe Yeshua ben Yosef DID exist - but I personally believe he was a Buddhist-Jewish syncretist.

 

[matthew.william]

She is a joke, my friend, a dishonest woman who plays hard and fast with truth and facts, and hard and fast with intelligence.

Most scholars believe that a man named Jesus DID exist - he may have been Ye[ho]shua ben Yosef / Ye[ho]shua ben Mariam, a normal man - but most scholars believe he did exist - how much of it is fabrication, and how much of it is what he said versus syncretism, is open to debate.

I believe Yeshua ben Yosef DID exist - but I personally believe he was a Buddhist-Jewish syncretist.

Well, that is a topic for another time, my friend. However, you did mention earlier about Dionysus and Mithras, but any similarity of them to Jesus comes from a Arachya S style of "scholarship". Shall we continue discussion on them?

~matthew.william~

 

[Breathe]

Well, that is a topic for another time, my friend. However, you did mention earlier about Dionysus and Mithras, but any similarity of them to Jesus comes from a Arachya S style of "scholarship". Shall we continue discussion on them?

~matthew.william~

You're right, best not to end up discussing her.
If you like, feel free. It is probably from a similar style of scholarship to her, you're right - some of it, probably quite a lot of it, could be dishonest, but nevertheless there were some parallels.

Since this movement only gained popularity in the Roman Empire between the first and fourth centuries, and it was a mystery religion, it's difficult, I suppose, to say how much of it is credible - whether or not Mithras really was called light of the world and had 12 disciples, considering no first-hand documentation of the religion of his followers survives. It was not based upon scripture, so it could have changed by those centuries and become a sort of Christian-copycat mystery religion?

[This may not have, and probably did not happen[ed], but who knows? People are always quick to point the finger at Christianity, I'm just suggesting a what-if. ]

 

[matthew.william]

You're right, best not to end up discussing her.
If you like, feel free. It is probably from a similar style of scholarship to her, you're right - some of it, probably quite a lot of it, could be dishonest, but nevertheless there were some parallels.

Some, but the similarities are long stretches of what is actually known. The greatest proponents of such detailed similarities are those generally involved/interested with
zodiacs, cosmology, astrotheology, etc.

Since this movement only gained popularity in the Roman Empire between the first and fourth centuries, and it was a mystery religion, it's difficult, I suppose, to say how much of it is credible - whether or not Mithras really was called light of the world and had 12 disciples, considering no first-hand documentation of the religion of his followers survives. It was not based upon scripture, so it could have changed by those centuries and become a sort of Christian-copycat mystery religion?

[This may not have, and probably did not happen[ed], but who knows? People are always quick to point the finger at Christianity, I'm just suggesting a what-if. ]

Is there any source for these parallels between Christ that actually pre-dates Jesus? The question could very well be, "who copied whom?"

~matthew.william~

 

[Breathe]

Is there any source for these parallels between Christ that actually pre-dates Jesus? The question could very well be, "who copied whom?"

I don't really search for this kinda stuff, as I believe Jesus existed. The question could very well be, "who copied whom?" - but of course, it's the Christians copying - it has to be if one wants to say Jesus was a myth.

 

[Masourga]

A virgin birth implies that an outside force was at work to produce the child. Which allows you to insert whomever you choose as the father... a God or any sort of supernatural being. Obviously a great tool for early story-tellers.

It may also be that, in the past, the social "penalties" for being promiscuous or committing adultery were quite stiff... probably the most toward women. And with societies being relatively new and therefore still naive, prone to superstitions, and not immediately discrediting even the most outrageous of tales (i.e. "she's a witch!", "I saw a werewolf!", "It was a sea-serpent!"), I would say a woman might very well make up a story to abate suspicion of her actual act (having "illegitimate" intercourse with a man), and tell that the baby is the product of some other-worldly visit she must have had. And if her chosen mate (assuming she had one) loved her blindly enough to want to believe the tale, it may get blown out of proportion, and you'd have reports of so-and-so's son/daughter being part deity.

 

[matthew.william]

I don't really search for this kinda stuff, as I believe Jesus existed. The question could very well be, "who copied whom?" - but of course, it's the Christians copying - it has to be if one wants to say Jesus was a myth.

Fair enough. I started looking into this stuff after people kept making comments towards me about how my faith was based completely on pagan traditions and all of Christianity was just a zodiacal religion. (Thank you ever so much, Zeitgeist.) I've been learning a lot, and I get a lot of refreshers on ancient mythology.

As to whether Jesus existed or not, I never really thought that was a serious debate amongst scholars.

I will make the point though that you did say there was a whole lot of parallels between Jesus and Mithras/Dionysus. Are there any in particular you feel hold water? Or any other pagan god for that matter?

~matthew.william~

 

[logician]

As to whether Jesus existed or not, I never really thought that was a serious debate amongst scholars.



~matthew.william~

Uh, Christian scholars.

 

[logician]

Some, but the similarities are long stretches of what is actually known. The greatest proponents of such detailed similarities are those generally involved/interested with
zodiacs, cosmology, astrotheology, etc.
Is there any source for these parallels between Christ that actually pre-dates Jesus? The question could very well be, "who copied whom?"

~matthew.william~

So far, I've seen nothing from you that counters anything I or others have posted. Please post something besides arrogant opinions basically stating that Christiantiy is superior to all other religions.

 

[matthew.william]

Uh, Christian scholars.

I've really only found writers like D.M. Murdock (Acharya S), Freke & Gandy, Doherty, and a hand-full of "free-thought" internet sites who hold fast to this idea of a "mythical" Jesus. Even Wells, who was huge proponent of this idea, conceded to the historicity of Jesus. One would imagine if it were such a popular idea among scholars that most encyclopedias or history books would make mention that the founder of one of the major religions may have been completely made up.

So far, I've seen nothing from you that counters anything I or others have posted. Please post something besides arrogant opinions basically stating that Christiantiy is superior to all other religions.

I don't think I've made any arrogant remarks, nor have I claimed Christian superiority in anything, logician. Sorry if you feel that way. Let's start with Mithra; you said:

1) Hundreds of years before Jesus, according to the Mithraic religion, three Wise Men of Persia came to visit the baby savior-god Mithra, bring him gifts of gold, myrrh and frankincense.

There is no mention of wise men in the myth, nor would they be visiting a baby. Mithras was born from the rock as an adult. I don't understand the "savior" portion either. He was a mediator between Zoroaster's gods of good and evil. The only evidence you could look to is a bit of graffiti from a Mithra church that was dated 200 AD that said, "And us, too, saved us by spilling the eternal blood." That however is in reference to Mithras slaying the bull.

2) Mithra was born on December 25 as told in the “Great Religions of the World”, page 330; “…it was the winter solstice celebrated by ancients as the birthday of Mithraism’s sun god”.c

The December 25th date is irrelevant. It was simply the date chosen by the Roman Emperor Aurelian during his campaign of "religious reform", and Constantine kept it when he "converted".


3) According to Mithraism, before Mithra died on a cross, he celebrated a “Last Supper with his twelve disciples, who represented the twelve signs of the zodiac.

Most of what we know about Mithra comes from artwork, and there is a relief scene showing him killing the bull surrounded by the 12 zodiac signs, but there are numerous figures also in the scene. The number could be up to 20+ people. There is no inscription either, so what the scene shows is questionable. How does killing a bull= Last Supper?
I've never heard of Mithra dying, especially on a cross...Do you have a citation for that?

4) After the death of Mithra, his body was laid to rest in a rock tomb.

"There was no death of Mithra." [FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+1][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+0][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+0]P. 96 Gordon, Richard. Image and Value in the Greco-Roman World. Aldershot: Variorum, 1996.[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

I've never seen a text that states he died.

5) Mithra had a celibate priesthood.

I was unaware he was a priest, nor does that make any sense. Was a priest of his own religion, or what? It never says Jesus had a celibate life (it could be implied, but that's not good enough really), nor that he was a priest.

6) Mithra ascended into heaven during the spring (Passover) equinox (the time when the sun crosses the equator making night and day of equal length).

There is mention of Helios (the sun god) and Mithra crossing the ocean and joining the immortals (I'll have to search later), but I assume this is stating his "resurrection" is celebrated the same time as Jesus. I know he has important festivals at the spring equinox, but he has one every season.

We often hear about how many of the traditions, rites and symbols of modern day "Christian" holidays have their roots in paganism. Have you ever wondered why December 25th was chosen to celebrate the birth of Jesus? Could it only be a consequence that ancient paganism and the story of Mithras' birth coincides with the Yule/Christmas season? .

Well, one would kind of expect that when pagans made up the Christmas season. No where does the New Testament state the date of Jesus birth, or anything about a Christmas/Yule celebration.

. The followers refer to Him as the "Light of the World" a phrase often used also in Christian faith when referring to Jesus.

He was the god of light, or intermediate light, hence his role as a mediator between Zoroaster's gods of good and evil. The title however would be more befitting to Helios if anyone. Where is this title found?

This son of a god born of a virgin, was so commonly spread in those days that Philo of Alexandria (30 BCE - 45 CE), warned against this widespread superstitious belief in unions between male gods and human females. The offspring’s are known as demigods.

No, he was not born of a virgin, but from a rock.

More on the others you noted later.

~matthew.william~

 

[matthew.william]

ATTIS - Phrygia: Born of the virgin Nana on December 25. He was both the Father and the Divine Son. He was a savior crucified on a tree for the salvation of mankind. He was buried but on the third day the priests found the tomb empty -- He had arisen from the dead (on March 25th). He followers were baptized in blood, thereby washing away their sins -- after which they declared themselves "born again." His followers ate a sacred meal of bread, which they believed became the body of the savoir.

It was kind of a virgin birth...not a virgin conception. The story goes that Zeus spills his seed on a mountain which turns into Agditsis. The gods don't like them so Dionysus rips off his genitals and the blood from that seeps into the ground and becomes a fruit tree. Nana picks the fruit and puts it into her lap and she becomes pregnant. He is a divine grandson, and his name does mean "Father", but how that relates to the complexity of Jesus is in my opinion a stretch.
He died UNDER a tree, but by emasculating himself, and his blood seeped into the ground and became flowers (and in some versions he then turns into an evergreen tree), but there's no mention of this being a salvationary action.

"Based on a calendar dated to 354 AD, there were six Roman celebrations to Attis -- dated March 15, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28. The one on the 22nd was indeed as Jackson relates -- a pine tree was felled, and the figure of Attis attached, although it represents his death under the tree -- the figure being affixed to the tree therefore being no more than a matter of practically depicting the scene, since the figurine of Attis isn't just going to float along while the tree is carried by the processioneers.The problem with all of this, though, is that the only one of the six feasts known certainly to have crossed paths with Christianity was the one on the 27th, which is the only festival attested on a calendar dated 50AD. A sixth-century writer says that the Emperor Claudius (41-54 AD) instituted the festival on the 22nd. (The 23rd was a day of mourning; on the 24th the priests of Attis would flagellate themselves.) And what the "resurrection" on the 25th? It is here, on the festival called the Hilaria, that a return from the underworld is implied (but not directly pronounced). It is attested no earlier than the 3rd or 4th century AD [Gasp.Sot, 57; contra Verm.LAGR, 47, who interperts pictures of Attis only dancing, as early as the 4th century BC, as somehow celebrating his release from death -- Robert Price believes that this is evidence of Attis' release from death, saying that this is proven because dancing was also what Attis did after release from death in later depictions; he gives no evidence supporting this assertion, but we would point out that proof of release from death, not just proof of dancing, is required; otherwise the evidence only indicates that later Attisians assimilated an episode of Attis-dance into their mythology!]. There were undoubtedly joyous celebrations in the cult prior to this, as early as the 1st century, but with reference to Attis returning to life, the sources "do not of course express the idea of a 'resurrection' of Attis, of which there is no trace in contemporary sources, but rather the certainty of his survival, either in the form of physical incorruptibility or in that, religiously defined, of his constant presence in the cult beside [Cybele]. Moreover, the mythical image of the body of Attis saved from dissolution and able to grow and move, albeit only in certain features, expresses the idea that his disappearance is neither total nor final." [ibid., 59] And so, in summary: All of our detailed information on these festivals, with reference to their alleged similarity to Christianity, come from late Christian authors -- such as the fourth century writer Firmicus Maternus, 350AD, who says that Attis comes back to life to comfort Cybele -- and connects Attis' "resurrection" with the return of vegetation (and thus, as Gasparro notes, the term "resurrection" is not suitable, for there is really no death, just a cycle of presence and absence -- the vegetable connection is confirmed by iconographic evidence) [Gasp.Sot, 48]"

-http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/attis.html

1. [FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+1][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+0][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+0][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+0][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+1][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+0][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+0][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+0]
   [*]Fear.CC -- Fear, A. T. "Cybele and Christ." in Cybele, Attis and Related Cults, Eugene Lane, ed., Brll, 1996.
   [*]Fraz.AAO -- Frazer, James G. Adonis, Attis, Osiris. University Books, 1967.
   [*]Gasp.Sot -- Gasparro, Sfameni. Soteriology: Mystic Aspects in the Cult of Cybele and Attis. Brill, 1995.
   [*]Verm.CA -- Vermaseren, M. J. Cybele and Attis: The Myth and the Cult. Thames and Hudson: 1977.
   [*]Verm.LAGR -- Vermaseren, M. J. The Legend of Attis in Greek and Roman Art. Brill, 1966. [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+1][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+0][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+0][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+0] [/SIZE][/FONT] [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[matthew.william]

BUDDIAH – INDIA: Born of the Virgin Maya on December 25th. He was announced by a star and attended by wise men presenting costly gifts. At birth angles sing heavenly songs. He taught in temple at age 12. Tempted by Mara, the Evil One (Satan), while fasting. He was baptized in water with the Spirit of God present. Buddiah healed the sick and fed 500 from a small basket of cakes and even walked on water. He came to fulfill the law and preached the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness and obliged followers to poverty and to renounce the world. He transfigured on a mount. Died (on a cross, in some traditions), buried but arose again after tomb opened by supernatural powers. Ascended into heaven (Nirvana). Will return in later days to judge the dead. Buddiah was called: "Good Shepherd," "Carpenter," "Alpha and Omega," "Sin Bearer," "Master," "Light of the World," "Redeemer," etc.

I am unfamiliar with Buddha, but Odion seems to know his stuff, so perhaps it's best to leave that to him. He did mention a few points which I was unaware of (thanks Odion! )He did say it was a very oral tradition, so I don't know what would be reliable or not.

 

[logician]

~matthew.william~

I've really only found writers like D.M. Murdock (Acharya S), Freke & Gandy, Doherty, and a hand-full of "free-thought" internet sites who hold fast to this idea of a "mythical" Jesus. Even Wells, who was huge proponent of this idea, conceded to the historicity of Jesus. One would imagine if it were such a popular idea among scholars that most encyclopedias or history books would make mention that the founder of one of the major religions may have been completely made up.



Interesting comment, since the suppposed Jesus did not "found" anything, Constantine made literalist Xianity the "official" religion during the Council of Nicaea.

Sorry, the tired old "bandwagon " theory doesn't cut it any more.

If you're so convinced a real Jesus existed, please tell me

When he was born,
When he died.
Any manuscripts of anything he wrote.
Any independent comtemporay historical references to him that are not considered to be forgeries added later on, most likely by the famed bishop forger Eusabius.
Where he was for 30 odd years from his supposed birth until his ministry - twiddling his thumbs?

Compared to evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar, for example, there is literally no evidence whatsoever that a Jesus remotely resembling the biblical one ever existed.

The gospels themselves conflict with each other so much, they could only be taken as stories of fiction, not recordings of fact, each written with an agenda.


1) Hundreds of years before Jesus, according to the Mithraic religion, three Wise Men of Persia came to visit the baby savior-god Mithra, bring him gifts of gold, myrrh and frankincense.

There is no mention of wise men in the myth, nor would they be visiting a baby. Mithras was born from the rock as an adult. I don't understand the "savior" portion either. He was a mediator between Zoroaster's gods of good and evil. The only evidence you could look to is a bit of graffiti from a Mithra church that was dated 200 AD that said, "And us, too, saved us by spilling the eternal blood." That however is in reference to Mithras slaying the bull.


"Epiphany, JAN-6, was originally the festival in which the followers of Mithra celebrated the visit of the Magi to their newborn god-man. The Christian Church took it over in the 9th century. "


3) According to Mithraism, before Mithra died on a cross, he celebrated a “Last Supper with his twelve disciples, who represented the twelve signs of the zodiac.

Most of what we know about Mithra comes from artwork, and there is a relief scene showing him killing the bull surrounded by the 12 zodiac signs, but there are numerous figures also in the scene. The number could be up to 20+ people. There is no inscription either, so what the scene shows is questionable. How does killing a bull= Last Supper?
I've never heard of Mithra dying, especially on a cross...Do you have a citation for that?

An inscription to Mithras reads: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made on with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation." 1 In John 6:53-54, Jesus is said to have repeated this theme: "...Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." (KJV)

"Early Christians were naked when they were baptized. After immersion, they then put on white clothing and a crown. They carried a candle and walked in a procession to a basilica. Followers of Mithra were also baptized naked, put on white clothing and a crown, and walked in a procession to the temple. However, they carried torches."

.
This son of a god born of a virgin, was so commonly spread in those days that Philo of Alexandria (30 BCE - 45 CE), warned against this widespread superstitious belief in unions between male gods and human females. The offspring’s are known as demigods.

I'll give you the rock, but many other gods pre-existent to the supposed Jesus' mythos were born of virgins. Both being born of a rock and a virgin are about equally likely.

 

[Sententia]

Fair enough. I started looking into this stuff after people kept making comments towards me about how my faith was based completely on pagan traditions and all of Christianity was just a zodiacal religion. (Thank you ever so much, Zeitgeist.) I've been learning a lot, and I get a lot of refreshers on ancient mythology.

As to whether Jesus existed or not, I never really thought that was a serious debate amongst scholars.

I will make the point though that you did say there was a whole lot of parallels between Jesus and Mithras/Dionysus. Are there any in particular you feel hold water? Or any other pagan god for that matter?

~matthew.william~

Matthew.

There are many, many correlations but we are just talking about one. Virgin births as a story and as each and every post you make and your own research shows the concept of a virgin birth was well established.

You can see the story being changed each time. This one from fruit, this one from a rock, this one was from another virgin. Adam was from dirt. Jesus was from the womb of mary. You can even see with just jesus how people have interpretted it and what they believe is different.

Religion seems to me to be a constant reinvention of older tales and myths. One myth that persists even today is that of a virgin birth. The question is why and it was my curiousity that prompted me to post this.

Why does this story continuously pop up? I believe if jesus did exist he had a human father. If it was a true virgin birth he would have been a girl barring very unlikely circumstances. Of course back then, if you think in the perspective of the people who wrote this, for a man to be a diety they must start with his birth and make it special. How were past gods made? What miracles did they perform? Etc etc... It seems to me they took a man and posthumously made him into a god.

I am still searching for answers though. My exploration and research that led me to my current conclusions is dated and is only my opinion. If you believe there was a man born of a virgin who was the heir of the most powerful being in the universe than that is what you believe. I still contend as history shows that the virgin birth is continually reinvented.

 

[matthew.william]

Interesting comment, since the suppposed Jesus did not "found" anything, Constantine made literalist Xianity the "official" religion during the Council of Nicaea.

What do you mean by literalistic Christianity? There clearly was a Christian movement before him, at least in some form, so logically, there would be founder of some kind. You may believe it was something cooked up by St. Paul influenced by Mithraism, but then why were the early Christians persecuted if their faith was so closely tied to Mithraism?

Sorry, the tired old "bandwagon " theory doesn't cut it any more.

If you're so convinced a real Jesus existed, please tell me

When he was born,
When he died.
Any manuscripts of anything he wrote.
Any independent comtemporay historical references to him that are not considered to be forgeries added later on, most likely by the famed bishop forger Eusabius.
Where he was for 30 odd years from his supposed birth until his ministry - twiddling his thumbs?

It's funny that you bring up Eusabius of Casesarea because he is one of the main sources in terms of Constantine's life and rule. Why would Eusabius shoot himself in the foot by detailing the life of man who made up something Eusabius himself believed so strongly in?

"Epiphany, JAN-6, was originally the festival in which the followers of Mithra celebrated the visit of the Magi to their newborn god-man. The Christian Church took it over in the 9th century. "

Where is this from? And what importance does January 6th have in terms of Christ?

An inscription to Mithras reads: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made on with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation." 1 In John 6:53-54, Jesus is said to have repeated this theme: "...Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." (KJV)

This is a medieval text, and the person saying it, isn't Mithras; it's Zarathrustra.

page 103
[FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif]Vermaseren, M. J. Mithras the Secret God. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1963[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

"Early Christians were naked when they were baptized. After immersion, they then put on white clothing and a crown. They carried a candle and walked in a procession to a basilica. Followers of Mithra were also baptized naked, put on white clothing and a crown, and walked in a procession to the temple. However, they carried torches."

Could you find a Mithric scholar to cite this claim? A pre-Christ Mithra babtism? I don't know how anyone would find out about this as Mithraism was such a secretive religion for most of it's existence.

I'll give you the rock, but many other gods pre-existent to the supposed Jesus' mythos were born of virgins. Both being born of a rock and a virgin are about equally likely.

There is a difference between virgin conception and virgin birth. There are a great many myths about God's passing their seed to mortals, yes, but a virgin conception and birth is a unique Christian idea.

~matthew.william~

 

[matthew.william]

Matthew.

There are many, many correlations but we are just talking about one. Virgin births as a story and as each and every post you make and your own research shows the concept of a virgin birth was well established.

You can see the story being changed each time. This one from fruit, this one from a rock, this one was from another virgin. Adam was from dirt. Jesus was from the womb of mary. You can even see with just jesus how people have interpretted it and what they believe is different.

Religion seems to me to be a constant reinvention of older tales and myths. One myth that persists even today is that of a virgin birth. The question is why and it was my curiousity that prompted me to post this.

Why does this story continuously pop up? I believe if jesus did exist he had a human father. If it was a true virgin birth he would have been a girl barring very unlikely circumstances. Of course back then, if you think in the perspective of the people who wrote this, for a man to be a diety they must start with his birth and make it special. How were past gods made? What miracles did they perform? Etc etc... It seems to me they took a man and posthumously made him into a god.

I am still searching for answers though. My exploration and research that led me to my current conclusions is dated and is only my opinion. If you believe there was a man born of a virgin who was the heir of the most powerful being in the universe than that is what you believe. I still contend as history shows that the virgin birth is continually reinvented.

I'm simply comparing the stories, not saying one has more truth over the others. What's postulated is that there is a great many similarities between Christ and X. I'm merely pointing out that in terms of scholarly research, there really is very little similarities between them, and if there is one, it's usually quite a stretch.

But you are right, the idea of a divine influence in birth is quite old. I wouldn't call them virgin births, but definitely divine-influenced.

Perhaps the idea persists because divine influence towards human life interests people, and if birth in itself seems holy. Who knows?

PS. Sorry for hijacking your thread.

~matthew.william~

 

[logician]

~matthew.william~

"hat do you mean by literalistic Christianity? "

Uh, That Jesus was a literal person, and not just a spiritual entity. The Gnotists believed the latter, the literalists believed the former, and won the day.

"There clearly was a Christian movement before him, at least in some form, so logically, there would be founder of some kind. You may believe it was something cooked up by St. Paul influenced by Mithraism, but then why were the early Christians persecuted if their faith was so closely tied to Mithraism?"

There is no strong evidence that anybody ever strongly persecuted the Christians. If anything, it was the other way around.

"It's funny that you bring up Eusabius of Casesarea because he is one of the main sources in terms of Constantine's life and rule. Why would Eusabius shoot himself in the foot by detailing the life of man who made up something Eusabius himself believed so strongly in? "

This post makes no sense whatsoever.

"Where is this from? And what importance does January 6th have in terms of Christ?"

What does any date have importance of in terms of Christ? He seems to be associated with no real dated observances whatsoever.

This is a medieval text, and the person saying it, isn't Mithras; it's Zarathrustra.

OK, the analogy still stands.




"Could you find a Mithric scholar to cite this claim? A pre-Christ Mithra babtism? I don't know how anyone would find out about this as Mithraism was such a secretive religion for most of it's existence.

Strange comment. since you seem to know all about it.

"There is a difference between virgin conception and virgin birth. There are a great many myths about God's passing their seed to mortals, yes, but a virgin conception and birth is a unique Christian idea."

I fail to see any great significance in this. Birth usually follows conception.

 

[Sententia]

I'm simply comparing the stories, not saying one has more truth over the others. What's postulated is that there is a great many similarities between Christ and X. I'm merely pointing out that in terms of scholarly research, there really is very little similarities between them, and if there is one, it's usually quite a stretch.

But you are right, the idea of a divine influence in birth is quite old. I wouldn't call them virgin births, but definitely divine-influenced.

Perhaps the idea persists because divine influence towards human life interests people, and if birth in itself seems holy. Who knows?

PS. Sorry for hijacking your thread.

~matthew.william~

I dont think you hijacked it so much as added to it. You listed numerous myths you were able to find but discount but of the myth of the divinity and virgin birth of christ you dont discount or reject. (See my sig)

I would argue that Ra was a virgin birth according to some. However what is unique about the proposed virgin birth of jesus is that it could come about without a god and in a completely natural fashion. Sure Jesus should have been a girl but perhaps mary was hit with a solar flare or whatever and her virgin child developed for some reason as a boy... Who knows... the point is you wouldnt neccesarily need a god.

Yet it is often cited to prove his divinity... Its odd now but back then i dont think it was a bad argument. They didnt know better and couldnt prove one way or the other.

There is no proof and really no way they could have proved it then. However as I said earlier I think that this was claimed long after Jesus was dead.

 

[logician]

I dont think you hijacked it so much as added to it. You listed numerous myths you were able to find but discount but of the myth of the divinity and virgin birth of christ you dont discount or reject. (See my sig)

I would argue that Ra was a virgin birth according to some. However what is unique about the proposed virgin birth of jesus is that it could come about without a god and in a completely natural fashion. Sure Jesus should have been a girl but perhaps mary was hit with a solar flare or whatever and her virgin child developed for some reason as a boy... Who knows... the point is you wouldnt neccesarily need a god.

Yet it is often cited to prove his divinity... Its odd now but back then i dont think it was a bad argument. They didnt know better and couldnt prove one way or the other.

There is no proof and really no way they could have proved it then. However as I said earlier I think that this was claimed long after Jesus was dead.

I don't quite understand what Matthew's point is here, that the virgin birth happened? That the idea was unique? So what, somehow, a virgin birth in Christianity is supposed to have some great significance, where in other religions it's relegated to ridiculous myth. Of course, not even all the gospels cover the virgin birth, so maybe it wasn't so important after all. It seems so obvious it was added as as more of an afterthought to tie the Jesus story to other prevalent religions to increase its own membership that it's hardly worth stating, but, it seems Christians must have that feeling their own religion stands "above" the rest somehow.

 

[Breathe]

Fair enough. I started looking into this stuff after people kept making comments towards me about how my faith was based completely on pagan traditions and all of Christianity was just a zodiacal religion. (Thank you ever so much, Zeitgeist.) I've been learning a lot, and I get a lot of refreshers on ancient mythology.

Blah, Zeitgeist. I've watched something similar, I'm not sure if it's an extract that I can't remember - but it says that "Horizon" is an abbreviation of the phrase "Horus is risen". Interestingly the Ancient Greeks spoke English, then, instead of horizon being a Greek word meaning "limit" (the separation between earth and sky) - proving that atheists too can be morons.

As to whether Jesus existed or not, I never really thought that was a serious debate amongst scholars.

Jesus' existence wasn't traditionally doubted much, but now it's cool to doubt it. Most scholars, even non-Christians, do not doubt his existence, but rather doubt what was his teachings. People used to doubt Buddha existed also.

I will make the point though that you did say there was a whole lot of parallels between Jesus and Mithras/Dionysus. Are there any in particular you feel hold water? Or any other pagan god for that matter?

None of them matter to me, but feel free to look into all of them - if you know more about them, you can refute or agree with them. Knowledge is power, after all.