No more Horus and Mithras please

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s at least one atheist poster and one Christian poster who can’t seem to go of the mythological Horus and Mithras. Please give it up. It doesn’t matter if there’s anything to them being precedents to Jesus or not. Believers don’t rely on evidence; they rely on faith.

If they do weigh evidence about religion, they will eventually come out with their faith grown stronger, because that’s how it works with faith. If faith is deep, it will ultimately win out over any doubts, no matter how compelling the common sense or empirical evidence pointing away from faith claims. This is not to say that people with true religious faith are not logical or intelligent. Some are highly educated, hold demanding jobs and have studied religion in depth.

In many denominations, doubt itself is a not a bad thing and people are encouraged to let themselves doubt when questions arise. If a person investigates and weighs the evidence – not just about Horus and Mithras – but any challenge to their faith, and ultimately decides against faith, it just means their faith wasn’t strong enough. People who don’t lose their faith should not revile those who do. They should pity them and pray for them. If they change their minds before they die, Christianity still promises them eternal life.

I agree with the idea that believers should question their faith constantly, and that believers should meet any serious challenge with equally serious investigation.

The thing is, Horus and Mithras are a joke. They don't fall into the category of serious challenges to faith. I'm one of the over-educated history majors who sees them as more of an amusement. Trust me when I say that I read very widely, and I'm well aware of legitimate challenges to my particular faith and to the idea of God in general. H&M don't come anywhere close to being serious challenges, or to being the "evidence" the HM poster is always claiming, because as a historical matter the whole argument is wrong on the historical facts.

The HM argument seems reasonable only to people who know almost nothing about religion or history, who don't know enough to ask the more provoking questions, and who are happy to go with something that's obviously based on bad facts. That's what makes HM so amusing to this history major who welcomes a good history discussion, with bonus points for the ludicrous aspect.

There was another PP who said it succinctly, and I won't do him/her justice in rewording his/her idea. However, PP said that with so many myths around, it was only natural for religions to fold into each other. Romans, for example, absorbed Greek myths and tweaked them as a form of "ownership." It's only natural for cultures, once stronger ones have overpowered weaker ones, to absorb beliefs.

Horus and Mithras and Osiris were myths, as were stories from ancient Greece. They were created by people to help them understand their world at the time. And while there's a wide gap btw the Christ story (a story IMO) and Osiris' resurrection, for example, they still share a common thread.

Furthermore, Cain killed Abel just as Set killed Osiris. Claudius killed his brother in the famous Shakespearean play. So the stories live on.

bottom line - We borrow from each other. So I fail to see why people are up in arms over these myths.

I suppose it's hard for Christians to think that their god could stem from myths.

I agree that many stories are shared. The story of Noah wasn't the only flood story of its era, and in fact we have a friend who has been involved in underwater archaeology in the Black Sea to investigate this among other things.

The HM stories, however, are so far removed from the Christ story - factually in the case of Osirus' golden penis and chronologically in the case of Mithras - that the argument for a connection seems extremely weak. To a history buff like me, the fact that Mithras didn't appear among Roman soldiers until after Christ's death totally kills the whole Mithras claim, and there's no way anybody with an understanding of simple chronology could continue to insist that this is "evidence." So you can continue to insist that HM are "evidence," and you continue to think that Christians are just unwilling to accept the connection. We will continue to think that you're chronologically challenged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Furthermore, Cain killed Abel just as Set killed Osiris. Claudius killed his brother in the famous Shakespearean play. So the stories live on.

Logic, please. You say this like every story must be based on some earlier story. Not true. Sometimes stories (Hamlet) are based on timeless human truths. Brothers kill each other, and Shakespeare didn't have to look back to Cain and Able to come up with this plot line. Moreover, the story about Cain and Able doesn't invaldate actual incidents of fratricide that occur 1000s of years later. So why should some pre-existing story (involving far-fetched golden penises and/or chronological errors, no less) have any bearing on the truth of God sending Jesus?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Furthermore, Cain killed Abel just as Set killed Osiris. Claudius killed his brother in the famous Shakespearean play. So the stories live on.

Logic, please. You say this like every story must be based on some earlier story. Not true. Sometimes stories (Hamlet) are based on timeless human truths. Brothers kill each other, and Shakespeare didn't have to look back to Cain and Able to come up with this plot line. Moreover, the story about Cain and Able doesn't invaldate actual incidents of fratricide that occur 1000s of years later. So why should some pre-existing story (involving far-fetched golden penises and/or chronological errors, no less) have any bearing on the truth of God sending Jesus?

^^^ P.S. The logical fallacy involved here, with arguing that every story *must* be based on an earlier story, is called a non sequitur.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I agree that many stories are shared. The story of Noah wasn't the only flood story of its era, and in fact we have a friend who has been involved in underwater archaeology in the Black Sea to investigate this among other things.

The HM stories, however, are so far removed from the Christ story - factually in the case of Osirus' golden penis and chronologically in the case of Mithras - that the argument for a connection seems extremely weak. To a history buff like me, the fact that Mithras didn't appear among Roman soldiers until after Christ's death totally kills the whole Mithras claim, and there's no way anybody with an understanding of simple chronology could continue to insist that this is "evidence." So you can continue to insist that HM are "evidence," and you continue to think that Christians are just unwilling to accept the connection. We will continue to think that you're chronologically challenged.

Not necessarily -- the christ myth and the mithras myth could have developed independently, about the same time, based on earlier myths. As is well known, the first gospels weren't written until decades after the death of Jesus. And as others have said, the fact that myths are not identical doesn't mean they are not related - it suggests - as we already know from other myths from other civilizations, that similar themes are repeated across cultures.

[Anonymous]

Agree with PP about timeless universal themes.

One of these is the quest. The earliest written version I know is in the Epic of Gilgamesh. This also contains the earliest accounting of a flood story, but that is a a sideshow to the quest story. Then we have Jason and the Golden Fleece, the quest for the Holy Grail stories, on to the classic movie "The Seekers" and countless action and adventure movies.

Was The Seekers therefore based on the Epic of Gilgamesh? No--it is rather that both are stories reflecting the uniquely human restlessness that impels some to seek out something different that is physically or intellectually valuable.

As for the death and resurrection of Christ, there is no need to go to Egyptian mythology or a later Mithraic cult to see the theme. It is right there in ancient Semitic religion, and the template is the death of living things on earth and their revival with the seasons. Thus, we have the story of Inanna's descent to the netherworld to find her son Tammuz, a story reflected in Demeter's rescue of Persephone from Hades (again, there is a universality to the themes). The church fathers themselves saw Jesus's death and resurrection foreshadowed in Jonah's sojourn in the whale.

The point is the earth's tilting on its access that gives us the seasons sets up humans to be conditioned to believe that a period of darkness and death is followed by a period of lightness and life, and this natural optimism finds it way into countless stories including the Christ story.

Does this mean the Christ story is false? No, not necessarily, but it does connect believers to the great family of man from it's earliest times. Christianity is a faith that subsumes and builds upon all those universal human yearnings from the dawn of consciousness and does not deny them as some religions do. That is can do so regardless of geography is seen in its adoption of more northern midwinter festivals as a feast of Christ. In my view, this is one of Christianity's greatest strengths.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree that many stories are shared. The story of Noah wasn't the only flood story of its era, and in fact we have a friend who has been involved in underwater archaeology in the Black Sea to investigate this among other things.

The HM stories, however, are so far removed from the Christ story - factually in the case of Osirus' golden penis and chronologically in the case of Mithras - that the argument for a connection seems extremely weak. To a history buff like me, the fact that Mithras didn't appear among Roman soldiers until after Christ's death totally kills the whole Mithras claim, and there's no way anybody with an understanding of simple chronology could continue to insist that this is "evidence." So you can continue to insist that HM are "evidence," and you continue to think that Christians are just unwilling to accept the connection. We will continue to think that you're chronologically challenged.

Not necessarily -- the christ myth and the mithras myth could have developed independently, about the same time, based on earlier myths. As is well known, the first gospels weren't written until decades after the death of Jesus. And as others have said, the fact that myths are not identical doesn't mean they are not related - it suggests - as we already know from other myths from other civilizations, that similar themes are repeated across cultures.

Then the burden is on the HM poster to name this earlier, seminal myth and to establish links to both Mithras in Persia and Christ in Roman Jerusalem. Horus and Mithras are dead ends logically and chronologically, and the HM poster/Groundhog will continue to be mocked until she comes up with something more credible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree with PP about timeless universal themes.

One of these is the quest. The earliest written version I know is in the Epic of Gilgamesh. This also contains the earliest accounting of a flood story, but that is a a sideshow to the quest story. Then we have Jason and the Golden Fleece, the quest for the Holy Grail stories, on to the classic movie "The Seekers" and countless action and adventure movies.

Was The Seekers therefore based on the Epic of Gilgamesh? No--it is rather that both are stories reflecting the uniquely human restlessness that impels some to seek out something different that is physically or intellectually valuable.

As for the death and resurrection of Christ, there is no need to go to Egyptian mythology or a later Mithraic cult to see the theme. It is right there in ancient Semitic religion, and the template is the death of living things on earth and their revival with the seasons. Thus, we have the story of Inanna's descent to the netherworld to find her son Tammuz, a story reflected in Demeter's rescue of Persephone from Hades (again, there is a universality to the themes). The church fathers themselves saw Jesus's death and resurrection foreshadowed in Jonah's sojourn in the whale.

The point is the earth's tilting on its access that gives us the seasons sets up humans to be conditioned to believe that a period of darkness and death is followed by a period of lightness and life, and this natural optimism finds it way into countless stories including the Christ story.

Does this mean the Christ story is false? No, not necessarily, but it does connect believers to the great family of man from it's earliest times. Christianity is a faith that subsumes and builds upon all those universal human yearnings from the dawn of consciousness and does not deny them as some religions do. That is can do so regardless of geography is seen in its adoption of more northern midwinter festivals as a feast of Christ. In my view, this is one of Christianity's greatest strengths.

Very nicely put, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree that many stories are shared. The story of Noah wasn't the only flood story of its era, and in fact we have a friend who has been involved in underwater archaeology in the Black Sea to investigate this among other things.

The HM stories, however, are so far removed from the Christ story - factually in the case of Osirus' golden penis and chronologically in the case of Mithras - that the argument for a connection seems extremely weak. To a history buff like me, the fact that Mithras didn't appear among Roman soldiers until after Christ's death totally kills the whole Mithras claim, and there's no way anybody with an understanding of simple chronology could continue to insist that this is "evidence." So you can continue to insist that HM are "evidence," and you continue to think that Christians are just unwilling to accept the connection. We will continue to think that you're chronologically challenged.

Not necessarily -- the christ myth and the mithras myth could have developed independently, about the same time, based on earlier myths. As is well known, the first gospels weren't written until decades after the death of Jesus. And as others have said, the fact that myths are not identical doesn't mean they are not related - it suggests - as we already know from other myths from other civilizations, that similar themes are repeated across cultures.

Then the burden is on the HM poster to name this earlier, seminal myth and to establish links to both Mithras in Persia and Christ in Roman Jerusalem. Horus and Mithras are dead ends logically and chronologically, and the HM poster/Groundhog will continue to be mocked until she comes up with something more credible.

There's no burden on anyone to do anything here, except to act with a certain level of civility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree that many stories are shared. The story of Noah wasn't the only flood story of its era, and in fact we have a friend who has been involved in underwater archaeology in the Black Sea to investigate this among other things.

The HM stories, however, are so far removed from the Christ story - factually in the case of Osirus' golden penis and chronologically in the case of Mithras - that the argument for a connection seems extremely weak. To a history buff like me, the fact that Mithras didn't appear among Roman soldiers until after Christ's death totally kills the whole Mithras claim, and there's no way anybody with an understanding of simple chronology could continue to insist that this is "evidence." So you can continue to insist that HM are "evidence," and you continue to think that Christians are just unwilling to accept the connection. We will continue to think that you're chronologically challenged.

Not necessarily -- the christ myth and the mithras myth could have developed independently, about the same time, based on earlier myths. As is well known, the first gospels weren't written until decades after the death of Jesus. And as others have said, the fact that myths are not identical doesn't mean they are not related - it suggests - as we already know from other myths from other civilizations, that similar themes are repeated across cultures.

Then the burden is on the HM poster to name this earlier, seminal myth and to establish links to both Mithras in Persia and Christ in Roman Jerusalem. Horus and Mithras are dead ends logically and chronologically, and the HM poster/Groundhog will continue to be mocked until she comes up with something more credible.

There's no burden on anyone to do anything here, except to act with a certain level of civility.

True enough. But if you keep derailing threads by calling Horus and Mithras "evidence" of anything relevant, then people will laugh at you and call you Groundhog/Horus-Mithras Poster/Mithras Mary. That's just how it works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree with PP about timeless universal themes.

One of these is the quest. The earliest written version I know is in the Epic of Gilgamesh. This also contains the earliest accounting of a flood story, but that is a a sideshow to the quest story. Then we have Jason and the Golden Fleece, the quest for the Holy Grail stories, on to the classic movie "The Seekers" and countless action and adventure movies.

Was The Seekers therefore based on the Epic of Gilgamesh? No--it is rather that both are stories reflecting the uniquely human restlessness that impels some to seek out something different that is physically or intellectually valuable.

As for the death and resurrection of Christ, there is no need to go to Egyptian mythology or a later Mithraic cult to see the theme. It is right there in ancient Semitic religion, and the template is the death of living things on earth and their revival with the seasons. Thus, we have the story of Inanna's descent to the netherworld to find her son Tammuz, a story reflected in Demeter's rescue of Persephone from Hades (again, there is a universality to the themes). The church fathers themselves saw Jesus's death and resurrection foreshadowed in Jonah's sojourn in the whale.

The point is the earth's tilting on its access that gives us the seasons sets up humans to be conditioned to believe that a period of darkness and death is followed by a period of lightness and life, and this natural optimism finds it way into countless stories including the Christ story.

Does this mean the Christ story is false? No, not necessarily, but it does connect believers to the great family of man from it's earliest times. Christianity is a faith that subsumes and builds upon all those universal human yearnings from the dawn of consciousness and does not deny them as some religions do. That is can do so regardless of geography is seen in its adoption of more northern midwinter festivals as a feast of Christ. In my view, this is one of Christianity's greatest strengths.

Does it mean it's true, in terms of being factual, of actually having happened the way we can determine other things in history have happened? (e.g. the 1st century destruction of the temple, the 7th century BCE exile to Babylon)

No, it doesn't mean it's factual. Still, without being factual, it can have the value that any enduring story has -- and more value, perhaps, because so many people over the centuries have believed it as factual and have built a huge, ongoing enterprise out of it.

The difference between truth, as it's often used in religion or philosophy, and fact is very important. And it should also be clear that the opposite of "false" is not just "true" which can be a fuzzy, confusing term. "false" can also very clearly mean"not factual."

Seems like now some people are subtly changing the subject from "this really happened" to "this has value whether it happened or not (and by the way, it didn't)."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree that many stories are shared. The story of Noah wasn't the only flood story of its era, and in fact we have a friend who has been involved in underwater archaeology in the Black Sea to investigate this among other things.

The HM stories, however, are so far removed from the Christ story - factually in the case of Osirus' golden penis and chronologically in the case of Mithras - that the argument for a connection seems extremely weak. To a history buff like me, the fact that Mithras didn't appear among Roman soldiers until after Christ's death totally kills the whole Mithras claim, and there's no way anybody with an understanding of simple chronology could continue to insist that this is "evidence." So you can continue to insist that HM are "evidence," and you continue to think that Christians are just unwilling to accept the connection. We will continue to think that you're chronologically challenged.

Not necessarily -- the christ myth and the mithras myth could have developed independently, about the same time, based on earlier myths. As is well known, the first gospels weren't written until decades after the death of Jesus. And as others have said, the fact that myths are not identical doesn't mean they are not related - it suggests - as we already know from other myths from other civilizations, that similar themes are repeated across cultures.

Then the burden is on the HM poster to name this earlier, seminal myth and to establish links to both Mithras in Persia and Christ in Roman Jerusalem. Horus and Mithras are dead ends logically and chronologically, and the HM poster/Groundhog will continue to be mocked until she comes up with something more credible.

There's no burden on anyone to do anything here, except to act with a certain level of civility.

True enough. But if you keep derailing threads by calling Horus and Mithras "evidence" of anything relevant, then people will laugh at you and call you Groundhog/Horus-Mithras Poster/Mithras Mary. That's just how it works.

and others are laughing at the laughers.

[Anonymous]

Groundhog has seized upon HM as in his/her view it is evidence that the Jesus story was inspired by these myths and, thus, itself is a myth, showing that Jesus did not exist and Christians are seriously misguided or worse for believing in him and following cultic pagan Christian teachings.

That is why we get the constant groundhog day of the HM-Christ connection and when it repeatedly gets rejected on historical accuracy/chronology grounds, Groundhog segues immediately that none of our refutations of the HM-Christ axis proves that Jesus existed. Groundhog does not believe the historical references to Christ and his followers are solid enough to believe he physically existed. So, if he physically did not exist, he must be a myth dreamed up by a group of people in the first century AD.

But since, as Ecclesiastes says, there is nothing new under the sun, Groundhog feels the need to source the outlines of the cooked up Jesus myth and alights upon Horus and Mithra as the inspiration. Posters have pretty well demolished this last part of the Groundhog hypothesis.

There are other holes, however. In the mileu of the time--and actually of later times--those constructing elaborate theories that explain the secret of the universe have a very strong tendency to want to keep this knowledge to themselves and a chosen few. In other words, they are gnostic, and available only to select initiates. (Mithraism had strong overtones of gnosticism.) But the followers of Jesus felt impelled to spread the good news to whomever would listen--the very opposite of gnosticism. The gnostic offshoots that developed were early on denounced as antithetical to the message of Christ as most Christians saw it.

Groundhog's theory of the made up mythic origins of Christianity would perhaps historically makes sense in the context of a gnostic cult, but far less in the context of such an outward reaching religion as early Christianity.

The other hole in Groundhog's theory is that the basic message of Christianity is not that if you believe in his death and resurrection you will be saved. If Christianity were simply a pagan cult, that would naturally be the message. Rather, the overarching message of Christianity is that if you live a life loving others you will be saved. There are rituals that are outward signs you have accepted this message like baptism but they are secondary to the message. And belief in Jesus's death and resurrection underpins why loving others will save you but that belief alone is not sufficient, and in many versions of Christian teachings not strictly necessary to be saved if you live a life in accordance with Jesus's message of love.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree that many stories are shared. The story of Noah wasn't the only flood story of its era, and in fact we have a friend who has been involved in underwater archaeology in the Black Sea to investigate this among other things.

The HM stories, however, are so far removed from the Christ story - factually in the case of Osirus' golden penis and chronologically in the case of Mithras - that the argument for a connection seems extremely weak. To a history buff like me, the fact that Mithras didn't appear among Roman soldiers until after Christ's death totally kills the whole Mithras claim, and there's no way anybody with an understanding of simple chronology could continue to insist that this is "evidence." So you can continue to insist that HM are "evidence," and you continue to think that Christians are just unwilling to accept the connection. We will continue to think that you're chronologically challenged.

Not necessarily -- the christ myth and the mithras myth could have developed independently, about the same time, based on earlier myths. As is well known, the first gospels weren't written until decades after the death of Jesus. And as others have said, the fact that myths are not identical doesn't mean they are not related - it suggests - as we already know from other myths from other civilizations, that similar themes are repeated across cultures.

Then the burden is on the HM poster to name this earlier, seminal myth and to establish links to both Mithras in Persia and Christ in Roman Jerusalem. Horus and Mithras are dead ends logically and chronologically, and the HM poster/Groundhog will continue to be mocked until she comes up with something more credible.

There's no burden on anyone to do anything here, except to act with a certain level of civility.

True enough. But if you keep derailing threads by calling Horus and Mithras "evidence" of anything relevant, then people will laugh at you and call you Groundhog/Horus-Mithras Poster/Mithras Mary. That's just how it works.

and others are laughing at the laughers.

Be my guest! I don't think anybody here will lose sleep, though, over being laughed at by the H&M/Groundhog/Mithras Mary poster who thinks golden penises are "evidence."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Groundhog has seized upon HM as in his/her view it is evidence that the Jesus story was inspired by these myths and, thus, itself is a myth, showing that Jesus did not exist and Christians are seriously misguided or worse for believing in him and following cultic pagan Christian teachings.

That is why we get the constant groundhog day of the HM-Christ connection and when it repeatedly gets rejected on historical accuracy/chronology grounds, Groundhog segues immediately that none of our refutations of the HM-Christ axis proves that Jesus existed. Groundhog does not believe the historical references to Christ and his followers are solid enough to believe he physically existed. So, if he physically did not exist, he must be a myth dreamed up by a group of people in the first century AD.

But since, as Ecclesiastes says, there is nothing new under the sun, Groundhog feels the need to source the outlines of the cooked up Jesus myth and alights upon Horus and Mithra as the inspiration. Posters have pretty well demolished this last part of the Groundhog hypothesis.

There are other holes, however. In the mileu of the time--and actually of later times--those constructing elaborate theories that explain the secret of the universe have a very strong tendency to want to keep this knowledge to themselves and a chosen few. In other words, they are gnostic, and available only to select initiates. (Mithraism had strong overtones of gnosticism.) But the followers of Jesus felt impelled to spread the good news to whomever would listen--the very opposite of gnosticism. The gnostic offshoots that developed were early on denounced as antithetical to the message of Christ as most Christians saw it.

Groundhog's theory of the made up mythic origins of Christianity would perhaps historically makes sense in the context of a gnostic cult, but far less in the context of such an outward reaching religion as early Christianity.

The other hole in Groundhog's theory is that the basic message of Christianity is not that if you believe in his death and resurrection you will be saved. If Christianity were simply a pagan cult, that would naturally be the message. Rather, the overarching message of Christianity is that if you live a life loving others you will be saved. There are rituals that are outward signs you have accepted this message like baptism but they are secondary to the message. And belief in Jesus's death and resurrection underpins why loving others will save you but that belief alone is not sufficient, and in many versions of Christian teachings not strictly necessary to be saved if you live a life in accordance with Jesus's message of love.

^^groundhog debunker has entirely too much time on her hands.

[Anonymous]

Another problem with Groundhog's reasoning is the underlying syllogism. That is, even if the HM parallels made sense from a logical and chronological perspective (which they don't), that still doesn't establish a causal link or any other relationship. Correlation without causation.

It's like saying bananas and taxis are both yellow, therefore bananas and taxis are the same exact thing, or even that bananas caused taxis. Obviously, the existence of yellow bananas (HM) has no bearing whatsoever on the existence vs. non-existence of yellow taxis (Jesus).

(This is fun!)