Atheists, why do you insist on bringing up the old "Jesus is Mithra" allegation?

Question

You may be aware that thousands of years ago, the Jews were taken into captivity in what soon became Persia, during their first dispursion. There, a young Jewish man named Daniel arose, showing himself to be a powerful prophet. Scripture tells us he possessed copies of the scrolls making up the Old Testament (as far as it had been written) and that he had Persian students who studied the Biblical scrolls under him. These students had students, and so on -- until we see the "Three Wise Men of the East," as discussed in Matthew 2 of the Bible. Because Daniel had taught his students Bible prophecy, these Wise Men knew how to calculate when to expect the Jewish Messiah, because Daniel Chapter 9 tells us the exact year that He would be born!

Why is this important? Because there are ALWAYS people who will corrupt the truth into something it isn't. This happened in ancient Persia, when people corrupted the Biblical truths Daniel taught. The Mithra cult arose from that (they simply took a pre-existing deity and pasted Daniel's teachings onto him) -- and THAT'S why there's a similarity ... because ALL of the things the cult believed are taught by the Old Testament Scriptures!

So why do you insist on rehashing this same old argument?

"Watch your back," my avatar is a renaissance painting of a nun. And your answer is ..... ?

AnArdRi: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Amnid9jXIF7EzUyVKtru5GTsy6IX?qid=20070907071300AAbdL9B

Meat Bot, answer the question please. If you want to ask separate questions, do so. But you are evading the question in a rather typical way.

Or is it that you have no answer???

Ymmo, that's actually funny. Thanks for the laugh.

Chris Stanton, I DO know.

LOL, cmw, I just love you!

Answer 1

Why must you fundies always go on about Mithra? You have no respect for Attis of Phrygia, and everybody knows THAT's the model for Gee-zus in the Buy-bull. (See question linked below)

The ignorance is giving me a headache. Please send aspirin.

Edit:

Answer 2

Jesus is not mithras. Jesus is a copy of the mithras story. We non-christians bring it up because the christian community wantto proclaim that jesus was born on Dec 25. the same exact date of Mithras. Why because the pope used it to fight the popularity of mithras in Rome. The pope doesn't like competition.

SO you want to proclaim a bible verse that proves that jesus is all that. That is fine with me. How about this nice little verse..Matthew 1:23 says that Jesus (the messiah) would be called Immanuel, which means "God with us." Yet no one, not even his parents, call him Immanuel at any point in the bible.

Christianity is a thief of other religions. Easter earned it's name and traditions from the pagans. The same is true for christimas and practically every holiday on the calender. There is nothing original of christianity.

Answer 3

The two concepts share a lot of information about Jesus being the son of God and Mithra being the Sun God. Although Jesus was figured to have been born in the Spring, the date that is celebrated is the date where Mithra is born again.

Short of a time machine, we can argue what ifs until the crack of doom and we will still end up having to sift through religions overlapping religions. I'll stick with Mithra since his follower are less driven to force his religion on everyone!

Answer 4

So..... Some dudes allegedly passed around bits of paper and some time after that some other dudes allegedly calculated when the alleged jesus was born? All I am hearing is a lot of untrustworthy paper and hearsay. That's why none of it is important.

But here's a fact: History is rewritten by those with an agenda. While you can't count on paper and can't count on history, you can count on politicking.

So we are left with written 'documentation' being more or less worthless outside the lifespan of those who were actually there.

Make all the allegations you like about 'history' and religion, but it comes down to choosing what you believe - nothing else. Why didn't I bother addressing Mithra? See above.

Answer 5

I am not sure who is or is not bringing up the Jesus is Mithra stuff, but let me say this..... People who do not have the testament of Jesus or the faith, will continue to have the same arguments about Christian vs Pagan..... people say that pagan came before Christian, and that we *copied* off the pagans......... what I do not understand is, if they truly believe this, how did they come to KNOW with certainty ?? answer: they READ it some place !!!!!!! just like we READ the Bible !!!! of course the traditions of paganism were handed down, just as Christianity was, and of course pagans do NOT believe in God, so why would they pass down those stories ???? *shrug*..... people use the same ole arguments day in and day out to *support* their arguments.....I think they have backwards..... they think I have it backwards...... All shall be revealed in due time !!!!!! go in peace........ God bless

Answer 6

There were religions that preceded and shaped Christianity. Bacchus is also said to have risen from the dead. Alexander the Great is said to have been born from Zeus and a mortal woman.

History shows that Christianity has cultural and social roots, not a divine origin. I just think that all religions should be analyzed by looking at the authors and their time period: The bible does not show real evidence for a god, but it helps us to understand ancient value systems.

I do not feel that these old religions should function as a moral code today. The bible advocated stoning and burning to death for adulterers, sorcerers, loose women, people who worked on Sunday, and children who spoke against their parents.

To suggest that torture and execution should be acceptable in any government today would be inhumane, so I cannot agree with anyone who takes the bible as the word of divine origin. Most civilizations have a concept of social progress and have ended religious law. Look at the ones that have not (Iran) if you'd like to see the end result.

I'm not trying to be rude here, but I do not understand how taking issue with Mithra would prove that Jesus is divine. Far to the contrary, I'd say.

Answer 7

Interesting take on it. What about the Egyptian stuff then, Osirus, etc.? What about Noah? Krishna? What about the fact that Abraham came from the east which just so happened to have a GOD called Brahma whoes wife was Saravasatra...something other?

I don't mind people looking at history and decifering it through their own world view. However, there are a lot more allegations than just the "mithra" one. Also, if you are allowed to use this logic will Muslims be allowed to use the same logic to prove that Allah is not a moon god but in fact the God of Abraham himself?

Have a good day. Take care.

Answer 8

I just asked a similar question, but i'll paste it here for you:

Why comparing Jesus and Mithra, if we have an indisputable proof that the real story is stolen from...?
FLYING SPAGHETTY MONSTER!
Doesn't the flying spaghetti monster sound very much like jesus?!

--the dinner was cooked on december 25 by Mary the cook from Virginia.
--He was considered the saviour who was eaten for the salvation of the hungry
--His body as spaghetti and meatballs was eaten by his worshippers
--His priests were “cooks for the kingdom of heaven.”
--He was both the Divine Pesto and the Parmesan.
--On “Black Friday,” he was bought from a shop, thrown in the boiling water and the tomato sauce was his holy blood
--He descended into the toiletworld.
--After three days, Flying spaghetti monster was resurrected on the other side of the drain, ascended into the heaven as clouds and is coming to earth as the God of rain that waters the wheat for pasta ever since!!!

There, it's a proof!!!

Answer 9

the three clever adult adult males have been Buddhist priests from nepal despatched to retrieve jesus to take him back to nepal to be knowledgeable. through fact of this no extreme point out of Jesus as a youthful guy is modern in scripture. Love and reward don

Answer 10

You're WRONG. It's said that there's a similarity by a very small contingent of pseudo-scholars (even though the majority of REAL scholars disagree with them), on a few sites (word for word, who copied whom?) on the web, and in the movie Zeitgeist (which borrowed from aforementioned pseudo-scholars and websites...).

Don't you know that all those sources are more reliable than ANYTHING in history?