patrick.net

And here's another classic video showing how Christianity is nothing but plagiarized Egyptian myths.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/ZZ0LmF4IlkU

Carbon dating doesn't lie.

And if that's not enough to nail this coffin...

http://www.youtube.com/embed/ljRKhZ81aqY

savethepopulation says

You have to have greater faith to be an atheist than believe in Jesus Christ. The "rational" choice based upon the evidence would lead one to belief in Jesus Christ.

Clearly you do not understand the nature of faith, the scientific process or what constitutes evidence.

Evidence by nature is an objective shared experience that we can all identify, i.e., we all can observe gravity or feel that water is wet. There is a great book that explains the scientific process very well: "Evaluating Scientific Research: Separating Fact from Fiction" I highly suggest it if you are acutally interested in how the scientific method works not the creationist straw man explanation of science.

Faith on the other hand, by nature, is irrational and completely lacking in physical evidence; all the "evidence" comes from internal feelings that can not be "shared" with others.

savethepopulation says

Being the only ancient text to have foretold countless events, you'd be a fool to dismiss it. The events foretold continue to unfold as we speak.

As a result of being in a predominately christian culture I have read rather extensively about claims on biblical prophesy coming true. I have yet to see any line of reasoning "proving" biblical prophecy (FYI, most are circular) that could not also be used to prove non-christian prophesy as well. I remain unconvinced.

savethepopulation says

I mean, what, somehow believing in God is more absurd than believing we are monkeys that came from some magical big bang?

First, you are doing something very common for anti-science christians and that is mixing two entirely separate theories as if they are one.

From a rational point of view, yes believing in god is more absurd because both evolution (more so) and the big bang (less so) have large amounts of scientific evidence supporting them. The idea of god(s) at all let alone the christian god has zero scientific evidence and by definition irrational.

However, with faith -- true faith -- you don't need any scientific evidence to believe god(s) is/are real. This feeling of truth and belief is part of the nature of humanity. If you held down Dan and strapped a god helmet on him even he would begin to know what true faith feels like.

savethepopulation says

There isn't a shred of evidence for "macro-evolution" upon which the shaky foundations of atheism are built.

Wow, I have not heard the whole macro/micro evolution excuse in a long time. It is a great example of the god of the gaps. There are mountains of evidence in support of evolution and accepting "microevolution" is just another example of how religion has "lost ground" to an ever increasing body of scientific knowledge.

Anyway, the point is somewhat moot. Evolution is not a "foundation" of atheism and is not mutually exclusive with religious belief. Many religious people smoothly integrate evolution in with their belief in god(s).

savethepopulation says

You talk about how many people "religion" has killed? How about atheism? Between atheist/evolutionists Mao, Lenin, Stalin and others, it's well over 100 million.

Cudos for not bringing up Hitler.

savethepopulation says

Countless archeological evidence continues to come out confirming the ancient events described in the Bible.

Yes, and using the same criteria for proof of the supernatural, archaeological evidence could also prove that the events and gods in the Odyssey and Iliad are also "real".

savethepopulation says

It is easier to say that God doesn't exist because most would rather continue to live in their sins than hold account, repent and live the correct lifestyle.

Ahhh... yes, here it is. The fundamental misunderstanding of why people don't believe. Not understanding the actual reasons why people don't believe is the biggest stumbling block to actually converting others. If you honestly want others to believe you first need to understand whey they don't believe your particular brand of "correct lifestyle".

... and then there is...

savethepopulation says

cognitive dissonance.

Yes, this is the reason why you search and study, then study and search to justify what you already know through your faith. Right?

Let go... accept it... reason and faith are mutually exclusive. If god(s) could be proven then there would be no need for faith and Dan would be the first one in line to get baptized. You will feel a burden lifted when you realize that you can stop trying to prove god, and that your faith is enough on its own.

leoj707 says

If god(s) could be proven then there would be no need for faith and Dan would be the first one in line to get baptized.

True

leoj707 says

Evidence by nature is an objective shared experience that we can all identify, i.e., we all can observe gravity or feel that water is wet.

What about historical evidence? I can't share the experience of the American Civil War but I believe it occurred nonetheless.

wthrfrk80 says

Are you referring to Russia and China?

Hmmm. Good point. However, there are other historical forces at play in those countries.

In the West, the King and Pope are separate offices.
In the East, the King chooses the Patriarch.
In the Far East, the Emperor is the go-between for Heaven and Earth.

Russia and China also started the 20th Century far more backward than Sweden or France, so we have to give them more time. Russia was probably 200-300 years behind Western Europe in 1920. It's also a multiethnic state of vast expanse. Comparative countries in Europe are far smaller and far more homogenous.

Ditto for China.

I suspect in a century, we'll see China and Russia continuing to catch up. They've already made massive strides just in the last 100 years. Think of it. In 1970, almost all electronics had to be imported to China. In 2010, they produce most of the worlds electronics.

Russia had next to no industry in 1901, next to no railroads, and east of the Urals there are only game tracks. Countries a tiny fraction of Russia's size like Czechoslovakia were industrial superpowers in comparison. 60 years later, the country is well connected, there's power in all the major cities, they churn out steel like nobody's business, and pump oil like mad.

They're beating the world's most industrialized nation that had 100-year head start on their own industrialization by putting the first satellite in space, the first animal in space, the first man into space, the first probe on the moon, the first woman in space, and the first Space Walk. Not to mention the fastest, deepest diving subs in which they still have the lead.

No doubt Russia of 2012 has problems, but Russia of 1901 was hicksville. Outside of Saint Petersburg, you'd have never known you were in the 20th Century, and it wasn't on par technologically (or socially, or artistically) with other European cities. Russians are leaders in all fields, but they still have internal problems from 1000 years of tyranny and underdevelopment to work out.

I think this rule certainly applies to Western Countries, and probably generally. Where it doesn't apply, other forces are at work.

For example, Brunei and Kuwait have tiny populations sitting on massive amounts of oil.

Technically, I'm an agnostic, but for expediency, I say atheist in conversation. For the most part, this is because in my years of experience, saying you are agnostic just opens the door for some religious person to try and convert you. As a generally non-religious person, you have to deal with a lot of people trying to save you at family or extended-family functions.

In non-family affairs, they come to your door. I work from home and have had probably 30 religious nuts come to my door over the last 5 years. WTF is that about? Not once in my life has an atheist knocked on my door to convince me to be an atheist. The asymmetry is high it is ridiculous for religious people to complain about the atheists. If you put up a no-soliciting sign, the religious people somehow think they are not soliciting.

Toe jam says

I think you'll find they write more of the textbooks,

You mean anybody with the last name "Herschel" who writes a textbook? That's like saying anybody with the last name "Ferraro" must be writing from a Catholic point of view.

If you mean that the media and congress are ludicrously pro-Israel, even when it kills US interests elsewhere, then I agree.

YesYNot says

Not once in my life has an atheist knocked on my door to convince me to be an atheist.

*ahem*
http://www.youtube.com/embed/v-bWz74h518

wthrfrk80 says

leoj707 says

Evidence by nature is an objective shared experience that we can all identify, i.e., we all can observe gravity or feel that water is wet.

What about historical evidence? I can't share the experience of the American Civil War but I believe it occurred nonetheless.

Sure you can there is a lot of physical evidence concerning the civil war.

We can know a lot about what happened in history and how people lived through writings and physical evidence that corroborate with each other. The civil war is easy because it was not that long ago and the evidence that it happened is mountainous.

The book of mormon is a good example of when physical evidence exposes a work as having a high probability of being fabricated.

There is no evidence that there was a Jesus, not even a wholly mortal, hippie preacher Jesus. None. The only thing we have is religious writings that come decades after Jesus allegedly lived, and even with 200 years of pious interpolations, their stories don't match, and they contradict not only each other, but other, non-religious historical writings of Josephus and Philo, as well as Roman Records, and archeology.

1500 years of Bias is hard to overcome, but most already agree that Moses, Joshua, etc. were myths. Jesus is the last stumbling block, and will be the hardest because liberal Christians and even agnostics and some atheists (who are steeped in the Western Tradition) will fight hard to keep some kind of historical Jesus alive.

Tradition is a bitch.

For your enjoyment:

And this food is called among us Eucharistia, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body"; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood"; and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
- First Apology; Justin Martyr, 150 CE

thunderlips11 says

There is no evidence that there was a Jesus, not even a wholly mortal, hippie preacher Jesus. None. The only thing we have is religious writings that come decades after Jesus allegedly lived, and even with 200 years of pious interpolations, their stories don't match, and they contradict not only each other, but other, non-religious historical writings of Josephus and Philo, as well as Roman Records, and archeology.

Well that depends on who you talk to. Who should I believe?

thunderlips11 says

Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
- First Apology; Justin Martyr, 150 CE

Well Justin Martyr seems to be claiming that Mithraism ripped off the ritual from the Christians. Is there a way to tell, in an unbiased manner, who ripped off who?

wthrfrk80 says

Well that depends on who you talk to. Who should I believe?

No one. ;) But I think it's important to consider that Bible Scholars aren't historians nor archeologists, and the vast majority of them were educated as, by, and because of Belief and Belivers.

As of the 90s, there isn't even a consensus on methodology by Bible Scholars, including the more liberal ones. The discipline is completely adrift.

wthrfrk80 says

Well Justin Martyr seems to be claiming that Mithraism ripped off the ritual from the Christians. Is there a way to tell, in an unbiased manner, who ripped off who?

Good question. First mention of Mithras is 300s BC. First temple of Mithra and first written mentions of Mithraic rites is middle last century BC. By the 1st Century AD, Mithraism in it's classic form (communal rites, grades of initiates, etc.) is widespread around the Roman World.

Earliest Christian texts are believed to be no earlier than 50AD. First Christian churches don't appear for another century. The population of Christians around 100AD is believed to be quite small.

Edit: Said "Middle 100s BC", which would imply ~150BC. It actually more like ~50 BC.

I tend to believe that Jesus really existed and said most of the things attributed to him in the gospels. Is there some reason I should not?

I just don't know whether to believe the "weird" stuff like the miracles. That stuff is about a 10 out of 10 on my 'weird-shit-o-meter' as Will Smith said in MIB.

wthrfrk80 says

I tend to believe that Jesus really existed and said most of the things attributed to him in the gospels. Is there some reason I should not?

Right. Well, look, I'm open to the idea of an HJ, though I am slowly leaning to MJ.

We'll never know the truth, in all likelihood.

There is some evidence that Jesus could be the Jesus who was stoned and hanged, which led Paul to mention he was talking about another Jesus (or an interpolator to clarify that in the face of later criticism while evangelising), and the later Gospel authors made the hanged Jesus into Judas. And a thousand other stories that could be likely about a real HJ.

What makes me lean towards MJ slightly is that if you strip out all the later interpolations, Paul is talking only about a Messiah (Christ), who appeared to him in a vision, of whom he is a messenger of "Mysteries". The Gospels come decades after Paul.

But that's not 100%, either. I do think that the Jesus of the Bible is definitely related to the Platonic Logos in some way.

I don't know what you mean by MJ or HJ? Myth Jesus and Hippie Jesus?

You didn't really answer my question about whether the gospels are an accurate recording of the words of Jesus. What are the problems that prevent an ordinary reading of the gospel texts? Yes, the miracle stuff is weird, but what about the teachings of Jesus?

wthrfrk80 says

I don't know what you mean by MJ or HJ? Myth Jesus and Hippie Jesus?

Sorry. Myth Jesus versus Historical Jesus.

wthrfrk80 says

You didn't really answer my question about whether the gospels are an accurate recording of the words of Jesus.

No.

We don't even know who wrote them. For example, nowhere in earliest Mark copies does it say "I, Mark, wrote this Gospel".

But that's just the beginning. They are packed with alternate phrasings, ommissions, and interpolations. Here's one of the most well known ones:

Our earliest whole copies of the Gospel of Mark from the 3rd Century ends at 16:8.

Then, there are three (!!!) other alternative endings, a short one and a long one, and another found in one other 4th C text.

Here is the Shorter additional ending:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+16%3A8&version=NIV

Here is the Longer additional ending:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%2016:9-16:20&version=KJV

And there is yet another ending:
http://www.usccb.org/bible/mark/16/

Was Mark appended to by later pious forgeries? Did they copy margin notes a minister made into the text? Maybe the earliest copies are incomplete and one of the three other longer versions are correct?

There's no way to know.

This is just the biggest and most obvious example from the NT. There are many more examples of pious forgery and interpolation and varying texts. Some of it is not doubt attributed to mundane, honest causes. But some of it deals with things we know early Christians debated fiercely amongst themselves.

I'm aware of the different endings of Mark, yes. Most educated Christians are as well. Yes, there was fierce debate in Christianity, especially over Christ's nature (and all of the related "heresies" like Arianism, Modalism, etc.). That is not denied by most believers I know.

Are there other examples of "pious forgery" in addition to the ending of Mark?

Many, many examples. Here's a few:

One major pious fraud is Matthew 28:16
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

That's almost certainly a pious fraud. Why? Because if the early Christians knew of this passage, what were they fighting about for 200-300 years regarding Christology and the Trinity?

An Orthodoxy Christian could simply point out Mark 28:16 to a heretic and be done with it, if it had existed at the time.

(Or, if it did exist, why wouldn't a heretic accept it? Maybe because there were so many versions of various writings, people only believed the versions they wanted to believe. Some in the Jesus Seminar think the whole chapter was a later interpolation).

There are several other famous interpolations, of which there is plenty of consensus.

1 Thess. 2:14-16 Paul says God's wrath is on Jews; yet elsewhere (in Thessalonians and Romans) states God's wrath is in the future, that Israel will be expressly saved by God, and that Jews are congregants in his Church. Likely an anti-Jewish interpolation later.

1 Cor. 14:33-25 Paul contracts his writings just a bit earlier from Chapter 11, where he states women can pray and prophecy, so long as they wear hats. Anti-female interpolation, much like the next one...

Here's another biggie:
The entire John (7:53 onwards) episode with the adulteress may be a forgery. It doesn't exist in the two earliest whole gospels of John we have, or in fragments prior that. That would be the "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone... sin no more" type stuff.

Now Jerome says some bad eggs took that out (Jealous Husbands!) of the Gospel of John, but again, the earliest copies don't have it. It could be as Jerome says, or it could have been added in one place and then migrates to another, or then disappears in the first place where it was original (or originally interpolated) and is reinserted later. And we have an admission by an Early Christian Leader that taking things in and out of the Bible happened!

What else happened to John - not to mention the other Gospels and Letters - that we nor Jerome, nor any other scribe, knew about?

If additions or omissions happen in later copies we can verify, it almost certainly happened earlier when we can't verify.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericope_Adulter%C3%A6
http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html

Here's another problem, a textual variation, not an interpolation, but one with massive theological implications:
1 Corinthians 15:51
1. “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed” (majority text from Latin Vulgate lineage)
2. "We shall not all sleep, nor shall we all be changed" (Chester Beatty Papyrus)
From the various versions of the Sinaicitus and Vaticanus Bibles (300-400AD):
3. "We shall all sleep, but we shall not all be changed”
4. "We shall all sleep, and we shall all be changed”
5. "We shall all rise, but we shall not all be changed”

Which one is the correct version? Each one entails some pretty major big deal differences in theology. Items 2-5 are found in some of the oldest fragments and whole NTs we have.

thunderlips11 says

"We didn't rip off Mithra, the Devil anticipated Jesus and invented a Religion with a similar communal meal, so as to head off Christianity and mislead mankind!"

This is known among Theologians as "Diabolical Mimicry". They had to acknowledge that it had been done already by Mithra prior to the Jesus followers. They deduced that the devil came to earth prior to Jesus to throw people off the path of salvation.

wthrfrk80 says

I tend to believe that Jesus really existed and said most of the things attributed to him in the gospels. Is there some reason I should not?

I just don't know whether to believe the "weird" stuff like the miracles. That stuff is about a 10 out of 10 on my 'weird-shit-o-meter' as Will Smith said in MIB.

Again, I think Christian scholars who are objective have long recognized that ALL that Jesus did or said had been done or said before he "existed". They have reasoned that this should not affect your faith.

The words we attribute to Jesus had long been recorded as the words of others prior to the NT.

thunderlips11 says

The entire John (7:53 onwards) episode with the adulteress may be a forgery. It doesn't exist in the two earliest whole gospels of John we have, or in fragments prior that. That would be the "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone... sin no more" type stuff.

I have heard of that one yes. Many bibles have a note saying "the earliest manuscripts don't have the following" just like they do for the ending of Mark.

thunderlips11 says

That's almost certainly a pious fraud. Why? Because if the early Christians knew of this passage, what were they fighting about for 200-300 years regarding Christology and the Trinity?

I thought they were arguing about the true nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and not whether those "beings" existed. They argued if the Son was equal to the Father. They argued if the Son was created by the Father in time, or if the Son had always existed for all eternity.

CL says

Again, I think Christian scholars who are objective have long recognized that ALL that Jesus did or said had been done or said before he "existed". They have reasoned that this should not affect your faith.
The words we attribute to Jesus had long been recorded as the words of others prior to the NT.

That's a pretty staggering claim. Where were these words and sayings recorded? Is there evidence for that?

I tend not to believe in Christianity because of the miracles. That's weird stuff. But all of these "conspiracy theories" regarding early Christianity are new to me.

thunderlips11 says

1 Thess. 2:14-16 Paul says God's wrath is on Jews; yet elsewhere (in Thessalonians and Romans) states God's wrath is in the future, that Israel will be expressly saved by God, and that Jews are congregants in his Church. Likely an anti-Jewish interpolation later.

There's a distinction between the Jewish authorities (the Pharasees and Saducees that opposed the early church) and ordinary Jews who joined the Christian movement. Could that account for the difference? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just interested. This is interesting stuff, at least to me.

Toe jam says

What about the 'Yahweh Freaks'? The Jews. Do they catch any flack for being religious meddlers? Or is it just their exported religion, Christianity?

Hey, I've always firmly held the ground that there is no god, no god of any type. And then people like Marcus bitch and moan that I'm over-generalizing. Now that I disproved a specific mythology, you guys are bitching and moaning that I'm being to specific?

Yes, all religious beliefs are wrong. Yes, all religions are false. Yes, all gods are false. Yes, all superstitions are false. Yes, all religious beliefs are dangerous because they reduce rationality and can be used to make people do horrific things like -- well, normally I'd give about 100 examples, but I've done that in so many other threads. Let's just say it ain't a coincidence that the religious tend to hate gays and oppose gay rights.

As for Jews in particular… Religion, like all evils, can be throttled. Prior to 100 A.D., the Jews were pretty damn nasty with the warfare and tribal fighting and all. But they've been pretty quite for two millennia, so they are hardly the threat to freedom that Christianity is, particularly in the United States.

The worst case you can make is, of course, the Israel-Palestinian conflict, but that whole region of the world is totally fucked up, and it's because of religion.

YesYNot says

Technically, I'm an agnostic, but for expediency, I say atheist in conversation.

Yeah, guess what, it's also available everywhere else on the web!

When your ready to come out of the closet, we'll be ready to support you!

Take that sucka!

thunderlips11 says

There is no evidence that there was a Jesus, not even a wholly mortal, hippie preacher Jesus. None.

Actually there is. They found his bones!

New scientific evidence, including DNA analysis conducted at one of the world's foremost molecular genetics laboratories, as well as studies by leading scholars, suggests a 2,000-year-old Jerusalem tomb could have once held the remains of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.

Five of the 10 discovered boxes in the Talpiot tomb were inscribed with names believed to be associated with key figures in the New Testament: Jesus, Mary, Matthew, Joseph and Mary Magdalene. A sixth inscription, written in Aramaic, translates to "Judah Son of Jesus."

In addition to the "Judah son of Jesus" inscription, which is written in Aramaic on one of the ossuaries, another limestone burial box is labeled in Aramaic with "Jesus Son of Joseph." Another bears the Hebrew inscription "Maria," a Latin version of "Miriam," or, in English, "Mary." Yet another ossuary inscription, written in Hebrew, reads "Matia," the original Hebrew word for "Matthew." Only one of the inscriptions is written in Greek. It reads, "Mariamene e Mara," which can be translated as, "Mary known as the master."

Of course, you'll never get acceptance of this fact because it completely disproves the resurrection of Jesus, and without the resurrection, the whole scam of Christianity in all its sects is off. So there will never be acceptance of this fact no matter how much physical evidence there is.

I've always suspected that most Christians don't believe in Christ, but they want to continue the lie at all costs. The lie is what gives them power, and that's all that matters to them.

wthrfrk80 says

Is there a way to tell, in an unbiased manner, who ripped off who?

Carbon dating.

The older myths are thousands of years older. It's not subtle.

wthrfrk80 says

Is there some reason I should not?

So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.

Does that sound like the words of a god, or some asshole trying to get the peasants to pay their taxes?

Let's bring this conversation back into focus. I've given four videos that completely discredit the Jesus myth and all of Christianity. No one is even attempting to refute the facts presented in them.

Acceptance of those indisputable facts demands an utter rejection of Christianity. So, unless you want to convert to Judaism, Islam, or Hinduism, can't we all just admit that all religions are scams and that no person has ever talked with a god, any god?

The evidence against Christianity is more than overwhelming. And since the religion you really want to protect is indefensible, why would you be interested in defending religion in general?

Whatever you think you're getting from religion, can be gotten from much better places.

wthrfrk80 says

That's a pretty staggering claim. Where were these words and sayings recorded? Is there evidence for that

Jesus was a good Jew. As such, nearly everything he said was in the Hebrew Scriptures (especially when the authors targeted Jews as their audience).

But a lot is an amalgam of famous sayings that came before him, including the famous Greek philosophers.

Even resurrection is not new in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Let me ask you, what DID he say or do that was new?

savethepopulation says

You have to have greater faith to be an atheist than believe in Jesus Christ. The "rational" choice based upon the evidence would lead one to belief in Jesus Christ.

ehhh, there is no evidence that "Jesus Christ' as depicted in the Gospels of the New Testament ever existed.

Did man create God or did God create MAN? hmmm

CL says

Jesus was a good Jew. As such, nearly everything he said was in the Hebrew Scriptures (especially when the authors targeted Jews as their audience).

Well yes he quoted from the Hebrew scriptures. No one denies that. Examples of that are recorded in the gospels. I haven't studied every Jewish writing though, so I can't really comment on exactly what things Jesus said was new. I suppose I should get a history or theology degree.

Dan8267 says

When your ready to come out of the closet, we'll be ready to support you!

If this is directed at me, I don't care all that much about figuring out the difference between agnostic and atheist. I freely admit that I'd bet against god at 9:1 odds without thinking twice. On the other hand, I appreciate your gusto & the links to Egypt were great.

The door to door atheist video was great too.

YesYNot says

If this is directed at me

Just trying to show support. I was in the closet all during high school, even accepting Pascal's Wager as an excuse.

But now I'm out and flaming, and I couldn't be happier! It's very liberating.

Let's bring this conversation back into focus. I've given four videos that completely discredit the Jesus myth and all of Christianity. No one is even attempting to refute the facts presented in them.

You might like to do a Google search. Those videos come from the crank end of the internet. The statements made in them do not belong to history, and are not accepted by reputable historians. You can find this out very easily, if you try! Zeitgeist and its ilk are not reputable, because the facts are either wrong, or selected to mislead.

Be sceptical.

The evidence against Christianity is more than overwhelming.

You're entitled to your opinion. Unfortunately the position you talk for seems to be to believe what is convenient; and it would be hard to think of any position for which there was less to be said. This is, indeed, so much the case that most people who hold this position take refuge in evasions like "I don't have to prove anything/I don't have any beliefs/Prove to me that I believe that" and the like.

Whatever we believe, it should be possible to state it, and offer evidence for it. Most of those who post stuff from Zeitgeist can do neither.

Again, be sceptical.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse says

The statements made in them do not belong to history, and are not accepted by reputable historians.

Evidence? The Horus myth is very well-documented on Egyptian ruins. Those ruins predate Christianity.

Now, I have heard before that we should discard all fossil evidence because paleontologists don't actually believe that dinosaurs lived over 65 million years ago. I've also heard that scientists don't agree that global warming is happening. But I tend to be skeptical about those statements.

Roger Pearse says

You're entitled to your opinion.

Whether or not Jesus Christ was a god, and whether or not the Christian myths were plagiarized from earlier myths is not an opinion but a matter of fact. Whether or not Jesus looked fat in those robes is an opinion.

I happened to see this discussion, and Mithras is one of my interests. I wonder if I might contribute? There is a fearful amount of rubbish on the web about Mithras, most of it inspired by religious malice rather than interest in the subject. It can be hard for ordinary people to know when they're being gulled.

wthrfrk80 says

"Well that depends on who you talk to. Who should I believe?"

No one. ;) But I think it's important to consider that Bible Scholars aren't historians nor archeologists, and the vast majority of them were educated as, by, and because of Belief and Belivers. (etc)

Just as a side note, you appear to be accepting that bible scholars in secular universities don't agree with you?

This, IIUC, is all about whether Jesus of Nazareth existed. If so, all you would need to do now is produce some ancient historians and archaeologists who DO agree with you, and some quotes (with references) that indicate that they speak for the consensus in their discipline, and discussion can proceed.

But I rather think that you will find this difficult, since none of them do. It's a crank view.

wthrfrk80 says

"Well Justin Martyr seems to be claiming that Mithraism ripped off the ritual from the Christians. Is there a way to tell, in an unbiased manner, who ripped off who?"

I would have thought that, unless there was evidence to the contrary, that Justin's statement stands. He was, after all, there. There is no other evidence. However it should be remembered that his statement probably only applies to Rome. Perhaps a group of Mithras cultists celebrating one of the seven ritual meals had, for some reason, decided to take the mick out of the Christians. It is, after all, not unknown for people to do this now.

Good question. First mention of Mithras is 300s BC. First temple of Mithra and first written mentions of Mithraic rites is middle last century BC.

Erm, no. First mention of Mithras is 80 AD, in Statius. First archaeology is ca. 100 AD. There is no evidence that Mithras existed prior to this (although of course the cult must have had time to come into being, so say 50 AD).

The "mention of Mithraic rites" in question is in Plutarch (ca. 110 AD), who says that the Cilician pirates in 68BC worshipped Mithras and that his mysteries have been celebrated ever since. But unfortunately the archaeology in Cilicia for Mithras suggests that the cult arrived there only much later. So modern scholars tend to think that Plutarch was confusing Zoroastrianism (including the cult of Persian Mitra, followed by semi-Persian rulers like Mithradates V of Pontus) with the Roman cult. The two are distinct, and older literature did not always realise this. Zoroastrianism is, of course, much more ancient, but certainly did not feature ritual meals of bread and water!

By the 1st Century AD, Mithraism in it's classic form (communal rites, grades of initiates, etc.) is widespread around the Roman World.

There is no evidence for this claim. The heyday of the cult is the 2nd century, from the archaeology.

Earliest Christian texts are believed to be no earlier than 50AD. First Christian churches don't appear for another century. The population of Christians around 100AD is believed to be quite small.

I note no evidence offered for these claims -- perhaps they are true? -- either, although I don't see the relevance.

But what is much, much worse, is that the argument made is unstated, and instead insinuated: that Mithras came first, therefore the Christians must have borrowed from it, despite their hostility to paganism.

Quite why we should believe this we are not told. It's telling that the argument is NOT made explicitly; generally arguments that are not made explicitly are arguments which the author knows will not stand examination.

When we look at the argument, it looks weird. Paganism was syncretic. The temples of Mithras include things borrowed from other pagan cults. Christianity was not and is not syncretic. Those who claim it is, mostly are making this kind of argument so their claims are circular. Indeed the claims tend to be made only by people who evidently know very little about ancient paganism, but are determined to stick it to the Christians by accusing them of something that they know the Christians won't like and don't do.

The argument type looks very bogus to me. It seems to be derived from old 19th century extreme protestant arguments against Catholicism -- that catholic rites and saints were sometimes borrowed in late antiquity from pagan cults. There actually IS some evidence for this, in the transition from paganism. But the argument has been chopped down and repositioned as an argument against Christianity; and the evidence is all fake. It's quite amusing, tho, to see atheism as the heir to fundamentalist protestantism in this way, isn't it!?

I hope that helps. I would refer readers interested in Mithras to the Wikipedia article for more information. Unfortunately it was vandalised by a troll in 2011 who fought a long edit war to drive off the real contributors, and then interspersed it with rubbish referenced to unreliable and elderly sources, and deleted useful content. The version from December 2010 is probably a good source, fully referenced and with links through to sources.

Your best modern scholarly account is Manfred Clauss, "The Roman cult of Mithras", translated by Richard Gordon. It's the standard undergraduate handbook on the subject.

Pagan cults were not like Christianity, in type. They were themselves, funnily enough! Christianity replaced them precisely because it offered something that they did not.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Dan8267 says

Roger Pearse says
The statements made in them do not belong to history, and are not accepted by reputable historians.

Evidence? The Horus myth is very well-documented on Egyptian ruins. Those ruins predate Christianity.

The cult of Horus appears on ancient Egyptian ruins. But quite how that is relevant, or helps your case, you do not say. The internet claims about Horus are, in the main, either false, or else deliberately selection of minor late items which bear no resemblance to the details given in the main handbooks.

But you've chosen to defend your claim -- what was it, precisely? -- about Horus. Well, may I suggest that you do just that? -- write it out, and reference it to the ancient sources. Then we can see what, if any, evidence there is.

And ... have a look around the web. There was a very long thread on Internet Infidels about the Horus claims of Acharya S, which delved into the detail and concluded that -- as usual -- she was engaged in telling a fairy-story.

By the way, it isn't accidental that people pushing these ideas try to use videos. They run much less risk of knowledgeable people picking up their tripe in Google and intervening. :)

All the best,

Roger Pearse