Is Christianity an evil religion?

Then you don't know any Filipino agnostics. Those I've encountered seem to hate a lot and don't have much of a desire to learn anything about what they fear.

Of course, that doesn't make Filipino agnosticism, or Christianity for that matter, evil in and of themselves. It could be that the representatives just don't know how to present their issues.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Persian Mithraism goes back as early as 600BC, I think. The confusion is that both Roman and Persian Mithraism call themselves by the name but are two different religions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wheres the option for christianity is not evil but some of the people who practise it are?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

When it comes to history, nobody is entirely correct.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm not saying Jesus was purely a composite of other figures in the sense that he never existed (even if it may be a possibility), but rather his "grandness" was taken from other figures. That's not a problem though because stories and myths about past prophets were taken from others as well so it's not as if this only applies to Jesus as if his history is full of falsehoods.

Jesus was a man who wanted to share his own personal beliefs about everything as many others tried to do as well. His beliefs were the most convincing and had the most positive messages so he slowly gained a following and as it grew bigger, his apostles were able to branch it out to tremendous degrees. And when that happened, that's how all these awesome stories were created. For someone who created a new way of thought, Jesus cannot be seen as a normal being because it's well, uninteresting, and interesting and mystical things get people's attentions easier.

That's the only real thing I'm talking about here -- the stories and history which were created a good many years AFTER the real doings, and death, of Jesus happened, which allows plenty of time to make him appear more magical than his human-self was; and that's where all the stories about him link to past prophets. So basically, his teachings and the like are all good and I'm all for it, it's just that the history about him is a bit shady.

- N

 

If you're going to reject Christ on account of potentially inaccurate historiography, what about other figures of the ancient world - Alexander, Caesar, and so forth?

 

Do you really think that's an equal comparison?

 

When put in that light, I'd have to say I agree with you completely. I have no more arguments for you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I have found no definitive answer to the date question, however, the four gospels (after comparing all the sources and averaging them) appear to definitely have been written before the advent of the Roman Mithra cult, which Okinrus correctly identified as having been confused with the much earlier Persian worship of the Sun God Mithras(Sol Invictus). Roman=Mithra(Invictus), Persian=Mithras(Sol Invictus).

That aside, I am still waiting for at least some kind of response from Medicine Woman so I can at least judge where she stands on this matter. If she doesn't want to confront it, that's fine, but at least let me know so I'm not wasting my time.

 

Just for the hell of it, here's a list of dates compiled the bible historian F.F. Bruce(a little too conservative for my taste but very well educated):

MATTHEW: Shortly after 70 AD
MARK: 64 to 65 AD
LUKE: Shortly before 62 AD (perhaps later)
JOHN: 90 to 100 AD
ACTS: 65 AD (perhaps later)
ROMANS: 57 AD (perhaps later)
I & II CORINTHIANS: 54 to 56 AD
GALATIANS: 48 AD
EPHESIANS: 60 AD
PHILIPPIANS: 60 AD
COLOSIANS: 60 AD
I & II THESSALONIANS: 50 AD
PHILEMON: 60 AD
REVELATION: 90 to 100 AD

 

The thing about Jesus though is that he's such a -- if not THE most there is -- prolific figure yet other than the Bible, good luck being able to find any information on him from his time. Odd, no? It's as if he appeared out of nowhere and was forgotten without a trace until many years later, after his death, stories about him finally surface -- which is only the New Testament. And with such a huge gap in time between the life and death of Jesus and when stories were finally written about him, good luck trying to be accurate.

- N

 

Interesting argument, except that he's referred to in the writings of Josephus, a Jewish historian of the time.

 

There's a book called The Case for Christ, in which Lee Strobel interviews twelve scientists in varying fields to determine the historical accuracy of the Gospels. For example, he has a crime scene investigator discuss the horros of the crucifixion. Some of the interviews are essentially pointless - he interviews a psychiatrist to determine if Christ was sane. Since the psychiatrist is a Christian, there's almost no way he could disagree with that proposition and retain his faith. Anyways, he discusses how the historical record for Christ follows him much more closely than those for Alexander.

But to answer your question, no. My point was, to disqualify the Gospels as a historical source, however flawed, simply because they weren't written during Jesus' life would also require disqualifying other historical sources.

 

Medicine Woman, I'm going to keep bringing this thread to the top until you confront the issue, or at least say that you're not willing to do so.

If you do respond, I don't want to see references to some of the profoundly debunked books and sources you've been listing to support your views, (ie:holy blood, holy grail. Give me a break), the Priory of Scion was a hoax and everyone knows it. Real, scholarly evidence is what I'm looking for here.

 

Heh, Josephus lived from 37 AD to around 100 AD. He never lived during the time of Jesus; only a good many years after his death.

As I say again, is it not odd that there are no historical references in regards to Jesus around his time? Everything is many years AFTER his death. Nothing even during the year of his death or before hand.

Although yes, I did make the mistake of saying "only the New Testament" which I should have said "mainly" instead of "only". However, that is still many years after the death of Jesus -- no history during the time of his death or while he lived.. everything written about him is many years after his death. Quite odd to have no history written about Jesus in his timeframe especially considering how important of a figure he is. All his fame came many years after he died all from the mythical stories that were written by his Apostles.

- N

 

Neildo: How is 37AD so long after the death of Christ, and how do you figure that the desciples/apostles were so long after His death. He was 33 when he was crucified.
Thanks. pmt

 

Sorry, Mithras was born from a rock. In fact, there is no existing image or reference to the birth of Mithras that contains any female element.

Once again, sorry. Mithras never died. To put it shortly, he killed a bull, it pleased the Sun, the sun took him up into heaven(Notice theological differences here? Jesus rose to heaven by his own power.) where Mithras and the Sun shook hands, sat down and feasted on the Bull Mithras had just slain. There was no interval for his death between these events.

(Clauss, p. 108-109). "In the case of these analogies, there can be no question of imitation in either direction. The offering of bread and wine is known in virtually all ancient cultures, and the meal as a means of binding the faithful together and uniting them to the deity was a feature common to many re-ligions" (p. 109).

In the one similarity, there is no significance, because it is a similarity shared between many religions.

hah! Mithraism was a male only cult with only two social classes of interested members: Soldiers and Middle Managers. The idea of Mithraism rivaling christianity orginated with the unscholarly opinion of Ernest Renan in 1923. It was an unfounded idea. Reasonably, how well do you think a faction with such a small percentage of the population in membership could come anywhere close to rivaling what christianity was?

Nope, Mithra was the Persian God, Mithras was the Roman one.

Nope, the connection may be idly debated among some, but any mithraic scholar will tell you that the similarities between the two religions ends with the name.

Already addressed that.

First of all, the date of Christmas has no bearing on Christian Theology. Second, the date is the birth of the Sun, Sol Invictus, who is NOT Mithras. Sol is the one who raised Mithras up to heaven for the feast. Thirdly, the feast day was most definitely NOT pre-christian! It came about by the declaration of Emporer Aurelian in 274 CE. Christians began to take a leaning towards this festival, and church doctors decided to solemnize the Nativity on that day. If the christians were going to party, why not give them justification for doing so while keeping them from falling into apostasy, eh? The point is that the date is inconsequential to the foundation of christian ideals, which is what we're debating here. the date didn't influence christian ideals, it didn't pre-date christian ideals, all in all it appears to be a purely politically motivated maneuver by the church and, like I said, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

It's interesting to note that the topic you wrote most about here has nothing to do with the topic at hand;

Is this matter settled?

Find old copies of The Journal For Mithraic Studies, any volume.
The Origins Of Mithraic Mysteries by David Ulansey, Oxford University Press
Mystery Metaphor and Doctrine in the Mysteries of Mithras', L'erma di Bretschneider
The Roman Cult Of Mithras, The God and His Mysteries, Manfred Clauss

 

Oh but that is exactly what we're arguing about. In an attempt to debunk Christianity, you've listed The cult of Mithraism as an influence on their doctrine and foundation. This topic we've discussed has MUCH value in regards to the argument you're trying to make. For if your view is that Christianity is a composite of other religions making it bunk, and the evidence you acquired to support your view is bunk(As we've established), then that makes the premise of your argument BUNK.

You just threw the evidence you had for your opinion on the table, and it was misinformation. It was corrected, and in it's corrected form, it has no bearing and offers no support whatsoever to your argument. If that is the foundation of your argument on this particular topic, then it has been shown that you are wrong, the opinions you've stated are wrong, and that you are in effect doing nothing more than perpetuating a cycle of misinformation. your opinions can no longer be taken seriously because(since you've ended this dialogue so quickly without offering any counter-arguments to support your claims) you have shown that you have no scholarly evidence to support them.

If that is where you truly want to leave the situation, then barring a rebuttal form you, I will be adding you to my blocked list tonight after I get off of work. If that is where you leave this, then you have nothing of value to offer by way of serious scholarly debate or discussion, and so it would be waste of time and energy to have to sort through all the unsupported(by evidence) claims that you leave as your mark in various threads.

 

Err, I didn't mean to say Josephus was born a good many years after Jesus' death but rather when his writings about Jesus (to whom I was quoting) were a good number of years after his death. This was in response to me saying how is it not odd that there is no history written about Jesus during his life, but rather all the stories were written a good many years after his death. The person said there are writings about him by Josephus, but Josephus wasn't even alive while Jesus was, so that didn't answer my question.

Jesus was crucified in around 33 AD. Using Halycon's dates of:

Everything written about Jesus was at least 15+ years after his death. There is NO recorded history about Jesus while he was still alive, or even shortly after his death. It's as if Jesus' Apostles used his death to further their agenda or something which is the reason for all the mystical stories and the odd coincedences of the stories of Jesus matching, or being taken from, history/stories of past religious prophets.

If everything about Jesus is true, which would make him one heck of a prolific figure, would you not think there would be some writings about him during his life and not FINALLY 15+ years after his death?

- N

 

The Spirit of Holiness inspired the writers of the Gospels to write the Word of God.

2 Timothy 3:16
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.