http://www.carm.org/evidence/mithra.htm
The lie concerning Mithra.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
http://www.carm.org/evidence/mithra.htmThe lie concerning Mithra.
What about the Lie concerning God ?
He copied Ahura Mazda
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
http://www.carm.org/evidence/mithra.htmThe lie concerning Mithra.
You cannot trust bias sources. Next time find a none bias site.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlivehttp://www.carm.org/evidence/mithra.htm
The lie concerning Mithra.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
http://www.crystalinks.com/mithraism.html
I don't beleive in Mithra. I don't beleive in your God either. ❌
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
http://www.carm.org/evidence/mithra.htmThe lie concerning Mithra.
How exactly does that site reveal a lie? A very basic history of the Mithric cult, finished off by noting their is strong support that Mithra influenced the creation of Christianity - which no matter how much Evangelical zeal you have can be denied as a valid debate amongst the historical community.
If I'm not mistaken, they also had several incursions into the Roman Emperorship.... (but that might have been another cult, i tend to get them confused) ...though they were not very successful. It was mostly the crazed desires of a Mitrhatic priestess, and she kept installing her (12 year old) children as Emperors...(well...at least twice).
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
How exactly does that site reveal a lie? A very basic history of the Mithric cult, finished off by noting their is strong support that Mithra influenced the creation of Christianity - which no matter how much Evangelical zeal you have can be denied as a valid debate amongst the historical community.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Mithra-Christianity-Zoroastrianism.html
Are the ideas of Jesus and Christianity borrowed from Mithra and Zoroastrianism?
Question: "Are the ideas of Jesus and Christianity borrowed from Mithra and Zoroastrianism?"
Answer: Did Judaism and Christianity borrow the Messiah, the resurrection and final judgment from Zoroastrianism / Mithra? Many doctrines of the Christian faith have parallels in Zoroastrianism, i.e. virgin birth, son of God, resurrection. Some scholars say that Zarathustra (a.k.a. Zoroaster) lived around 600-500 BC. If that were the case, David, Isaiah and Jeremiah (all of whom mention the Messiah, the resurrection and the final judgment in their writings), lived and wrote before Zarathustra. Some scholars say that Zoroaster lived sometime between 1500 and 1200 BC. If that were the case, the case for Christianity borrowing from Zoroastrianism would be stronger, but the fact is we don’t know when Zarathustra lived (hence the disagreement among scholars) and so this argument is speculative at best. The Greek historian Herodotus (5th Century BC) doesn’t mention him in his treatise on the Medo-Persian religions, though Plato, who was born roughly around the time Herodotus died, does mention him in his Alcibiades (see Wikipedia’s entry on Zoroaster; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster).
But establishing when Zarathustra lived is only the first step. Next we have to establish what he actually taught (as opposed to what modern Zoroastrianism claims he taught). The only source for Zarathustra’s teachings is the Avesta, and the oldest copies we have of the Avesta date from the 13th Century AD. The late date for this collection of writings lends no support whatsoever to the idea that Christians borrowed from Zoroastrianism (the oldest copies of the Jewish Scriptures which we have today date centuries before Christ and the oldest complete manuscripts of the Christian Scriptures we have date from the 4th Century AD).
This looks to me to be another case of skeptics citing a pre-Christian religion, assuming that the post-Christian form of the religion (which we know about) has remained faithful to the pre-Christian form of the religion (which we know nothing about), and speculating that the similarities between the religion and Christianity are due to Christianity borrowing from the religion in question. It’s a philosophical argument without solid evidence to back it up. Have we any good reason not to suppose that it was Zoroastrianism which borrowed from Christianity and not vice versa? We know that Zoroastrianism borrowed freely from the polytheistic faiths of the region in which it became popular. Mithra, for example, was a Persian god who found a prominent role in Zoroastrianism. Mithra’s Hindu counterpart is the god Mitra.
All philosophical arguments aside, we know that Jesus Christ was a real historical figure, that He fulfilled specific prophecies written and preserved hundreds of years before His life, that He died on a cross, and that He was reported to have risen from the dead and interacted with men and women who were willing to suffer horribly and die for this testimony.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
This looks to me to be another case of skeptics citing a pre-Christian religion, assuming that the post-Christian form of the religion (which we know about) has remained faithful to the pre-Christian form of the religion (which we know nothing about), and speculating that the similarities between the religion and Christianity are due to Christianity borrowing from the religion in question. It’s a philosophical argument without solid evidence to back it up.
Honestly. We can't even copy and paste a good sentance, let alone a factual one.
Don't get me wrong. There wer NO religions before Chirstianity. The "Christian prophecies" are even more vague than Nostrodamus'.