Posted on 10/27/2005 11:50:06 AM PDT by emiller
"No piling on. Just an accurate description of your posts and you as you show yourself."
- I love arrogant people, they are so easy.
"None of the practices mentioned are Mithraic Frenetic"
- http://www.thebookofdays.com/months/dec/25.htm
"Though Christian nations have thus, from an early period in the history of the church, celebrated Christmas about the period of the winter-solstice or the shortest day, it is well known that many, and, indeed, the greater number of the popular festive observances by which it is characterized, are referable to a much more ancient origin. Amid all the pagan nations of antiquity, there seems to have been a universal tendency to worship the sun as the giver of life and light, and the visible manifestation of the Deity. Various as were the names bestowed by different peoples on this object of their worship, he was still the same divinity. Thus, at Rome, he appears to have been worshipped under one of the characters attributed to Saturn, the father of the gods; among the Scandinavian nations he was known under the epithet of Odin or Woden, the father of Thor, who seems after-wards to have shared with his parent the adoration bestowed on the latter, as the divinity of which the 'sun was the visible manifestation; whilst with the ancient Persians, the appellation for the god of lights was Mithras, apparently the same as the Irish Mithr, and with the Phoenicians or Carthaginians it was Baal or Bel, an epithet familiar to all students of the Bible."
Here's some more
"In the early ages of Christianity, its ministers frequently experienced the utmost difficulty in inducing the converts to refrain from indulging in the popular amusements which were so largely participated in by their pagan countrymen. Among others, the revelry and license which characterized the Saturnalia called for special animadversion. But at last, convinced partly of the inefficacy of such denunciations, and partly influenced by the idea that the spread of Christianity might thereby be advanced, the church endeavored to amalgamate, as it were, the old and new religious, and sought, by transferring the heathen ceremonies to the solemnities of the Christian festivals, to make them subservient to the cause of religion and piety. A compromise was thus effected between clergy and laity, though it must be admitted that it proved anything but a harmonious one, as we find a constant, though ineffectual, proscription by the ecclesiastical authorities of the favorite amusements of the people, including among others the sports and revelries at Christmas.
Ingrafted thus on the Romani Saturnalia, the Christmas festivities received in Britain further changes and modifications, by having superadded to them, first, the Druidical rites and superstitions, and then, after the arrival of the Saxons, the various ceremonies practiced by the ancient Germans and Scandinavians. The result has been the strange medley of Christian and pagan rites which contribute to make up the festivities of the modern Christmas. Of these, the burning of the Yule log, and the superstitions connected with the mistletoe have already been described under Christmas Eve, and further accounts are given under separate heads, both under the 24th and 25th of December."
Frenetic,
You wrote:
”To those that are reading these…this is a classic case of what’s called ‘circular logic’. It is the tactic of people who can’t answer the question because by doing so would prove themselves wrong.”
Incredible. You’re indicting yourself. You asked questions that have nothing to do with the Mithras cult – which is what we’re arguing about – then you admit there are no answers anyway. Please tell me when the current Chinese occupation of Japan will end? What’s that? China hasn’t invaded Japan? If it did it would still have nothing to do with Mithraic cult history you say? Why you’re using circular logic! Incredible.
“Here is why it is not worthless. If the date of Christ’s birth is not revealed in the bible, and Dec. 25th was picked from a host of other days it was being celebrated at the time, there must have been a reason to pick that day, and if that day had a reason behind it definitely had nothing to do with the scriptures or with Christianity itself making the celebration of that day pagan by definition.”
No. December 25th is December 25th. There is nothing about that makes it “pagan by definition.” It is a date. No date is pagan by definition. You’re not making sense. Besides, I already posted irrefutable evidence that Christians picked Dec. 25th IN OPPOSITION Mithraic practices. That makes Dec. 25th choice by the Church anti-pagan by definition. You keep ignoring the evidence of this I posted because you know it destroys your flimsy argument.
“vladimir998 you posted what you deemed a “reliable source” in a previous post. In my last post to you I cited reference from your own source agreeing with me. http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9312fea1.asp “
No, you didn’t. Stop lying. Here’s how I’ll prove you’re lying: show me where in the section you cut and pasted it says anything about Mithraic worship practices being incorporated into Christianity. When you can show one MITHRAIC practice from that source (none are in fact mentioned in what you quoted) you’ll be shown to be lying. Go at it Frenetic. Remember, we’re looking for the word MITHRAIC.
”Have been all along.”
You think “piss off” is mature?
“Have I insulted you in any way?”
Well, I do find your ignorance insulting, yes.
“Have I called you a liberal?”
Nope, but then again that is what you are and I am not like you in belief,
“Did I mock your intelligence?”
Nope, but I never mocked your either. You have to have it first.
“Did I suggest that you are immature?”
Perhaps. But there would be no point to that.
“And I’m the one who needs to grow up? LOL...look in the mirror.”
I don’t write things as if I were a teenager – “pissed off” – makes you sound like your 14. Then again you were already told that by someone else.
”Do you even know what the term paganism means? Look it up and then apologize to me later.”
I know the definition better than you do. The point is we are not talking about pagans in general or of just anytime or anyplace. Mithras cult is the topic. You keep trying to change the topic because your arguments is lousy.
”I just cited evidence from your own “reputable” source.”
No you didn’t. Again you are trying bait and switch and it won’t work. No where in what you quoted did you find anything from Mithraic cult. None of the things listed in that quote came from Mithras. None of them started in Rome. And most importantly…NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM REPRESENTS A SINGLE PRACTICE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH other than the use of wedding rings (which is not essential anyway) and the use of the fish as a symbol. No one burns Yule Logs at Christmas Mass, Frenetic. Did any of that even occur to you?
“Your own sources aren’t even good enough now?”
Sure they are. It proved me right. You FOUND NOTHING IN THERE ABOUT MITHRAS. I was right. You were wrong. That’s the way this debate has gone from the beginning.
“LOL. I never said Mithraism was the ONLY influence on Roman culture.”
You’re doing it again. You playing that old bait and switch. I never claimed that you DID say that. I claimed, correctly, that you said Catholic Christianity incorporated Mithraic practices. I demanded proof from you. You have yet to provide any. Here you claim you were really talking about Roman culture. That’s nonsense.
You wrote: “No reason to laugh. Read about Mithraism and Zoroastrianism, both religion pre-date Christianity yet strikingly share many of the same beliefs, rituals and stories.”
Then you made your clinging to Mithraism even more clear by quoting: “Among the milder ceremonies of the followers of Mithra were baptism in holy water and a partaking of a sacred meal of bread and wine. After passing several ordeals the converts were "reborn" as a new man in Mithra. Though Mithra had ascended into heaven he had promised to return and bring life everlasting to his loyal followers."
You hitched your wagon to it. It’s your problem if it turns out to be useless.
”Try apologizing; you could use a little humility.”
Humility is built on honesty with oneself. I would be lying to myself if I said you were right when in reality you have been wrong all along. Maybe you should apologize to your parents?
Frenetic,
You wrote:
”I love arrogant people, they are so easy.”
Indeed you are.
”- http://www.thebookofdays.com/months/dec/25.htm Though Christian nations have thus, from an early period in the history of the church, celebrated Christmas about the period of the winter-solstice or the shortest day, it is well known that many, and, indeed, the greater number of the popular festive observances by which it is characterized, are referable to a much more ancient origin. Amid all the pagan nations of antiquity, there seems to have been a universal tendency to worship the sun as the giver of life and light, and the visible manifestation of the Deity. Various as were the names bestowed by different peoples on this object of their worship, he was still the same divinity. Thus, at Rome, he appears to have been worshipped under one of the characters attributed to Saturn, the father of the gods; among the Scandinavian nations he was known under the epithet of Odin or Woden, the father of Thor, who seems after-wards to have shared with his parent the adoration bestowed on the latter, as the divinity of which the 'sun was the visible manifestation; whilst with the ancient Persians, the appellation for the god of lights was Mithras, apparently the same as the Irish Mithr, and with the Phoenicians or Carthaginians it was Baal or Bel, an epithet familiar to all students of the Bible."
All irrelevant as to the comment you are supposedly responding to. I wrote: “None of the practices mentioned are Mithraic Frenetic.” That comment was made in reference to an article I cited and linked to, and that you quoted from. You claimed that it worked for your side. But your side is Mithraism being incorporated into Christianity. Mithraism was no where mentioned as associated with the short list of pagan practices supposedly incorporated into Christianity. Only two have ever had anything to do with Christianity, however (e.g. the fish and the wedding rings). You list proved nothing about Mithraism. You failed.
Also, the quote you listed above also proves nothing. No one here doubts that pagan gods were worshipped in pagan Rome. Duh! That doesn’t mean the Christians worshipped Christ because pagans worshipped pagan gods. Also, I already showed that Christians adopted Dec. 25th as Christmas IN OPPOSITION TO MITHRAISM. You keep avoiding that point.
Oh, and by the way, no one considers Chambers a reputable source. His books were fascinating but can often be summed up this way: “Vilified by certain sections as a result, applauded by others, containing many errors, and exhibiting a degree of naiveté and a certain lack of scientific circumspection, it still sold over 20,000 copies in a decade, making it one of the best-sellers of its time. Incredibly, despite following it with a defense, including corrections and amendments based on collaborations with an extensive list of experts, its many subsequent editions, and its continued influence on Victorian science, art, and public opinion, Robert was able to maintain the anonymity throughout his lifetime. It was never acknowledged until the 12th edition forty years later!”
Still can’t find a single reputable scholar, Frenetic? After two days? LOL!
St. Thomas, pray for us. The Apostle Thomas wasn't martyred by the Hindus for "Catholics" to do this.
Besides, there already are two indigenous INDIAN variants of the Catholicism: the Syro-Malankara and Syro-Malabar.
My name isn't "chico". Other than that, you are entitled to your own opinions.
"No, you didn’t. Stop lying. Here’s how I’ll prove you’re lying: show me where in the section you cut and pasted it says anything about Mithraic worship practices being incorporated into Christianity."
- No Problem. Here it is.
The problem, though, was that the exact day of Christ's birth was unknown, so a date on which to celebrate it had to be chosen arbitrarily. Now the pagans already had a fixed festal schedule, so any day of the year the Church chose to celebrate a feast would be a day of some pagan celebration. Here was an opportunity for the Church to confront paganism, and so it aimed at one of the biggest and most important cults in Rome. The day chosen was December 25, when everyone celebrated the pagan feast of the dies natalis Solis Invicti, "the birthday of the Unconquerable Sun."[Though the Church doesn't claim that Jesus was actually born on December 25, opponents of Christmas spill considerable ink arguing that Christ couldn't have been born at this time. The reason is because of credulous people like Setsuko, "a devout Catholic for 36 years." This Japanese woman, now a Jehovah's Witness, relates, "It was painful to be faced with Bible truths that refuted my beliefs. I even had alopecia neurotica, loss of hair due to being upset. Gradually, however, the light of truth shone into my heart. I was stunned to learn that Jesus could not have been born in a cold, rainy December, when shepherds would not be tending their sheep out in the open night (Luke 2:8-12). It shattered my image of the Nativity, for we had used cotton wool as snow to decorate scenes of sheep and shepherds" (Awake!, December 15, 1991, 7). But Setsuko presumably knows better now, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society having explained to her that "Jesus died at the time of the Jewish Passover, which commenced April 1, 33 C.E. [Actually, it occurred on April 3, 33, not April 1.] Moreover, Luke 3:21-23 informs us that Jesus was about 30 years of age when he commenced his ministry. Since this lasted three-and-a-half years, he was about 33-and-a-half years old at the time of his death. Christ would have been a full 34 years old six months later, which would thus be about October 1. If we count back to see when Jesus was born, we reach not December 25 or January 6, but October 1 of the year 2 B.C.E." ( The Watchtower, December 15, 1990, 4). Assuming that Jesus didn't die on April 7 or 8 in 30 (as scholars suggest), and that he began his ministry precisely on his thirtieth birthday and not a few months later, and that his ministry lasted exactly three and a half years to the day, this theory could sound plausible--but still iffy.].
December 25 arrives around the time of the winter solstice, when the days get shorter and the sun seems to be "dying." After the winter solstice, the sun appears to regain its strength, is "born again" as it were, as the days become longer. Consequently, December 25 was the "birthday" of the Persian sun-god known as Mithras, originally one of the lesser demigods of the Zoroastrian religion. Mithras had become the principal Persian deity by 400 B.C. and his cult quickly overran Asia Minor. According to Plutarch, it was introduced into the West around 68 B.C., and became quite popular among the Roman legions.
by 400 B.C. and his cult quickly overran Asia Minor. According to Plutarch, it was introduced into the West around 68 B.C., and became quite popular among the Roman legions."
"You FOUND NOTHING IN THERE ABOUT MITHRAS."
- Here's some more.
"Unlike those of other Oriental gods introduced into the Empire, the cult of Mithras remained independent of official foundations to finance and propagate it. Its followers worshiped in small groups in subterranean shrines where the clergy employed special effects to make Mithras appear to "manifest" himself among the congregation. Such artifice, which included fireworks, special lighting and mechanical devices, rarely disappointed the religion's adherents and provided Christian polemicists with some of their best material.
The conflict between Christianity and Mithraism had always been intense, possibly because of certain similarities between the two. The devotees of sun worship tended to be monotheistic. The cult stressed a personal experience of worship, though it excluded women. Originally, as a Zoroastrian demigod, Mithras personified justice and redemption. Later on, as part of a "mystery religion," he came to embody all that was good which warred against evil. Mithraism had rituals that included a kind of baptism, a strong code of moral conduct, and the promise of an afterlife."
"Humility is built on honesty with oneself. I would be lying to myself if I said you were right when in reality you have been wrong all along. Maybe you should apologize to your parents?"
- Than you very much. I haven't laughed so hard in weeks. Your hostility is hilarious.
"Besides, I already posted irrefutable evidence that Christians picked Dec. 25th IN OPPOSITION Mithraic practices. That makes Dec. 25th choice by the Church anti-pagan by definition."
- This has got to be the stupidest argument I have ever heard. I find it hard to believe that you actually believe this rubbish. You freely admit that Dec 25th was celebrated by, Sol Invictus and Mithraism prior to Christianity, and that Sol Invictus and Mithraism both predate and were the two major competitors to Christianity at the time, but when Christianity takes the date of the celebration and the cultural practices which roots were born in paganism and then makes it Christian, that the date now means nothing? Denying the fact that pagan practices, rituals and symbols (Mithraic, Sol Invictus or otherwise) were hijacked and made to be Christian is both asinine and stupid. Your own source doesn’t refute this but goes on to say this “Now we ask the big question: How should these mementoes of a bygone pagan era be regarded today? One possibility is to view them as the evidence of the Church's victory over false gods, as stuffed heads adorning the walls of the hunter's trophy room”.
- I’ve already come to grips with the facts. Perhaps you should too and stop being foolish.
Frenetic,
You obviously have a great deal of difficulty telling the truth. Let me demonstrate how you lied:
In one of your most recent posts you pasted one of my statements:
"No, you didn't. Stop lying. Here's how I'll prove you're lying: show me where in the section you cut and pasted it says anything about Mithraic worship practices being incorporated into Christianity."
Then you posted this rejoinder of yours:
"No Problem. Here it is."
Well, you lied yet again. You should have quote exactly the quote we were talking about. You didn't do that. You posted another quote and claimed it was the same one. Here is the original quote you used in post #54:
"Oh and by the way...your reference. http://www.catholic.com/default.asp
"The Puritans were none-too-pleased that December 25 had been associated with Sol Invictus"
"Still, the vestiges of paganism found in Christmas festivities aren't to be overlooked. Holly, mistletoe, yule logs, singing, cooking special foods, and decorating the home were all once associated with this time of year in the non-Christian world. Once converted, people did not think of banning these things. They continued to sing, eat big meals, and decorate their homes because these customs were viewed as intrinsically compatible with the new faith. It was paganism that Christianity opposed, not the culture of the people being evangelized. This is why, for example, we still exchange rings and throw rice at weddings even though these customs are holdovers from paganism. Indeed, the early Christians would never have used the fish as a symbol of Christ if they'd disdained every token of paganism."
Again, that was the original quote from the original source. Notice how you say it is "your reference"? Notice how the quote says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT MITHRAIC WORSHIP? You clearly new that we were talking about this quote - hence your comment about "your reference." You also had to know that this quote said nothing at all about Mithras! No you are quoting some other passage from the same source but are lying and saying that it is the same quote!
This is how you first attempted to lie: "vladimir998 you posted what you deemed a "reliable source" in a previous post. In my last post to you I cited reference from your own source agreeing with me. http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9312fea1.asp"
I correctly responded with: "No, you didn't. Stop lying. Here's how I'll prove you're lying: show me where in the SECTION YOU CUT AND PASTEDIT SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT MITHRAIC WORSHIP PRACTICES BEING INCORPORATED INTO CHRISTIANITY. When you can show one MITHRAIC practice from that source (none are in fact mentioned in what you quoted) you'll be shown to be lying. Go at it Frenetic. Remember, we're looking for the word MITHRAIC." [emphasis added]
But in post 54 you wrote:
"Here's the article you are quoting from now:" But you never showed what I correctly pointed out. Instead you sued an entirely different quote from elsewhere in the article !
Here is the quote you are using now (and I make several points afterward): "The problem, though, was that the exact day of Christ's birth was unknown, so a date on which to celebrate it had to be chosen arbitrarily. Now the pagans already had a fixed festal schedule, so any day of the year the Church chose to celebrate a feast would be a day of some pagan celebration. Here was an opportunity for the Church to confront paganism, and so it aimed at one of the biggest and most important cults in Rome. The day chosen was December 25, when everyone celebrated the pagan feast of the dies natalis Solis Invicti, "the birthday of the Unconquerable Sun."[Though the Church doesn't claim that Jesus was actually born on December 25, opponents of Christmas spill considerable ink arguing that Christ couldn't have been born at this time. The reason is because of credulous people like Setsuko, "a devout Catholic for 36 years." This Japanese woman, now a Jehovah's Witness, relates, "It was painful to be faced with Bible truths that refuted my beliefs. I even had alopecia neurotica, loss of hair due to being upset. Gradually, however, the light of truth shone into my heart. I was stunned to learn that Jesus could not have been born in a cold, rainy December, when shepherds would not be tending their sheep out in the open night (Luke 2:8-12). It shattered my image of the Nativity, for we had used cotton wool as snow to decorate scenes of sheep and shepherds" (Awake!, December 15, 1991, 7). But Setsuko presumably knows better now, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society having explained to her that "Jesus died at the time of the Jewish Passover, which commenced April 1, 33 C.E. [Actually, it occurred on April 3, 33, not April 1.] Moreover, Luke 3:21-23 informs us that Jesus was about 30 years of age when he commenced his ministry. Since this lasted three-and-a-half years, he was about 33-and-a-half years old at the time of his death. Christ would have been a full 34 years old six months later, which would thus be about October 1. If we count back to see when Jesus was born, we reach not December 25 or January 6, but October 1 of the year 2 B.C.E." ( The Watchtower, December 15, 1990, 4). Assuming that Jesus didn't die on April 7 or 8 in 30 (as scholars suggest), and that he began his ministry precisely on his thirtieth birthday and not a few months later, and that his ministry lasted exactly three and a half years to the day, this theory could sound plausible--but still iffy.].
December 25 arrives around the time of the winter solstice, when the days get shorter and the sun seems to be "dying." After the winter solstice, the sun appears to regain its strength, is "born again" as it were, as the days become longer. Consequently, December 25 was the "birthday" of the Persian sun-god known as Mithras, originally one of the lesser demigods of the Zoroastrian religion. Mithras had become the principal Persian deity by 400 B.C. and his cult quickly overran Asia Minor. According to Plutarch, it was introduced into the West around 68 B.C., and became quite popular among the Roman legions. by 400 B.C. and his cult quickly overran Asia Minor. According to Plutarch, it was introduced into the West around 68 B.C., and became quite popular among the Roman legions."
First, notice it is not the same quote you used before so for you to insist it is a lie.
Second, the article no where says that Christians adopted anything Mithraic into Christianity.
Third, the article actually confirms what I have been saying all along: Christians adopted December 25 IN OPPOSITION TO MITHRAIC CULT. Here's the proof from the article itself: "Here was an opportunity for the Church to confront paganism, and so it aimed at one of the biggest and most important cults in Rome."
Fourth, This means you lied about the quote, you lied about the content of the quote, and it still doesn't support you and you lied about that too.
You do realize that lying is wrong, correct?
Now, on to your other two posts. Without attribution you posted the following as evidence for your case:
"Unlike those of other Oriental gods introduced into the Empire, the cult of Mithras remained independent of official foundations to finance and propagate it. Its followers worshiped in small groups in subterranean shrines where the clergy employed special effects to make Mithras appear to "manifest" himself among the congregation. Such artifice, which included fireworks, special lighting and mechanical devices, rarely disappointed the religion's adherents and provided Christian polemicists with some of their best material."
Clearly the paragraphs shows opposition rather than borrowing between the two different religions.
"The conflict between Christianity and Mithraism had always been intense, possibly because of certain similarities between the two. The devotees of sun worship tended to be monotheistic. The cult stressed a personal experience of worship, though it excluded women. Originally, as a Zoroastrian demigod, Mithras personified justice and redemption. Later on, as part of a "mystery religion," he came to embody all that was good which warred against evil. Mithraism had rituals that included a kind of baptism, a strong code of moral conduct, and the promise of an afterlife."
This too says nothing about either one of the religions borrowing from the other. You still have no evidence for what you are claiming!
"Than you very much. I haven't laughed so hard in weeks. Your hostility is hilarious."
I find you attempts at scholarship hilarious. I find your contempt for your parents and their faith rather sad.
"This has got to be the stupidest argument I have ever heard. I find it hard to believe that you actually believe this rubbish. You freely admit that Dec 25th was celebrated by, Sol Invictus and Mithraism prior to Christianity, and that Sol Invictus and Mithraism both predate and were the two major competitors to Christianity at the time, but when Christianity takes the date of the celebration and the cultural practices which roots were born in paganism and then makes it Christian, that the date now means nothing?"
You didn't even sum up what I believe correctly so any attack you would make upon it would most likely be erroneous. Your attack was. I don't really care if you can't think clearly, but everyone else here seems to understand that Christians(as they admitted in antiquity) chose that day as Christ's birthday in opposition to pagan religions. These things still happen in the modern world. May 1st is International Workers Day. It was established by Socialists and Communists - people definitely not interested in Christianity. How did the Church respond? It established May 1st as St. Joseph the Worker's feast day. It established that day in OPPOSITION TO the secular worker's day of Socialism and Communism. Of course you wouldn't know anything about that because that would take knowledge - something you don't have.
"Denying the fact that pagan practices, rituals and symbols (Mithraic, Sol Invictus or otherwise) were hijacked and made to be Christian is both asinine and stupid."
Then you should be able to show at least ONE of them and yet you have shown exactly zero. You make claims with no proof whatsoever. It would seem that a person who makes wild claims, without evidence, and lies as well to cover his embarrassment, is what is asinine and stupid.
"Your own source doesn't refute this but goes on to say this "Now we ask the big question: How should these mementoes of a bygone pagan era be regarded today? One possibility is to view them as the evidence of the Church's victory over false gods, as stuffed heads adorning the walls of the hunter's trophy room"."
Except that none of that is about Mithraic worship which is what we are talking about. Again, why do you imply it is when it isn't? And if it was wouldn't you have quoted it exactly where it says that? But you don't. You know it never said anything of the kind about Mithraic worship. You've been wrong all along Frenetic.
"I've already come to grips with the facts. Perhaps you should too and stop being foolish."
I've never been foolish about scholarship or making decisions based upon it. You have yet to show ANY evidence that the Catholic Church ever once borrowed any practice or doctrine from Mithraic cult. Maybe you should come to grips with your adolescent disagreement with your parents and your glaring lack of logic and scholarship. You may think sciolism is way of life, but it leads nowhere but embarrassment as you have proven here numerous times.
As your post keep getting longer and longer you keep getting more desperate and desperate. I've already shown you with your own sources that I am correct. You on the other hand keep posting long drawn out stupidity because you cannot defend your position. You keep twisting reality and holding on to nonsense that Christianity took nothing from any other religion or cultural practice of the Romans, Sol Invictus, Mithraism, or otherwise even though I've posted entire paragraphs from your own source that points this out. If you are too prideful and arrogant to see the truth, then that is your own problem. Your weak minded insults and hostility only cements the fact that you, by your own material, lost.
"You claimed Christians took things from Mithraism. I asked you to prove it. You failed."
- You keep saying the same crap over and over again. I've listed entire paragraphs from the source YOU suggested were credible saying otherwise.
"And I defended my position just fine. I did such a good job that you are not contesting it with any argument whatsoever in this post. Notice that?"
- I already have on several occasions. Say your sentence one more time. Perhaps it might morph into the truth if you repeat it enough times.
"Except I am not weak-minded - notice how you don't see me crying about my supposedly horrible youth at the hands of parents in a cult like you claim? That is a sign of a weak-minded person.
- And this has anything to do with the argument how? Perhaps you thought it would somehow hurt my feelings? You stated "I have never posted anything stupid in my life", I believe you just did. LOL
"You're a pathetic weakling in his late 30's who can't get his life together or even defend his hair-brained ideas online"
- More personal attacks huh? If you won so handily as you claim, why are you the only one resorting to personal attacks? Keep them coming though; the more pointed your attacks, the more you look like a complete idiot. You lost all credibility the moment you made your rants personal.
"All the reputable sources said exactly what I knew they would. All the reputable sources noted that Christianity borrowed nothing from Mithraic worship but adopted December 25th in OPPOSITION TO IT."
- If you paint a white horse blue in opposition to it being white, it is still a white horse. Whether it was in opposition or not is irrelevant. Furthermore, "Adopted" is actually a stronger word than "borrowed". Adopted is to make ones own, to take ownership. Make what ones own? A pagan holiday of course! Christianity took a pagan holiday celebrated by its competitors and adopted it for its own purposes. In other words…you just proved my point with your own words...congratulations.
Frenetic,
You wrote:
“You keep saying the same crap over and over again. I've listed entire paragraphs from the source YOU suggested were credible saying otherwise.”
No, you never once did that. You never once posted a single sentence from any source I called “reputable” that in anyway suggested Christians borrowed from Mithras cult. You just keep saying that you did. I went through every single thing you posted to me and every thing you quoted and showed how every source was either not reputable or, if reputable, said the exact opposite of what you said it said. You’re the one who keeps repeating himself nonsensically.
”I already have on several occasions.”
Not in that last post – which was exactly what I said. You keep thinking you can simply ignore words, or their meanings, or pretend they means something that they don’t. You are a liberal.
“Say your sentence one more time. Perhaps it might morph into the truth if you repeat it enough times.”
Everything I have said is true. You are the one who keeps claiming to have posted reputable evidence that contradicts me when you haven’t. Do you think repetition is the same thing as knowledge?
”And this has anything to do with the argument how?”
Everything. You were the one who brought up the comment and said I was weak-minded. You made it part of the argument just like your whining about your childhood – something else you brought up in this argument. You do remember that you brought these things up right? You did take your medication today right?
“Perhaps you thought it would somehow hurt my feelings?”
Does it matter what I think about your fellings? You are the one who has told us that your feelings were hurt by your parents. Be a man and get over it. Ever try that?
“You stated "I have never posted anything stupid in my life", I believe you just did. LOL”
No, you can pretend otherwise, but we both know that you still hurt over what you think your parents did. You told us as much. I pity you.
”More personal attacks huh?”
Nope. Just the truth. You know it too. That’s why you don’t deny it.
“If you won so handily as you claim, why are you the only one resorting to personal attacks?”
I didn’t resort to personal attacks. I simply described your life as you’ve made it clear to all of us. Also, I did win, and it was handily won at that. Again, you don’t understand cause and effect. Having beaten someone so easily doesn’t preclude personal attacks. Where is the cause and effect there? Besides, you have not exactly been angelic in all of this either. But notice, I don’t whine over it. You do. Are we back to you being “weak-minded” again?
“Keep them coming though; the more pointed your attacks, the more you look like a complete idiot. You lost all credibility the moment you made your rants personal.”
Nope. Anyone who reads these pages will note the following: 1) I proved my point, 2) you failed to prove yours, 3) other posters denied your position and you failed to prove anything to them with evidence then either, 4) You used sources that were clearly not “reputable”, 5) you couldn’t find a single reputable source to prove your point, 6) it is clear you have never even cracked open a reputable single book on the subject, 7) you lied about what I posted and what it meant (as I demonstrated above with actual quotes and actual detailed descriptions of how you lied), 8) you repeatedly brought up your personal life and whinned about it, 9) you attacked my ability and intelligence even though you were easily defeated in this debate, 10) you are just spinning your wheels now because your feelings are hurt, 11) you nickname is an apt description of your mind.
”If you paint a white horse blue in opposition to it being white, it is still a white horse.”
Sheesh! That’s what you think passes as a logical analogy? If you did the analogy correctly then one horse would be a real horse (Christmas) and the other would be merely a model of a horse (Mithraic cult is false). They might look similar, they could both be called horses, but only one is real – because it represents the birth of the real God-man Jesus Christ. For you to do the analogy as you do you must equate Christianity and paganism – which is a tacit admission on your part that you don’t believe Christianity to be true. If you believe Christ to be REAL and TRUE then there can be no way that He or His birthday celebration could be equated as the same. You clearly have great difficulty thinking and denigrate Christianity and Christ in the process. No surprise there.
“Whether it was in opposition or not is irrelevant.”
Are you kidding? That is the essential detail. If it was in opposition to Mithraism then it was not something borrowed from Mithraism.
“Furthermore, "Adopted" is actually a stronger word than "borrowed". Adopted is to make ones own, to take ownership. Make what ones own? A pagan holiday of course!”
Since the first Christmas was celebrated by Christians it was clearly a Christian holiday. There was nothing Mithraic about Christmas. It was Christian from the beginning.
“Christianity took a pagan holiday celebrated by its competitors and adopted it for its own purposes. In other words…you just proved my point with your own words...congratulations.”
No, not at all. Adoption of a day is not adoption of a belief or even a practice – especially when that adoption is done in opposition to Mithraic cult by Christians. You have yet to prove your point. Doing something in opposition to something is not the same thing as borrowing. You can try and lie with these word games all you want. Is that your new tactic after trying to lie about what was and was not quoted earlier? It won’t work Frenetic. You lost this debate days ago and you know it. That’s why you offer noi evidence whatsoever from a reputable source.
I'm getting tired of your blind faith and refusal of facts.
Here's what the Encarta online research source says about Mithra:
"Mithraism, one of the major religions of the Roman Empire, the cult of Mithra, the ancient Persian god of light and wisdom. In the Avesta, the sacred Zoroastrian writings (see Zoroastrianism) of the ancient Persians, Mithra appears as the chief yazata (Avestan, 'beneficent one'), or good spirit, and ruler of the world. He was supposed to have slain the divine bull, from whose dying body sprang all plants and animals beneficial to humanity. After the conquest of Assyria in the 7th century BC and of Babylonia in the 6th century BC, Mithra became the god of the sun, which was worshipped in his name (see Sun Worship). The Greeks of Asia Minor, by identifying Mithra with Helios, the Greek god of the sun, helped to spread the cult. It was brought to Rome about 68 BC by Cilician pirates whom the Roman general Pompey the Great had captured, and during the early empire it spread rapidly throughout Italy and the Roman provinces. It was a rival to Christianity in the Roman world."
"Mithraism was similar to Christianity in many respects, for example, in the ideals of humility and brotherly love, baptism, the rite of communion, the use of holy water, the adoration of the shepherds at Mithra's birth, the adoption of Sundays and of December 25 (Mithra's birthday) as holy days, and the belief in the immortality of the soul, the last judgment, and the resurrection. Mithraism differed from Christianity in the exclusion of women from its ceremonies and in its willingness to compromise with polytheism. The similarities, however, made possible the easy conversion of its followers to Christian
doctrine."
- Sorry bub, I'm not going to believe you over the work of historians. Encarta is more credible than you.
Frenetic,
You wrote:
“I'm getting tired of your blind faith and refusal of facts.”
You can’t get tired of something that has never happened. All the facts support exactly what I said. You prove that agin in this very post:
“Here's what the Encarta online research source says about Mithra:
"Mithraism…was a rival to Christianity in the Roman world."
A rival? That’s what I have been saying all along.
"Mithraism was similar to Christianity in many respects, for example, in the ideals of humility and brotherly love, baptism, the rite of communion, the use of holy water, the adoration of the shepherds at Mithra's birth, the adoption of Sundays and of December 25 (Mithra's birthday) as holy days, and the belief in the immortality of the soul, the last judgment, and the resurrection.”
This is where your argument totally breaks down. Didn’t Jesus give us baptism? Obvioulsy then it didn’t come from Mithraic worship. Humility and brotherly love? Again, from Christ and seen through the OT as well as the NT. Obvioulsy then it didn’t come from Mithraic worship. Communion? From Christ and spoken of by the Apostles – including Paul. Obvioulsy then it didn’t come from Mithraic worship. December 25th? Was December 25th only used by Mithras worshippers? Nope. Does this source even hint that Christians used it because Lithraic worshippers did? Nope. Sundays? Christ’s day of resurrection. Obvioulsy then it didn’t come from Mithraic worship. Immortality of the soul? Certainly a Christian belief whether or not any pagan believed in it. Obvioulsy then it didn’t come from Mithraic worship. Last Judgment? Who in the ancient world didn’t believe in a Last Judgement? Why not claim that Christians got that idea from Egyptians since they believed in it before Mithras worshippers came into existence? Obvioulsy it didn’t come from Mithraic worship. Resurrection? Jews, at least some Jews, believed in Resurrection. Hence, the fight between Pharisees (who believed in it) and Sadducees (who didn’t). Obvioulsy then it didn’t come from Mithraic worship.
“Mithraism differed from Christianity in the exclusion of women from its ceremonies and in its willingness to compromise with polytheism.”
What? You mean your source SAYS THAT CHRISTIANITY WAS UNWILLING TO COMPROMISE WITH POLYTHEISM? Well, that shoots your theory out of the sky doesn’t it? You are, after all, trying to say that Christians compromise with, by borrowing from, Mithraic worship. You have embarrassed yourself yet again. Do you even read these passages before you post them? This is almost as bad a gaffe on your part as saying the other quote you used a few days ago said something that it never said.
“The similarities, however, made possible the easy conversion of its followers to Christian doctrine."
Yes, the similarities did. And none of that shows cause and effect as one borrowing from another.
“Sorry bub, I'm not going to believe you over the work of historians. Encarta is more credible than you.”
I am a historian Frenetic. That’s the whole point. I know what I am talking about. That’s why I cited the best book in the field while you have been running through silly websites searching for a reputable source. I know what I am talking about and you don’t. I am a professional historian. You’re not even good enough to be an amateur history buff of any note.
And please note that the vaunted Encarta article you quoted here clearly backs me up and so far says nothing for your case. Pretty much the expected result from any effort you might put forward.
"This is where your argument totally breaks down. Didn’t Jesus give us baptism?"
- Earth to Vladimir...No he didn't. Ever hear of John the Baptist, you know the Jewish Baptist around 150 B.C.? This is where your claim at being a historian breaks down. LOL. http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/SFS/an1299.asp
About all the rest..."Humility and brotherly love? Communion? December 25th? Sundays? Immortality of the soul? Last Judgment? Resurrection?"...Pagan cults and religion had them first and then some. Nothing you mentioned is original to Christianity.
"Yes, the similarities did. And none of that shows cause and effect as one borrowing from another."
- Ok...so every belief, ritual and concept that Christianity enshrines as dogma is all original content even though a myriad of religions and cults predating Christianity had them first. It's all new and original because Christianity says so. Sure...I'll </wink> to that.
"I am a historian Frenetic. That’s the whole point. I know what I am talking about."
- Repeat that again and tell me "Didn’t Jesus give us baptism?” - Hilarious.
"And please note that the vaunted Encarta article you quoted here clearly backs me up and so far says nothing for your case."
- Only to those blinded by faith and fanaticism.
Frenetic,
It is incredible how ignorant you are about all things Christian. You wrote:
"Earth to Vladimir...No he didn't. Ever hear of John the Baptist, you know the Jewish Baptist around 150 B.C.? This is where your claim at being a historian breaks down. LOL."
Ah, Earth to Frenetic -- there were two types of baptism. John the Baptist baptized Jews toward repentence to prepare them for the coming of Christ. He said that Himself (John 1:26 ff). He also said the one to come -- meaning Christ -- would baptize men with water and the Holy Spirit (John 1:29-34). Your knowledge of scripture is as bad as your knowledge of Church history. LOL! It is the second baptism, the one Christ ordered the Apostles to perform after His Ascension, that is THE CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. That is the baptism we have today. Christ gave us baptism – the Christian baptism.
“About all the rest..."Humility and brotherly love? Communion? December 25th? Sundays? Immortality of the soul? Last Judgment? Resurrection?"...Pagan cults and religion had them first and then some. Nothing you mentioned is original to Christianity.”
Actually all of them are original to Christianity when said to be Christian humility – which is different than that taught by pagans, or Christian communion – which is the only true communion, or Dec. 25 which only honors God as a Christian feast, etc. Also, the fact that other religions have ceremonies of ideas that seem similar superficially does not in any way make one the descendent or borrowing of the other.
“Ok...so every belief, ritual and concept that Christianity enshrines as dogma is all original content even though a myriad of religions and cults predating Christianity had them first. It's all new and original because Christianity says so. Sure...I'll </wink> to that.”
All Christians doctrines are original to Christianity or descendent from Judaism for only Christians teach them as Christian things. None of those things you mentioned were borrowed from Mithraism.
“Repeat that again and tell me "Didn’t Jesus give us baptism?” - Hilarious.”
As the Gospel of John makes clear, the Christian baptism Christ ordered the apostles to perform was not the one used by John. Christ's was different in intent and was grace-filled, through the power of the Holy Spirit. Yes, Jesus gave us baptism. If you don’t believe that then prove that Christ didn’t give us Christian baptism. For you to do so, you must make John the Baptist a liar for he himself told us in the gospel of John that there were TWO BAPTISMS and Christ’s was to be different than his.
“Only to those blinded by faith and fanaticism.”
That’s you, not me. You don’t even know the first chapter of the Gospel of John! LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.