Mike D Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 These "hit and run" Christians are getting really bad. It's almost beyond embarrassing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 On the other hand, no one but a fundie can show the idiocy of fundie doctrine so well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdwardAbbey Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Jesus was copied from Mithra? Who needs proof. It's quite obvious. It's almost a perfect match. Recreating/replacing one myth with another myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LloydDobler Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 I just want to point out that while much of this thread was discussing Mithras' virgin birth, Quicksand, your chart has no check in the Mithras column under 'virgin birth'. Is that a typo? Or does it need to be added in there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taphophilia Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 I read an analogy of how Christians defend Mythras/Jesus. Henry Ford visited a meat packing plant and got the idea to build cars on an assembly line. Dead cows and cars are different, so borrowing didn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spamandham Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 As much as I enjoy a good fundie fleecing, he has a point. It is difficult from a historical perspective to separate the pre-common era concepts of mithra from those that formed after it. We really don't know for certain which myth influenced the other on some of the major points. But it doesn't matter. The NT is filled with obvious Pythagorean astrological symbolism and pre-existing wisdom teachings, which prove that either Jesus was not historical at all, or was a historical person to whom prior myths were attributed. Either way, the historical Jesus (if there was one) played little or no role in the Jesus myth as we know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 And check out the links at the bottom of the page for further reading. It's fundamental. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taphophilia Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 And check out the links at the bottom of the page for further reading. It's fundamental. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa.htm That's a great website Wolfheart. I have seen it before but couldn't find it again. Thanks. I think as far as the borrowing thing. It isn't any particular god they copied but rather the IDEAS of what they thought divinity was. In order for Jesus to be god they built myths around him. The popular myths about what god is and what god does were what were subscribed to him. Apologists twist this around. They say Jesus wasn't copied because...(insert reason). They are right to an extent, but they fail to show us the big picture. The big picture is: The people who wrote about Jesus long after his death, believed he was god. Since he was god, he would be and do what god does, so guess what Jesus did that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts