[R. S. Martin]

http://www.hollywood...com/mithras.htm

[Justin]

Interesting, thanks for posting that.

Do you think their is a connection between "Sun" and "Son"?

This post has been edited by Justin: 24 May 2008 - 02:28 AM

[JernJane]

Although you are right in the claims about the winter solstice, the part about Jesus' birth being on the night before Dec 25th is not something that is claimed in the Bible - it is pure tradition. You can of course say that there may be connections between the tradition and the pagan religions - a lot of Christian traditions are - but please be careful when you make these claims, for the sake of your own credibility. The Bible verses you quote are also taken out of context. Anyone who reads the gospels can see that it's talk of spiritual light, not the sun, and thus your claim becomes null and void, because you're refuting something that isn't even there in the first place. What is present in tradition, however, is a different matter and also differs from denomination to denomination.

There's loads of other things you can pick on and mountains of internally contradictions within the Bible, I suggest that you try to familiarize yourself with those.

Here's one web page which lists a bunch of them: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim...#contradictions

[JernJane]

As for the "Sun"/"Son" claimed relation, it is nothing short of stupid and incredibly ignorant to claim that there is a connection. The reason for this is that the phonological similarity between these two words appear - as far as I'm aware - only in English and that after the series of vowel shifts through the Middle-Ages and other changes in pronunciation after that. The New Testament wasn't written in English, nor do any of the Christian traditions have English roots. The closest you get to one is the Lollards of John Wycliffe, a movement that died out in the middle of the 16th century.

Although as unbelievers it can be tempting to jump in to support attempts to falsify Christianity, please don't be fooled by films like Zeitgeist etc. They are highly biased productions by highly ignorant people, and we should also be critical in our thinking and evaluation of their credibility. Don't fall for trusting something simply because it goes against Christianity. There's loads of things within Christianity and the Bible itself that are more than enough to show any person that the Bible is far from the word of God, and much less infallible.

[Justin]

Quote

There's loads of other things you can pick on and mountains of internally contradictions within the Bible, I suggest that you try to familiarize yourself with those.

I'm sure R.S. Martin is well versed in biblical contradictions, as are most people here. Preaching to the choir so to speak. Btw, your link contains a few "contradictions" of your own that are taken out of context. A few, but not the majority.

Quote

As for the "Sun"/"Son" claimed relation, it is nothing short of stupid and incredibly ignorant to claim that there is a connection.

I merely asked, didn't claim anything.

[JernJane]

Justin, on May 24 2008, 05:07 PM, said:

I'm sure R.S. Martin is well versed in biblical contradictions, as are most people here. Preaching to the choir so to speak. Btw, your link contains a few "contradictions" of your own that are taken out of context. A few, but not the majority.

My posts were not intended as "preaching" to you or to R.S. Martin, but as friendly advice. It can be fun to speculate in these things, but as they're refuting traditions rather than biblical claims, they don't really refute anything and as such will be a waste of time if given emphasis by a non-believer in a discussion with a believer. That was what I was trying to say.

I'm aware that the list I provided contains a few quotes also taken out of context, like you said. However, that doesn't mean I refute taking verses out of context in one breath and advocate it in the next. I'm sure that this forum's ex-believer members together could tear the Bible apart page by page, chapter by chapter. It was not an insult to you or to anybody, but a warning against using these claims in debates against Christians simply because they don't work. We don't need to resort to speculative (and often only half-correct or irrelevant) connections to Mithra, Horus, Bacchus or Apollo or symbolism in order to denounce Christianity. There are much more reliable and efficient tools for doing so. That was my point.

Quote

I merely asked, didn't claim anything.

No, you did not. However, there are those who do, their claims were (and are) the targets of my characterization as "stupid and incredibly ignorant", not you.

[R. S. Martin]

Justin, on May 24 2008, 12:07 PM, said:

Quote

There's loads of other things you can pick on and mountains of internally contradictions within the Bible, I suggest that you try to familiarize yourself with those.

I'm sure R.S. Martin is well versed in biblical contradictions, as are most people here. Preaching to the choir so to speak. Btw, your link contains a few "contradictions" of your own that are taken out of context. A few, but not the majority.

Quote

As for the "Sun"/"Son" claimed relation, it is nothing short of stupid and incredibly ignorant to claim that there is a connection.

I merely asked, didn't claim anything.

Thanks Justin. As for my take on the Sun/Son question, see below.

Maybe I should clear up a few things.

1. I did not make those posters. I posted the link to the site from which I copied them. They are taken from the Holywood Jesus site, owned by a person whose first name is David. I forget his last name. I found it through an email from Acharya S; I'm on her mailing list and anyone can join from her website. Here is what she said in the email:

Quote

I am delighted to announce that there is a blurb and a video interview of me regarding my book "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ" on the popular website HollywoodJesus.com!

Right now it is appearing on the main page of that site, in the upper righthand corner, under the byline of my friend Pastor David Bruce.

http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/

The blurb and video interview itself can be found at this page:

http://live.hollywoodjesus.com/?p=2136

And the relevant movie review - C.S. Lewis's "Narnia: Prince Caspian" - can be found at this page, along with my video interview (essentially the same as the one above):

http://tinyurl.com/5hjw96

Enjoy the video - and be sure to pick up a copy of "Who Was Jesus?"

Thanks!

Acharya S aka D.M. Murdock
http://TruthBeKnown.com
http://StellarHousePublishing.com

P.S. To see my own video on "Who Was Jesus?" go to this page:

http://www.stellarho...howasjesus.html

P.P.S. Be sure to leave a kind comment on the HollywoodJesus.com page, thanking Pastor David for going out on a limb in the interest of truth!

2. I have such low vision that I have to strain my eyes too much to read the Bible verses on them. Frankly, I don't know what verses David put on them.

3. I posted them for the bolded sentences at the top of each poster. I thought it might make for interesting discussion between exChristians. Or maybe not. I had no idea.

4. I am beginning to study Mithraism and I'm fascinated by it. I just completed reading my first book, written from a Christian perspective who wanted to show how Mithraism was absorbed into Christianity. Fascinating!

Title: Mithras: The Fellow in the Cap
Author: Esme Wynne-Tyson
First edition: 1958, present edition, 1972.

A main argument being made by Wynne-Tyson is that Christianity absorbed many aspects of the sun-worship from Mithraism. Jane, the verses you mentioned are probably part of it. As Christians we interpreted them mystically. Wynne-Tyson informs me that such terms are clear evidence of sun-worship infiltration. WT goes through the entire Bible--OT, Gospels, Paul's Epistles, Hebrews, and Revelation--to show where Mithra and sun-worship is hiding.

I plan to read more current literature on this topic, too, but have not yet had time. At the time WT was writing, it was still thought that Paul wrote Timothy; it is no longer believed that he did. Much else may have changed, too, since 1972.

To reiterate, I posted those posters for the sake of theological discussion to see where it would go, in case anyone is interested.

As for the Son/Sun issue. I don't claim to have any answers but I can throw out a few ideas--in case you haven't arrived at any yourself.

• According to WT, the concept of Divine Right of Kings comes from Mithraism, and/or predecessor religions. The king is understood to be the son of God, and the most high God is understood to be the Sun-God. Thus, in a very literal sense, the king is the Son of the Sun.
  
• WT points out the similarities between the names Moses and Mithras. I think it is no accident that Moses is said to have had a radiant face when he came down off the mountain after speaking with God (being so close to the Sun) that one time.

A few more points of interest:

• More mithraeums (or whatever the caves are called where they did their rituals) have been found in Germany than in any other part of the Europe-Asia-India landmass, suggesting that at the height of its development it was a West European thing, especially Germanic.
  
• When I looked in my school's library for books describing Mithraism, the best book I could find was in German: Mithras, by Reinhold Merkelbach. It contains over a hundred picture plates. I mention this in case anyone has opportunty and inclination to look at the pictures. Captions are in German. Once you're familiar with the themes you can pretty well tell from the plates what the pics are about.

[JernJane]

Guys, guards down! I'm not attacking anybody!

I do not deny that the topic is an interesting one and yes, Christian traditions have absorbed much from their surrounding cultures, however these differ from place to place, depending on the culture where Christianity was spread. As we all know, some forms of Christianity died out, either for political loss of territory or due to new or foreign ideas spreading and becoming more popular. Some symbolism that would be characteristic of the Roman Catholic Church, for instance, would not necessarily have much in common with Russian Orthodox symbolism.

You said that we, when we were Christians, were taught to interpret these verses mystically. You're right about that, but then again, isn't it how the majority of Christians agree on interpretations that you need to stick to and compare to other religions? If you support the view that Jesus was believed to be the Son of the Sun-god, then you're not talking about Christianity at all, because Christians do, by definition, not worship the sun. Arguing a connection between Mithra and Jesus with Jesus as the Son of the Sun-god, then you don't hit your target at all, because that's not what Christians believe, which you know. If there were others at the time who did believe that the Sun-god was who Jesus talked about when he called God "father", then that's obviously very interesting, but it's irrelevant to today's Christianity, and thus will not falsify the religion.

On the other hand, had Christianity taught that Jesus' father is the sun/Sun-god, then that would've been a different matter, but they don't. Yes, you can find schwastikas on Roman Catholic buildings and the halo is a sun-disc and so is the cracker at the eucharist, and perhaps that is the remains of the symbolism used by an ancient Sun-god cult. That may well be and would be very interesting, but because it is not what Christians believe or have believed, I sincerely doubt it will make a difference to them.

[Justin]

Quote

Guys, guards down! I'm not attacking anybody!

Yeah, sorry for getting all defensive. I see your point.

But you must be careful who you call "guy". R.S.Martin is a lady.

[DarthOkkata]

Quote

But you must be careful who you call "guy". R.S.Martin is a lady.

When speaking to a mixed group, masculine pronouns are correct.

[Marty]

R. S. Martin, on May 24 2008, 06:52 PM, said:

More mithraeums (or whatever the caves are called where they did their rituals) have been found in Germany than in any other part of the Europe-Asia-India landmass, suggesting that at the height of its development it was a West European thing, especially Germanic.

I remember reading (it may have been from Achrya S., so not sure how accurate it is) that the Vatican is built on the remains of a Mithras cave, and that the catacomb burial grounds underground where Peter is supposedly buried is the actual cave where Mythras was worshiped...

Wouldn't suprise me if it was true...

[JernJane]

Marty, on May 25 2008, 03:11 PM, said:

I remember reading (it may have been from Achrya S., so not sure how accurate it is) that the Vatican is built on the remains of a Mithras cave, and that the catacomb burial grounds underground where Peter is supposedly buried is the actual cave where Mythras was worshiped...

Wouldn't suprise me if it was true...

It would certainly be something Protestants would rub their hands red over.

[Justin]

DarthOkkata, on May 25 2008, 05:28 AM, said:

Quote

But you must be careful who you call "guy". R.S.Martin is a lady.

When speaking to a mixed group, masculine pronouns are correct.

Yeah, a mixed group of two people.

[R. S. Martin]

Marty, on May 25 2008, 09:11 AM, said:

R. S. Martin, on May 24 2008, 06:52 PM, said:

More mithraeums (or whatever the caves are called where they did their rituals) have been found in Germany than in any other part of the Europe-Asia-India landmass, suggesting that at the height of its development it was a West European thing, especially Germanic.

I remember reading (it may have been from Achrya S., so not sure how accurate it is) that the Vatican is built on the remains of a Mithras cave, and that the catacomb burial grounds underground where Peter is supposedly buried is the actual cave where Mythras was worshiped...

Wouldn't suprise me if it was true...

I read that elsewhere, too. Wynne-Tyson suggests the Church of the fourth century so thoroughly purged the land of Mithraism because it absorbed Mithraism. The reason for purging the land of Mithraism, according to Wynne-Tyson's guess, might be so that people would not say, "Wait a minute! This isn't Christianity--this is Mithraism!"

This kinda gets to the point for posting these posters in the first place. Like most people born into Christianity, all my life I lived under the threat of eternity in hell if I so much as questioned the legitimacy of the Christian faith. Now I find out that the message about hell, Final Judgement, and Afterlife, probably comes from Mithraism and NOT from Jesus himself.

Those posters were put together by a Christian pastor. They show up the similarities between the two religions. They make one ask hard questions about Christianity. I did not read enough of his site to be sure what he believes. He posted permission to post his posters on one's own website so I copied them here.

One thing drilled into all Christians is to beware of false doctrine and false gods. Pagan gods especially are taboo. When I found out that perhaps half of Christian doctrine IN THE NEW TESTAMENT comes from pagan religion--well, that just undermines the power of Christianity. I wanted to share that with other exChristians struggling with residual doubts about hell, etc.

[DarthOkkata]

Justin, on May 25 2008, 11:22 AM, said:

Yeah, a mixed group of two people.

Well, I am being an ass for the sake of a joke, and my own personal amusement here. I'm still right though.

[Justin]

DarthOkkata, on May 25 2008, 10:29 PM, said:

Justin, on May 25 2008, 11:22 AM, said:

Yeah, a mixed group of two people.

Well, I am being an ass for the sake of a joke, and my own personal amusement here. I'm still right though.

Only in your young mind Darth. Only in your mind my apprentice.

[R. S. Martin]

Justin, on May 26 2008, 11:17 AM, said:

DarthOkkata, on May 25 2008, 10:29 PM, said:

Justin, on May 25 2008, 11:22 AM, said:

Yeah, a mixed group of two people.

Well, I am being an ass for the sake of a joke, and my own personal amusement here. I'm still right though.

Only in your young mind Darth. Only in your mind my apprentice.

Actually, no, male pronouns are not okay for mixed groups. Not in advanced societies like Southern Ontario academia where I've been initiated into mainstream society. Perhaps for primitive backward patriarchal societies like the fundies south of the border the oppressed females accept. The men up here have more respect for their women and the women for their men. Whatever, inclusive language is the norm in my experience.

When speaking to a group, by all means use plurals and avoid the problem altogether! Here's an example for those who need it:

People can use their minds to decide what they want to do. Each person can decide for him or herself. This way, no one is excluded and everyone is included in public addresses. Whether or not to use inclusive language in public addresses, however, is not an option. That is my personal position. The minute you start speaking in terms of "him" and "his" I count myself exempt. It's an automatic response. In my native language, Pennsylvania German, we have gender neutral pronouns for the singular as well as for the plural. If we use male pronouns we actually mean MEN, and men only. If we use female pronouns we mean a women's only situation. If a woman dared show or speak up when the male pronoun was used, you can imagine the response. So Darth, don't you ever presume that it doesn't grate on my sensibilities to be referred to as a him or his.

End of rant. To be honest, I missed the use of male pronouns this time. Either that, or I assumed it referred to men. However, using male pronouns for mixed groups is technically just as disrespectful as it is to use female pronouns. As stated, up here where I was initiated, it is not even socially acceptable.

[DarthOkkata]

Yeah, they are. In the English language, masculine pronouns are correct when speaking to a mixed group of people, any size.

It doesn't really matter if you like the rules of English or not, they're still the rules of English. Don't be overly sensitive on such a trivial matter. If you're offended here, you're doing it to yourself, and I feel no responsibility or sympathy for you. The fact that you may or may not be offended by it's proper usage is irrelevant. It's still correct English.

If you're in the Army, and your CO is talking to the Platoon, he/she refers to the troops as 'Men'. If someone says 'come on guys' to a group of people, the group should understand that the speaker is talking to 'them'. If you go to a concert and the lead singer of your favorite band says 'what's up dudes', you should understand that he's referring to the crowd, not just the males in the crowd.

This only applies to mixed groups, so singular pronouns such as him, or he are excluded from this rule, and it is a 'rule' btw.

It's my language, and I'm good at it, much to the irritation of many others in my life.

I'm not pointing a finger at anyone in particular here, but I do enjoy pointing it out to others who complain about it, perhaps a bit too much. It's a stupid complaint, and is most often used to find fault where there is none in a conversation. Something to complain about, despite the fact that clear meaning is obvious, and intent to offend is absent.

I like strong willed, independent women myself, but I have an intense dislike for femi-nazi propagandist who use their own personal sexism as an intellectual weapon against others for no real end aside from making things inconvenient or uncomfortable for others. That's pretty much what complaining about this amounts too.

You're not being excellent to each other if you're nit picking on such unimportant issues. Maybe the English language was written by sexist barbarians. What language wasn't? Sounds like you're trying to needlessly complicate a functional issue and turn it into a sexist one, and I am forced to stick my tongue out at you and pull down my eyelid.

Nyaaaahhh! Nyahhhh! I'm still right.

In the interest of not derailing the topic further, that's all I've got to say on the matter. I'll be happy to continue elsewhere. Feminism interest me, and I mostly support it and, probably more so, the ideals behind it. Much like religion, I'm only uncomfortable with discussing it when surrounded or cornered by groups of Fundies. Feminist fundies are almost as easy to offend as Christian fundies, but seem to be more openly hostile and aggressive to start with in my experience.

This post has been edited by DarthOkkata: 27 May 2008 - 12:02 AM

[Justin]

Darth, you're trailing down a path that leads to arrogance, alienation, racisism, hate... pretty much full fledged christianity, aka, the dark side.

[DarthOkkata]

Justin, on May 27 2008, 02:02 AM, said:

Darth, you're trailing down a path that leads to arrogance, alienation, racisism, hate... pretty much full fledged christianity, aka, the dark side.

Well, you had to go and invoke the 'dark side'. I shall try to explain then.

I get the feeling you're reading too much into what boils down to 'why are you trying to screw up something that's working fine? The language does exactly what it's supposed to.' Casual conversation should be short and easy to understand. It works the other way around as well. I've spoken to groups at meetings with one or two men in the room and referred to the group as 'ladies'. I was still using proper English doing that as well.

I have problems with the business world for a lot of the same reasons. I confront buzzwords whenever I hear them. It's something of an irritant for me, and you'd be surprised how many people use words they can't even define. I know what Paradigm means. I have a bit of disgust for language that is intended to make turds shinier and more complex to create the illusion of intelligence.

I understand the issue, but, I am also confused on why it's important in any way. It's an issue of people taking offense needlessly. It's kind of like the people who call me white, and then demand I refer to them as 'African American'. I always refuse, on the grounds that they didn't call me a 'European American'.

Where is the insult in simple majority language idioms? Where's the problem with going with one side or the other [male] in case of a tie? What's the issue?

It works fine.

'Guys' is often used as a bisexual term. 'Guy' is not though. The meaning of the term 'Guys' has shifted in peoples perception over time, and while an originally male term, it's no longer used the same way in the language. I'm pretty sure most dictionaries now list a 'mixed group' definition for the word.

So, right off the bat, you're starting with a false assumption on this one.

This post has been edited by DarthOkkata: 27 May 2008 - 01:53 PM