Jesus a recycled pladgerized copy of older pagan mystery cult dieties? What youd church doesn't want you hear!

Question

"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- St. Ignatius Loyola
A fair number of people are aware of the pagan origins of many Christian rituals. A couple of the better known ones are a celebration around the winter solstice that involves symbols of life (evergreens in the dead of winter), and a celebration around the spring equinox that involves fertility symbols (rabbits, eggs).

So, surely, if I was talking about a God in the middle east that was born of a virgin birth on December 25th, was visited by shepherds and magi, traveled the countryside, performed miracles including casting out devils, healing the lame and restoring sight to the blind, had a group of twelve disciples, was known as the "Light of the World,"

of whom it was said that if you drink of his blood you will have eternal salvation, who was persecuted, had a last supper, was killed, buried in a rock tomb, rose from the dead around the spring equinox, was worshipped by the Roman Empire and whose worship spread far around the world, whose followers worshipped on Sunday, believed in baptism and were led by a pope who ruled from Vatican hill and celebrated a sacrament of bread and wine with candles, incense and holy water, I suspect you'd know who exactly who I was talking about. Yes, I'm talking about Mithra.

Mithra (or Mithras) was first worshipped as a minor God in Persia as long ago as 2000 BCE, and later as a God who lived in human form from 272 to 208 BCE. Mithra was the God of the Roman Empire for hundreds of years, and it was not until 358 CE that followers of Mithra began to be persecuted under the new state religion, Christianity. Here's another story:

"In the first century of the Common Era, there appeared at the end of the Mediterranean a remarkable religious leader who taught the worship of one true God and declared that religion meant not the sacrifice of beasts but the practice of charity and piety and the shunning of hatred and enmity. He was said to have worked miracles of goodness, casting out demons, healing the sick, raising the dead. His exemplary life led some of his followers to claim he was a son of God, though he called himself the son of a man. Accused of sedition against Rome, he was arrested. After his death, his disciples claimed he had risen from the dead, appeared to them alive, and then ascended to heaven."

Again, I suspect you know who I'm talking about - that's right, Apollonius, who died around 98 CE. The quote is from Gospel Fictions by Randel Helms.
There are similarities with many other previous and concurrent Gods as well. A couple of other names that might be familiar include Dionysus, Osiris, and Krishna, but there are many more. Jesus and these other Gods often fall under a broad category author Robert Price calls a "mythic hero archetype," where "a divine hero's birth is supernaturally predicted and conceived, the infant hero escapes attempts to kill him, demonstrates his precocious wisdom already as a child, receives a divine commission, defeats demons, wins acclaim, is hailed as king, then betrayed, losing popular favor, executed, often on a hilltop, and is vindicated and taken up to heaven."

The notion of virgin birth, god incarnated into human form, heaven, hell, baptism, eucharist, eternal life, the soul, salvation, one god, worship of sun-gods on Sun-day, you name it, it's all been done before. Sorry to say, there is not much that is new or unique about Jesus. Like other successful religions, Christianity gained the authorization of a powerful state and was institutionalized.

"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."
- attributed to Carl Sagan
Ultimately there is no solid evidence for the existence of Jesus. No one who was alive at that time wrote of him. Jesus starts showing up one or two centuries later in Christian literature, as the movement builds. Even Paul, who was the main promoter of Christianity, seems curiously unaware of the miracles Jesus supposedly performed or even of the basic events of Jesus' life. As a salesman, these would have made some great selling points, but he doesn't seem to know about them. The gospels tell us that Jesus was widely known among the "multitudes" from numerous cities and that even high ranking officials like Herod and Pilate supposedly knew of him, yet somehow the historians of the day were unaware of his existence.

The gospels themselves do not seem to be eyewitness accounts. The gospel of Luke actually admits this up front. They were written in the third person (hearsay) at least 40 years after the supposed events. John may have been written as late as 90 years after the "fact." And they come to us through the hands of Christian scribes who were well known (even Christian scholars admit this) to commit fraud to further their cause.

Answer 1

RIGHT ON MAN!

Answer 2

That's why faith is a critical part of the equation. You either believe it or you don't, but the question of Christ calls us to walk a bit in the darkness and find our way through the guidance of the spirit. To try and understand it with reasoning and logic won't get you the answer. I'm sorry, it won't. It comes from an infusion of spirit and surrender to the mystical. It's a very right side of the brain kind of experience.
Am I deluded, one day to find out it was all a big joke? Maybe. That's the chance I take. Faith.
A lot of the messianic stories are very similar worldwide. Often they share many elements of the god's birth, death and resurrection. The early Roman church incoporated many aspects of european pagan culture in order to persuade the powerful european nobility (pre-Constantine Christianity was considered very unfashionable). This is no secret.
I strongly suggest you read the work of Joseph Campbell. It is exactly about these issues. I tend to look at it that a lot of people were 'tapping into' the same sources and that it just furthers global homogeny in terms of spiritual culture and practice. We may come from different places but basically, we all experience life the same way, and certainly, the journey to reach enlightenment is extraordinarily similar across the board.

Answer 3

You should read Pope Benedict's recent controversial remarks - he is absolutely opposed to what Ignatius Loyala advocates here, criticizing an Islamic theologian who says much the same thing, i.e. "Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us..." The Pope on the other hand argues that "not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature."

As to the tired pop-religion theory that there was no real Jesus, it is again to reason that we turn. In "Saint Saul, A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus", Akenson demonstrates a handful of things that can actually be definitively known about the historical Jesus, through Paul and his letters.

For while it is true that Paul is not himself a direct witness of the events of the gospel, it is unequivocally true that he was on a first name basis with three men who were: the apostle Peter, the apostle John, and James the brother of Jesus. These were the leaders of the early church, and Paul vividly describes his encounters with them.

A fake religion riffing off of entirely made up stuff would not have an epistlist spend so much time on describing his encounters with people from that allegedly made up story. People could easily poke holes in his letters if he described such carefully orchestrated interactions with apostles who weren't even real!

As to Paul's alleged unawareness that some like to bandy about, there's a lot less there than meets the eye. Akenson points out some tantalizing bits of awareness that are only hinted at, but are very real. Paul seems to be well aware of the contents of the sermon on the Mount, since he quotes "the Lord" (here he means Jesus) giving a teaching about divorce being forbidden. Paul provides an exegesis on the meaning of this teaching. Paul also refers to faith that can move mountains, and there are other hints at his awareness of things Jesus said. It is true that Paul is focused on vicarious atonement, and it would certainly be interesting to ask him why he spent so much time on that topic, and only hinted at what nonetheless appears to be profound knowledge of Jesus' doings. But it is also true that the aforementioned knowledge Paul has is very, very real.

There's also the fact that despite some of the mythological archetypes of the bible, there's also a lot that is quite atypical. Little details, like the naked man who runs off from Jesus' group naked, leaving a sheet behind - little embarassing details like this are clues of reality, since nobody would make up something so curious. Then there's Mary of Magdala, witness to the ressurection. For an entirely made-up event, a creative writer would have made up a male witness... instead all the gospels concord on the embarassing fact that the one who was there was a woman.

Jesus was the most written about first century person, in the first century. Were we to apply so high a standard the pop-religion advocates of this ludicrous position to other historical figures, we would be similarly forced to conclude that less written-about figures such as Julius Caesar, Octavius (Augustus), Tiberius, and Nero were never real. We know them only through Tacitus (who incidentally mentions Jesus too.)

No - serious historians do not doubt the existence of an itinerant Jewish preacher named Yeshua or Iesous, in first century Judaea. The "they made it all up" books for now must reside as shrill pop-religion pulp novels, along with other conspiracy theory works such as "Chariots of the Gods." Serious historians all discount such fluff.

Incidentally, John cannot be seriously claimed to be written 90 years later. There are extant fragments of John (known as P52) that are older than that. And these are found far afield from Ephesus, and needed time to spread to where the fragments were found. Serious historians do not give the work a date any later than 90 A.D.

Answer 4

I am only going to take enough time to point out one of the many inaccuracies in this misguided statement...

Quoting:
"yet somehow the historians of the day were unaware of his existence..."

Have you ever heard of the Roman historian Josephus? I suggest you get to reading...

It's one thing to come in here and attempt to educate; it's entirely another to come in here and attempt to perpetrate the same fraud that you accuse our Lord and Savior of...

By the way, religion is a tradition of men; true spirituality is based on fact, and not the dreams of children...

Answer 5

it is between the most poorly researched positions i have ever heard. Mithra replaced into no longer born on December twenty fifth yet on the wintry climate Solstice, and his sect replaced into no longer Roman yet Persian, relationship from around the seventh century bce, and is idea by technique of a few to were an offshoot of Zoroastrianism, in spite of the actual incontrovertible truth that this remains subject to talk. It replaced into no longer imported to Rome until eventually the first century bce and had this is top in the third-4th century ce, at the same time as it grew to change into the commonest faith between the Roman military, and had, because this is chief rival, Christianity, the numerous faith of the slaves and civil service, that were imported from Greece.(a million) the concept of a savior begotten on a virgin by technique of God (Zeus subsequently) and who you celebrate by technique of the eating of his flesh (bread) and the ingesting of his blood (wine) comes from the Greek sect of the God Dionysos (2). The entombed God who rose back replaced into Osiris, from Egypt, and his resurrection had no longer something to do with the equinox , there is no parallel in Mithra ism, and Jesus lack of life and resurection were linked no longer with the equinox yet with Passover. (3) Mithraism died out no longer because of Christian persecution yet because the Roman dependance on overseas mercenaries for his or her military depleted their followers to the point that they grew to change into too scarce to maintain a voice politically (a million). I somewhat do not comprehend from what total fabric you made all that up, notwithstanding the data are accessible if all of us needs to seem.

Answer 6

First off, why believe what Loyola said? Just because he has a "St." in front of his name? I'm not impressed by Loyola.

Second, what about the celebrations of the winter solstice?

Thirdly, your third paragraph...do you intend to finish your thoughts?
You left us with a real long sentence ending with a comma.

Answer 7

Doesn't the religion of Mithra prove that Christianity is false?
http://www.carm.org/evidence/mithra.htm

Answer 8

Mithras was NOT BORN OF A VIRGIN! He was born from a ROCK! You can't even get that basic fact right yet you expect us to pay attention to the rest of your rant?

Answer 9

You are quoting Catholics believes. Not all Christians are Catholic. In fact, some people think Catholics are the Beast power talked of in the Bible.

Answer 10

Wow, when I was almost Dead and Called out on a GOD that I didn't Beileve in (just Mentally Agreed on) and HE Saved Me------and then I BELIEVED in HIM (knew HE was Real)----I hadn't Read all of that.
Wow.

Answer 11

I really don't know where you got your info.,but you need to go and study more on this subject. many things you are saying are things that have been proven wrong by intelligent people, stop parroting what biased atheist say and learn to think for yourself.