So what's the RIGHT answer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ PP, nobody is asking you to believe it. You're free not to believe it. Just let go.

"Just let it go," as it don't mention it in a discussion about religion because it upsets believers?

Whatevs. You keep flattering yourself that you've upset people, which you haven't, and the point was obviously about how you're wasting your time with childish questions that are so far below the radar that they don't upset anybody. But again, whatevs.

Feeling upset, eh?

No, you've got to sound more needy than that.

It's "Have I upset you? Huh? huh? Pretty please, validate me!" Like you really need the validation to get out of bed in the morning.

[Anonymous]

Yes--pretty intellectually immature to think pointing out Mithra was born of a virgin and that resurrection is a mythological theme disproves Christianity. Every educated Christian theologian who studies Jesus and his times is very acquainted with these; it is not faith shaking news, much as PP seems to think it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes--pretty intellectually immature to think pointing out Mithra was born of a virgin and that resurrection is a mythological theme disproves Christianity. Every educated Christian theologian who studies Jesus and his times is very acquainted with these; it is not faith shaking news, much as PP seems to think it is.

One interpretation is that the devil planted these myths to try to shake people's faith. The devil knew that one day, these myths would come to light via scholarly study and that some people would interpret it as Jesus just being another iteration of the virgin birth/resurrected god story. These people would question and some would stop believing.

But true Christians with enough faith would be able to see through all of this as the devil's work. They wouldn't be fooled! Their faith would become stronger than before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes--pretty intellectually immature to think pointing out Mithra was born of a virgin and that resurrection is a mythological theme disproves Christianity. Every educated Christian theologian who studies Jesus and his times is very acquainted with these; it is not faith shaking news, much as PP seems to think it is.

One interpretation is that the devil planted these myths to try to shake people's faith. The devil knew that one day, these myths would come to light via scholarly study and that some people would interpret it as Jesus just being another iteration of the virgin birth/resurrected god story. These people would question and some would stop believing.

But true Christians with enough faith would be able to see through all of this as the devil's work. They wouldn't be fooled! Their faith would become stronger than before.

Sounds like your interpretation, one aimed at mocking Christianity. At the time of Christ these things were well known and didn't come to light later. Mitraism was a known religion, Osiris was a well known Egyptian god, and the Demeter/Perspohone and Ishtar/Tamuz stories were known as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes--pretty intellectually immature to think pointing out Mithra was born of a virgin and that resurrection is a mythological theme disproves Christianity. Every educated Christian theologian who studies Jesus and his times is very acquainted with these; it is not faith shaking news, much as PP seems to think it is.

One interpretation is that the devil planted these myths to try to shake people's faith. The devil knew that one day, these myths would come to light via scholarly study and that some people would interpret it as Jesus just being another iteration of the virgin birth/resurrected god story. These people would question and some would stop believing.

But true Christians with enough faith would be able to see through all of this as the devil's work. They wouldn't be fooled! Their faith would become stronger than before.

Sounds like your interpretation, one aimed at mocking Christianity. At the time of Christ these things were well known and didn't come to light later. Mitraism was a known religion, Osiris was a well known Egyptian god, and the Demeter/Perspohone and Ishtar/Tamuz stories were known as well.

+1. Most seminarians study these things. Even many churchgoers know about these things. Despite mocking PP's obvious need to feel relevant, these are hardly faith-shaking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes--pretty intellectually immature to think pointing out Mithra was born of a virgin and that resurrection is a mythological theme disproves Christianity. Every educated Christian theologian who studies Jesus and his times is very acquainted with these; it is not faith shaking news, much as PP seems to think it is.

One interpretation is that the devil planted these myths to try to shake people's faith. The devil knew that one day, these myths would come to light via scholarly study and that some people would interpret it as Jesus just being another iteration of the virgin birth/resurrected god story. These people would question and some would stop believing.

But true Christians with enough faith would be able to see through all of this as the devil's work. They wouldn't be fooled! Their faith would become stronger than before.

Sounds like your interpretation, one aimed at mocking Christianity. At the time of Christ these things were well known and didn't come to light later. Mitraism was a known religion, Osiris was a well known Egyptian god, and the Demeter/Perspohone and Ishtar/Tamuz stories were known as well.

+1. Most seminarians study these things. Even many churchgoers know about these things. Despite mocking PP's obvious need to feel relevant, these are hardly faith-shaking.

Nothing will shake a mature faith. That's why they call it "mature." It's not the faith of a child who will believe something without examining it, just because their parents or their priest told them to believe it. A mature faith will withstand any new information, re-interpreting it to stay within the faith and to reap its ultimate reward -- eternal life

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes--pretty intellectually immature to think pointing out Mithra was born of a virgin and that resurrection is a mythological theme disproves Christianity. Every educated Christian theologian who studies Jesus and his times is very acquainted with these; it is not faith shaking news, much as PP seems to think it is.

One interpretation is that the devil planted these myths to try to shake people's faith. The devil knew that one day, these myths would come to light via scholarly study and that some people would interpret it as Jesus just being another iteration of the virgin birth/resurrected god story. These people would question and some would stop believing.

But true Christians with enough faith would be able to see through all of this as the devil's work. They wouldn't be fooled! Their faith would become stronger than before.

Sounds like your interpretation, one aimed at mocking Christianity. At the time of Christ these things were well known and didn't come to light later. Mitraism was a known religion, Osiris was a well known Egyptian god, and the Demeter/Perspohone and Ishtar/Tamuz stories were known as well.

They were known at the time, which is probably why the new religion, Christianity, was so easily patterned after them. Knowledge of these other myth-based religions faded as Christianity became the one true religion and information about other religions was not taught and was not available outside very learned circles. Even the Bible was not translated into the vernacular (German) until Luther and the printing press came along in the 1500's, so it's easy to see how knowledge of ancient myth-based religions faded over time.

[Anonymous]

The "right" answer is whatever helps you grow closer the divine as you understand it (or him or her). If divinity isn't a meaningful construct to you, that's your answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes--pretty intellectually immature to think pointing out Mithra was born of a virgin and that resurrection is a mythological theme disproves Christianity. Every educated Christian theologian who studies Jesus and his times is very acquainted with these; it is not faith shaking news, much as PP seems to think it is.

One interpretation is that the devil planted these myths to try to shake people's faith. The devil knew that one day, these myths would come to light via scholarly study and that some people would interpret it as Jesus just being another iteration of the virgin birth/resurrected god story. These people would question and some would stop believing.

But true Christians with enough faith would be able to see through all of this as the devil's work. They wouldn't be fooled! Their faith would become stronger than before.

Sounds like your interpretation, one aimed at mocking Christianity. At the time of Christ these things were well known and didn't come to light later. Mitraism was a known religion, Osiris was a well known Egyptian god, and the Demeter/Perspohone and Ishtar/Tamuz stories were known as well.

They were known at the time, which is probably why the new religion, Christianity, was so easily patterned after them. Knowledge of these other myth-based religions faded as Christianity became the one true religion and information about other religions was not taught and was not available outside very learned circles. Even the Bible was not translated into the vernacular (German) until Luther and the printing press came along in the 1500's, so it's easy to see how knowledge of ancient myth-based religions faded over time.

Or, God took human form because, instead of writing on tablets or sending down thunderbolts, he wanted to talk to us directly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes--pretty intellectually immature to think pointing out Mithra was born of a virgin and that resurrection is a mythological theme disproves Christianity. Every educated Christian theologian who studies Jesus and his times is very acquainted with these; it is not faith shaking news, much as PP seems to think it is.

One interpretation is that the devil planted these myths to try to shake people's faith. The devil knew that one day, these myths would come to light via scholarly study and that some people would interpret it as Jesus just being another iteration of the virgin birth/resurrected god story. These people would question and some would stop believing.

But true Christians with enough faith would be able to see through all of this as the devil's work. They wouldn't be fooled! Their faith would become stronger than before.

Sounds like your interpretation, one aimed at mocking Christianity. At the time of Christ these things were well known and didn't come to light later. Mitraism was a known religion, Osiris was a well known Egyptian god, and the Demeter/Perspohone and Ishtar/Tamuz stories were known as well.

They were known at the time, which is probably why the new religion, Christianity, was so easily patterned after them. Knowledge of these other myth-based religions faded as Christianity became the one true religion and information about other religions was not taught and was not available outside very learned circles. Even the Bible was not translated into the vernacular (German) until Luther and the printing press came along in the 1500's, so it's easy to see how knowledge of ancient myth-based religions faded over time.

Or, God took human form because, instead of writing on tablets or sending down thunderbolts, he wanted to talk to us directly.

2,000 years ago and not since, and borrowing on the stories of other mythical gods to do it. He sure works in mysterious ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes--pretty intellectually immature to think pointing out Mithra was born of a virgin and that resurrection is a mythological theme disproves Christianity. Every educated Christian theologian who studies Jesus and his times is very acquainted with these; it is not faith shaking news, much as PP seems to think it is.

One interpretation is that the devil planted these myths to try to shake people's faith. The devil knew that one day, these myths would come to light via scholarly study and that some people would interpret it as Jesus just being another iteration of the virgin birth/resurrected god story. These people would question and some would stop believing.

But true Christians with enough faith would be able to see through all of this as the devil's work. They wouldn't be fooled! Their faith would become stronger than before.

Sounds like your interpretation, one aimed at mocking Christianity. At the time of Christ these things were well known and didn't come to light later. Mitraism was a known religion, Osiris was a well known Egyptian god, and the Demeter/Perspohone and Ishtar/Tamuz stories were known as well.

They were known at the time, which is probably why the new religion, Christianity, was so easily patterned after them. Knowledge of these other myth-based religions faded as Christianity became the one true religion and information about other religions was not taught and was not available outside very learned circles. Even the Bible was not translated into the vernacular (German) until Luther and the printing press came along in the 1500's, so it's easy to see how knowledge of ancient myth-based religions faded over time.

Or, God took human form because, instead of writing on tablets or sending down thunderbolts, he wanted to talk to us directly.

2,000 years ago and not since, and borrowing on the stories of other mythical gods to do it. He sure works in mysterious ways.

Whatevs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes--pretty intellectually immature to think pointing out Mithra was born of a virgin and that resurrection is a mythological theme disproves Christianity. Every educated Christian theologian who studies Jesus and his times is very acquainted with these; it is not faith shaking news, much as PP seems to think it is.

One interpretation is that the devil planted these myths to try to shake people's faith. The devil knew that one day, these myths would come to light via scholarly study and that some people would interpret it as Jesus just being another iteration of the virgin birth/resurrected god story. These people would question and some would stop believing.

But true Christians with enough faith would be able to see through all of this as the devil's work. They wouldn't be fooled! Their faith would become stronger than before.

Sounds like your interpretation, one aimed at mocking Christianity. At the time of Christ these things were well known and didn't come to light later. Mitraism was a known religion, Osiris was a well known Egyptian god, and the Demeter/Perspohone and Ishtar/Tamuz stories were known as well.

They were known at the time, which is probably why the new religion, Christianity, was so easily patterned after them. Knowledge of these other myth-based religions faded as Christianity became the one true religion and information about other religions was not taught and was not available outside very learned circles. Even the Bible was not translated into the vernacular (German) until Luther and the printing press came along in the 1500's, so it's easy to see how knowledge of ancient myth-based religions faded over time.

Or, God took human form because, instead of writing on tablets or sending down thunderbolts, he wanted to talk to us directly.

2,000 years ago and not since, and borrowing on the stories of other mythical gods to do it. He sure works in mysterious ways.

Whatevs

Hey, Whatevs

The Mysteries concerning this original dying and resurrecting Solar godman though was known by many different names.

In the Greco-Syriac myth, the cult was held by women who worshiped the beautiful fertility god Adonis. Yearly carnivals called "Adonia" took place at Byblos and abroad to commemorate his demise and resurrection.

In Egypt, it was the goddess Isis and the resurrected Osiris.
In Anatolia, he was the youthful godman Attis, the Sun/Son of the goddess Cybele, who died, and three days later returned to life through the agency of his mother.
In Babylonia, he was Tammuz worshiped by the goddess Ishtar.
In the Old Testament, his disappearance is even mourned by the women of Jerusalem (Ezek. 8.14).
In Greece, its the Thracian god Dionysus in honor of the goddess Demeter and Persephone. His fanatical priestesses were called Maenads. In Rome, they were called the Bacchantes.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_33.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes--pretty intellectually immature to think pointing out Mithra was born of a virgin and that resurrection is a mythological theme disproves Christianity. Every educated Christian theologian who studies Jesus and his times is very acquainted with these; it is not faith shaking news, much as PP seems to think it is.

One interpretation is that the devil planted these myths to try to shake people's faith. The devil knew that one day, these myths would come to light via scholarly study and that some people would interpret it as Jesus just being another iteration of the virgin birth/resurrected god story. These people would question and some would stop believing.

But true Christians with enough faith would be able to see through all of this as the devil's work. They wouldn't be fooled! Their faith would become stronger than before.

Sounds like your interpretation, one aimed at mocking Christianity. At the time of Christ these things were well known and didn't come to light later. Mitraism was a known religion, Osiris was a well known Egyptian god, and the Demeter/Perspohone and Ishtar/Tamuz stories were known as well.

They were known at the time, which is probably why the new religion, Christianity, was so easily patterned after them. Knowledge of these other myth-based religions faded as Christianity became the one true religion and information about other religions was not taught and was not available outside very learned circles. Even the Bible was not translated into the vernacular (German) until Luther and the printing press came along in the 1500's, so it's easy to see how knowledge of ancient myth-based religions faded over time.

Or, God took human form because, instead of writing on tablets or sending down thunderbolts, he wanted to talk to us directly.

2,000 years ago and not since, and borrowing on the stories of other mythical gods to do it. He sure works in mysterious ways.

Whatevs

Hey, Whatevs

The Mysteries concerning this original dying and resurrecting Solar godman though was known by many different names.

In the Greco-Syriac myth, the cult was held by women who worshiped the beautiful fertility god Adonis. Yearly carnivals called "Adonia" took place at Byblos and abroad to commemorate his demise and resurrection.

In Egypt, it was the goddess Isis and the resurrected Osiris.
In Anatolia, he was the youthful godman Attis, the Sun/Son of the goddess Cybele, who died, and three days later returned to life through the agency of his mother.
In Babylonia, he was Tammuz worshiped by the goddess Ishtar.
In the Old Testament, his disappearance is even mourned by the women of Jerusalem (Ezek. 8.14).
In Greece, its the Thracian god Dionysus in honor of the goddess Demeter and Persephone. His fanatical priestesses were called Maenads. In Rome, they were called the Bacchantes.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_33.htm

OMG! You've totally upset us! You've upset all of us! Nobody who reads this will ever have faith again!

Not.

[Anonymous]

The site referenced doesn't actually say what PP quoted--some of which was wrong. Ishtar didn't worship Tamuz, for example, she was his mother.

The site is a mishmash of ideas about the Pagan origins of Christianity. What it really seems to be getting at is that ancient religious beliefs have a number of roots in pre-Copernican astronomy. This is an interesting field of study, but this site is far from one with any academic rigor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes--pretty intellectually immature to think pointing out Mithra was born of a virgin and that resurrection is a mythological theme disproves Christianity. Every educated Christian theologian who studies Jesus and his times is very acquainted with these; it is not faith shaking news, much as PP seems to think it is.

One interpretation is that the devil planted these myths to try to shake people's faith. The devil knew that one day, these myths would come to light via scholarly study and that some people would interpret it as Jesus just being another iteration of the virgin birth/resurrected god story. These people would question and some would stop believing.

But true Christians with enough faith would be able to see through all of this as the devil's work. They wouldn't be fooled! Their faith would become stronger than before.

Sounds like your interpretation, one aimed at mocking Christianity. At the time of Christ these things were well known and didn't come to light later. Mitraism was a known religion, Osiris was a well known Egyptian god, and the Demeter/Perspohone and Ishtar/Tamuz stories were known as well.

They were known at the time, which is probably why the new religion, Christianity, was so easily patterned after them. Knowledge of these other myth-based religions faded as Christianity became the one true religion and information about other religions was not taught and was not available outside very learned circles. Even the Bible was not translated into the vernacular (German) until Luther and the printing press came along in the 1500's, so it's easy to see how knowledge of ancient myth-based religions faded over time.

Or, God took human form because, instead of writing on tablets or sending down thunderbolts, he wanted to talk to us directly.

2,000 years ago and not since, and borrowing on the stories of other mythical gods to do it. He sure works in mysterious ways.

Whatevs

Hey, Whatevs

The Mysteries concerning this original dying and resurrecting Solar godman though was known by many different names.

In the Greco-Syriac myth, the cult was held by women who worshiped the beautiful fertility god Adonis. Yearly carnivals called "Adonia" took place at Byblos and abroad to commemorate his demise and resurrection.

In Egypt, it was the goddess Isis and the resurrected Osiris.
In Anatolia, he was the youthful godman Attis, the Sun/Son of the goddess Cybele, who died, and three days later returned to life through the agency of his mother.
In Babylonia, he was Tammuz worshiped by the goddess Ishtar.
In the Old Testament, his disappearance is even mourned by the women of Jerusalem (Ezek. 8.14).
In Greece, its the Thracian god Dionysus in honor of the goddess Demeter and Persephone. His fanatical priestesses were called Maenads. In Rome, they were called the Bacchantes.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_33.htm

OMG! You've totally upset us! You've upset all of us! Nobody who reads this will ever have faith again!

Not.

+1 a truly mature faith will not be shaken by facts, no matter how convincing. People who lack faith don't get this.