Christian Apologetics

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Tim, I'm not interested in discussing the merrits of DNA with you. I have already provided evidence to the function of the 'junk' DNA that you dismiss as usless. Talk to somebody with a professed interest in genetics if you really want to know more.

No you haven't.
It's not binary:
1. Junk DNA is useless.
2. Junk DNA is not useless.

That's just more sophistry.
It's Ternary.
1. Junk DNA is uselss.
2. Junk DNA is not useless.
3. Some Junk DNA is uselss, some is not.

I don't believe we will ever find common ground on this matter. You are happy to pedanticly nit-pick Strobel (brazenly questioning his intentions in the process) and yet see no irony in continually using a throw away term like 'tonnes' in relation to DNA.

The hole point of sophistry is that it's sounds good unless you
deconstruct it or "nit - pick" (as you call it) it. As for using loaded terms such as "tonnes" well you trying to tell me "nit - pick" isn't loaded?

Besides, I see that you are stuck in a near endless 'logical' loop of your own making.

"near endless 'logical' loop" - more rhetoric. . Again, I point out this is nothing to do with me. It's do the arguments Strobel, an apologetic, is using. They are either sophistry or they are not. Now, they only way I see you can argue they are not is to show they are not. Forget about me.

I'm out, Tim. Your dogged determination has claimed yet another scalp.

Well if Strobel, or any Evangelical came up with an argument that was logical, I'd happily change my opinions.

However, what's annoying is they act as if they are using logic because you actually examine their points - even with a modicum of logic, they come up for what they are: sophistry.

PDN

Sonderval wrote: »

Fanny, surely you cannot be so dismissive of the syncretism inherent in Christianity? - there is a non-trivial amount of plagarism going on there.

I am aware of more specific Mithras, Horus and Isis claims that are not mentioned in that list, I'll see if I can drag up some good references.

Fanny is spot on. This Mithras urban legend is based on no real evidence.

There are plenty of claims made about elements of Mithraism that are similar to Christianity, but here is the rub - the claimants, when challenged, never produce any sources for these elements which predate Christianity.

All we ever have are references to a form of pagan worship with sources quoted that date after the advent of Christianity. I have issued this challenge in a number of posts in different fora, but no-one ever produces a manuscript, a temple inscription, anything at all which provides evidence for any pre-Christian existence of these so-called borrowings. (I am deliberately ignoring the 25th Dec nonsense as that is a smokescreen. Christians do not believe that Jesus was born on that date & it has never been an article of Christian faith).

Now Catholicism certainly is syncretistic - having borrowed stuff from the Romand Empire, Babylon & God knows where else. But this guff about Christianity pinching basic beliefs from Mithraism is unhistorical nonsense with zero evidence.

Sonderval

Well, its a hard thing to prove PDN - I mean, how do you prove that someone didn't steal an idea 2000 years after the event? It is suspected that Mithraism does predate Christianity - its small initial following and its nature (fraternity like) did not lend it to producing much evidence.

I have a good reference for you, from the journal of Roman Studies, I can forward you the pdf if you want it (or don't have access to scientific libraries). http://www.jstor.org/stable/300205?origin=crossref

Considering that both religions were competing in Rome at the same time, your statement that

But this guff about Christianity pinching basic beliefs from Mithraism is unhistorical nonsense with zero evidence

is a very dangerous one to make especially when you seem to be bereft of primary evidence to the contrary.

As a scientist, this has piqued my interest now - I'll go do some secondary research and see what I can trawl up.

Tim Robbins

Sonderval wrote: »

As a scientist, this has piqued my interest now - I'll go do some secondary research and see what I can trawl up.

There's an Anglican Theologian by the name of Dr. Roberd Beckford who did a documentary about this on BBC. It was on last Christmas day and his conclusion was that many aspects of other religions could have been adopted by Christianity. I'm sure if you'll get it on the internet somewhere.

PDN

Sonderval wrote: »

Well, its a hard thing to prove PDN - I mean, how do you prove that someone didn't steal an idea 2000 years after the event?

Exactly, how can you prove someone didn't steal something? All you can point out is that there is no evidence of anything being stolen and insist that the burden of proof rests on the accuser. Which is exactly what I am doing.

It is indeed true that a religion called Mithraism predates Christianity. However, there is no evidence to indicate that, in its pre-Christian form, it had any of the elements listed in Barfizz's urban legend.

There are one or two indications of Mithraism being practiced in the Roman Empire at the end of the 1st Century AD (ie several decades after Paul wrote his first epistles and over 50 years after the Resurrection of Christ). But Mithraism did not become popular in Rome until the Third Century - and that is when we get to here all the kind of stuff mention in Barfizz's cut and pasted bit of guff. So a new religion arrives in Rome - sees a fast growing faith called Christianity and says, "Actually guys - our religion thought of this stuff first (even though we have no evidence for that) but the Christians stole it from us."

As for Tarsus being the centre of Mithraism, as Barfizz claims, that is also bunk. There are only two pieces of genuine historical evidence linking Tarsus with Mithraism. One is a coin from the reign Gordion III (AD 238-244) - so almost 200 years after Paul was in Tarsus. The other is vague reference in Plutarch to pirates from Tarsus who practiced Mithraic rites on Mount Olympus. However, Plutarch wrote this after the death of Paul! So the only two historical links between Tarsus and Mithraism are both dated much later than Paul's epistles.

We have plenty of documentation and evidence to attest that Christians were propagating their doctrines throughout the Roman Empire during the First Century - no serious historian disputes that fact. We have no such documentation or evidence to support similar doctrines being propagated by Mithraism until nearly 200 years later.

The whole thing about Christianity pinching all that stuff from Mithraism is on a par with UFO conspiracies or the Davinci Code.

Sonderval

Cool, already having read that article I linked, I can see that many statements on that list are indeed incorrect. Once I get more familiar with the area I'll go through that list blow by blow.

In the interest of helping me out, could you please provide your references for the following statements?

There are one or two indications of Mithraism being practiced in the Roman Empire at the end of the 1st Centur

We have no such documentation or evidence to support similar doctrines being propagated by Mithraism until nearly 200 years later

PDN

Sonderval wrote: »

In the interest of helping me out, could you please provide your references for the following statements?

A lot of what I'm saying has been gathered by reading up on this over the years, rather than one source - so I apologise for having to resort to our friend wikipedia:

wiki wrote:

Mithraism began to attract attention in Rome around the end of the first century. Statius mentions the typical Mithraic relief in his Thebaid (Book i. 719,720), around 80 CE. The earliest material evidence for the Roman worship of Mithras dates from that period, in a record of Roman soldiers who came from the military garrison at Carnuntum in the Roman province of Upper Pannonia (near the Danube River in modern Austria, near the Hungarian border). Other legionaries fought the Parthians and were involved in the suppression of the revolts in Jerusalem from 60 CE to about 70 CE When they returned home, they made Mithraic dedications, probably in the year 71 or 72.

wiki wrote:

No Mithraic scripture or first-hand account of its highly secret rituals survives, with the possible exception of a liturgy recorded in a 4th century papyrus, thought to be an atypical representation of the cult at best. Current knowledge of the mysteries is almost entirely limited to what can be deduced from the iconography in the mithraea that have survived

wiki wrote:

Evaluation of the relationship of early Christianity with Mithraism has traditionally been based on the polemical testimonies of the 2nd century Church fathers, such as Justin's accusations that the Mithraists were diabolically imitating the Christians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraic_Mysteries

barfizz

Hi PDN,

maybe you would have liked to have finished your quote, it gives a very different slant

PDN
Originally Posted by wiki
Evaluation of the relationship of early Christianity with Mithraism has traditionally been based on the polemical testimonies of the 2nd century Church fathers, such as Justin's accusations that the Mithraists were diabolically imitating the Christians

Evaluation of the relationship of early Christianity with Mithraism has traditionally been based on the polemical testimonies of the 2nd century Church fathers, such as Justin's accusations that the Mithraists were diabolically imitating the Christians.[21] This led to a picture of rivalry between the two religions, which Ernest Renan set forth in his 1882 The Origins of Christianity by saying "if the growth of Christianity had been arrested by some mortal malady, the world would have been Mithraic,"[22] Although as remarked above, little was actually known about Mithras in 1882.

Martin (1989) characterizes the rivalry between 3rd century Mithraism and Christianity in Rome as primarily one for real estate in the public areas of urban Rome.[23]

Sonderval

Martin (1989) characterizes the rivalry between 3rd century Mithraism and Christianity in Rome as primarily one for real estate in the public areas of urban Rome.

Indeed, this is something I keep seeing in the 4 papers I've acquired since yesterday on this subject. It seems that, contrary to what PDN was saying about Mithraism, it is Christianity that was the upstart cult that arrived at Rome. Mithraeum's (temples to Mithras) were present in Rome during the second century, at a minimum. Indeed, not only were they present, but they far, far outnumbered Christian temples.

To quote:
"...based upon Coreielli's estimates, that just under 700 Mithraea should exist in Rome" [1]. Interestingly, these temples existed in the heavy urban areas of Rome, and were frequently based near public venues, barracks and baths. This gels well with what I understand of the cult, being a top down hierarchy system that promoted a sense of loyalty - you'd want to have your temples near places that had high population density. Also, this is the lowball figure - Coarelli's high estimate puts there in excess of 2,000 mithraea in rome by the second century.

Further in, Martin states:
"By contrast, only 25 Christian tituli are known in Rome by the fourth century, while the first Christian bascilae were pointedly built outside the walls of the city". This is where the whole deal about real estate pops up. As we know, Christians had no problem taking over previous temples for their own use. This undoubtedly happened as their religion grew.

As for the relative size, consider also:
"The population of Roman Mithraists would have been approximately 41,000, or more"

For christian demographics:
"Cornelius, bishop of rome, in the mid-third century (251-253), provides the only statistic for estimating the number of Roman Christians. In a letter which is cited by Eusebius, he reports that there are 154 Christian officials in Rome: 46 presbyters, 7 deacons, 7 sub-deacons, 42 acolytes and 52 exorcists, readers and door keepers".

The estimate arrived at is 50,000, but this has been dismissed as too high by other references (I can't get them, so I don't know why that is the case). Depending on where you want to put your statistical bias, it would seem that the low ball of Mithrais followers of 41,000 may well exceed the high ball value of Christians in this time frame (based on the 50,000 value being debunked).

Now for some op-ed conclusions on my part It would, in my estimation, seem acceptable to assume that Mithraic worship far exceeded Christian worship in Rome during the 1st to 3rd century. If the 700 temples was in fact 2000 (or higher), the population of cultists sky rockets. Barring reconsecration of existing temples in Rome during the rise of this cult, it seems plausible to suggest that Mithraic tradition in Rome was not an overnight phenomenon and that it may have well been a part of life by the time Christianity reacher Rome in the 1st century.

But Mithraism did not become popular in Rome until the Third Century

One could argue that, but from what I am reading, it seems to have been prominent and far more populous a movement then you've been led to believe. Certainly the fact that mithraeums were almost entirely found in the urban areas while christian temples were not found there at all until much later, implies that it was certainly a much more established cult.

More to follow!

References Found so far:

[1] Roman Mithraism and Christianity
Luther H. Martin
Numen, Vol. 36, Fasc. 1 (Jun., 1989), pp. 2-15
[2]Review: Mithras
S. R. F. Price
The Classical Review
[3]The Mysteries of Mithras: A New Account of Their Genesis
Roger Beck
The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 88, (1998), pp. 115-128
[4]The Mysteries of Mithra By Franz Cumont, Thomas J. McCormack (online)

pH

The specific claims that Christianity was a copy cat religion, just invented to ride on the popularity of the Mithraism, may not be true in a literal sense, but are true in an allegorical sense. That's what I believe anyway.

Sonderval

The specific claims that Christianity was a copy cat religion, just invented to ride on the popularity of the Mithraism, may not be true in a literal sense, but are true in an allegorical sense. That's what I believe anyway.

Christianity existed as and part of its own prior to reaching Rome. This is pretty much undeniable. In what form of belief that was, we we can't be certain.

In no way am I suggesting that Christianity is a knock off of Mithraism. What I am suggesting though is that through syncretism, what arrived in Rome back in the 1st century may have been considerably re-interpreted to appeal to religious folk of existing religions in Rome. Thereby, a large amount of mithraic beliefs would have filtered into the early chrisitian belief system.

Its not that hard to believe. When you consider the early church and its struggle for identity, the gnostics, the apocrypha and the summation of creed as defined by Constantine during the Council of Nicea, it becomes very hard to figure out where the truth of Jesus message lies.

Tim Robbins

Sonderval wrote: »

Its not that hard to believe. When you consider the early church and its struggle for identity, the gnostics, the apocrypha and the summation of creed as defined by Constantine during the Council of Nicea, it becomes very hard to figure out where the truth of Jesus message lies.

Exactly. In ther very early days of Christianity there were three at least sects:
1. Jewish only sect
2. Pauline sect
3. Gnostics.

How many are there now?

Goduznt Xzst

Sonderval wrote: »

it becomes very hard to figure out where the truth of Jesus message lies.

Simple! :rolleyes: Just ask anyone over in the Christianity forum, I'm sure they'll all be happy to express to you how the Christian sect that they, personally, are a member of is where Jesus' true message lies.

It becomes pathethic listening to them after a while, it's like watching people argue over how many grains of sand are in a jar, while nobody thinks that maybe they should wait, count the grains of sand and then there wouldn't be a need for the argument at all. What makes it even sadder though is that at least the number of grains of sand in that jar is tenable, their opinions on God and how the bible should be "properly" understood is not

JimiTime

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Simple! :rolleyes: Just ask anyone over in the Christianity forum, I'm sure they'll all be happy to express to you how the Christian sect that they, personally, are a member of is where Jesus' true message lies.

It becomes pathethic listening to them after a while, it's like watching people argue over how many grains of sand are in a jar, while nobody thinks that maybe they should wait, count the grains of sand and then there wouldn't be a need for the argument at all. What makes it even sadder though is that at least the number of grains of sand in that jar is tenable, their opinions on God and how the bible should be "properly" understood is not

LOL:D Your posts rarely fail to entertain. Be careful you don't fall from that horse now, seems quite high.

CerebralCortex

JimiTime wrote: »

LOL:D Your posts rarely fail to entertain. Be careful you don't fall from that horse now, seems quite high.

In defense of my fellow non believer that is such a typical response. We could accuse each other all day of being on high horses all day it still doesn't change the truth of things.

Sonderval

Many sects alright - makes you wonder, does it not?

JimiTime

CerebralCortex wrote: »

In defense of my fellow non believer that is such a typical response. We could accuse each other all day of being on high horses all day it still doesn't change the truth of things.

Ahh but so few do it with such glorious Rhetoric:) Also, some horses are higher than others.....Whats the weather like down there:)

Tim Robbins

Sonderval wrote: »

Many sects alright - makes you wonder, does it not?

I remember when I was 12, a Priest came into our religion class and wrote down all the religions of the World. I asked:
"Are all these people convinced they're right, just like they Christians are convinced they are right?"
"Yes"
"But they all believe different things so how can they all be right?".

At that point, I realise it was possible for humans to be absolutely convinced they are right when they could be actually wrong.

If you're a religious person and you are anyway at all intelligent, objective and educated. You have two options:
1. Accept your religion is just one of many ways to God - like the Unitarians do.
2. Have gone through every single religion in the world and give them all equal about of time and treat all as fairly in your research so that you are in a position to say, I've picked the correct one.

What I feel Christians who are convinced they are right do, is they just read a few apologetic books (for the parts of the Bible that don't make sense) and they then get a load of sophistry which they are happy to accept.

This allied with the fact that they the majority of people in their lives believe a particular religion just make believable.

"Look what happend to my good friend Billy who used to be an alco"

Then they think they've thought about it and experienced it at 1st hand.
(Throw in some nice hymns and probably all the benefits you get from the placebo and it gets even more believable).

But IMO they haven't really thought about it objectively unless they have gone through Islamic apologetics and Buddhist apologetics and all other apologetics to the same degree unless they have a very good reason why they didn't.

Of course the reason why they don't is because of cultural and societal biases which completly cloud any sort of objective thinking.

Incredible, really.

Fanny Cradock

Sonderval, you may be interested in reading The Roman Cult of Mithras.

Sonderval

Nice find there Fanny, didnt see that one on google books oddly enough.

Shame some of the best chapters are restricted.

I'll see if I can track it down in dead-tree form.

PDN

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Simple! :rolleyes: Just ask anyone over in the Christianity forum, I'm sure they'll all be happy to express to you how the Christian sect that they, personally, are a member of is where Jesus' true message lies.

No, we wouldn't. But I'm sure you knew that before you posted that particular untruth, didn't you?

Goduznt Xzst

PDN wrote: »

No, we wouldn't. But I'm sure you knew that before you posted that particular untruth, didn't you?

Thanks for dropping by PDN. I didn't realize you spoke for every Christian in that forum. Could you point me in the direction of where this was formally agreed upon? I'm sure some of the Catholics that frequent it take umbrage with your opinion of the Pope being the leader of an apostate Church.

There are a number of Christians from different sects in the Christianity forum and i'm sure if I sat down with any of them they'd extol the merits of their particular understanding of the bible over all other sects, just as you believe the Catholic Church is obviously apostate in its teachings, and that the beliefs that you hold are clearly how God intended the bible to be understood. You are no different to any other Christian I've spoken to, regardless of the sect they are in or the orthodox/heterodox understanding of the Bible they follow.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

No, we wouldn't. But I'm sure you knew that before you posted that particular untruth, didn't you?

what are you talking about? when there isn't an atheist around that is nearly all you guys seem to talk about among yourselves, normally over the whole Catholicism is correct/Catholicism is wrong debate (poor old Kelly)

Húrin

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Of course the reason why they don't is because of cultural and societal biases which completly cloud any sort of objective thinking.

Incredible, really.

I find the delusion that one can rise above cultural and societal biases to become "objective" to be incredible, really.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

I find the delusion that one can rise above cultural and societal biases to become "objective" to be incredible, really.

that is why we have science

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

what are you talking about? when there isn't an atheist around that is nearly all you guys seem to talk about among yourselves, normally over the whole Catholicism is correct/Catholicism is wrong debate (poor old Kelly)

I don't think your statement is fair representation at all. It's a given that the majority of our (Christians) time on Boards is spent defending Christianity in some manner. However, when we are not fighting tooth and nail with you guys, I feel that there is a far richer and deeper inter-denominational congruence in what we, as Christians, ultimately believe as opposed to what we disagree upon.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

what are you talking about? when there isn't an atheist around that is nearly all you guys seem to talk about among yourselves, normally over the whole Catholicism is correct/Catholicism is wrong debate (poor old Kelly)

What I'm talking about is that, apart from the odd die-hard Catholic, none of us on the Christian forum insist that our particular group is the closest to the truth about Jesus - in fact thjat is one of our major gripes against the Roman Catholic Church.

I believe, for example, that the Salvation Army is much better than my own denomination at expressing the love of Jesus to alcoholics and the homeless, the Quakers are much closer to the truth when it comes to pacifism and nonviolence, and other movements and denominations are also closer to the truth in other areas.

However, it obviously suits Goduznt Xzst's purposes to ignore this and to dishonestly misrepresent us as all thinking that our particular sect is the one that is closest to the truth.

Goduznt Xzst wrote:

Thanks for dropping by PDN. I didn't realize you spoke for every Christian in that forum. Could you point me in the direction of where this was formally agreed upon?

And here is another example of his dishonesty. His original statement said:

Simple! Just ask anyone over in the Christianity forum, I'm sure they'll all be happy to express to you how the Christian sect that they, personally, are a member of is where Jesus' true message lies.

Notice that little word "all"? He was clearly stating that everyone of us would take this view. So even if only one of us takes a different view then that demonstrates his assertion to be false. Now, however, he's trying to pretend that he was only talking about some of us - so that it takes some kind of a formal agreement.

Goduznt Xzst

PDN wrote: »

However, it obviously suits Goduznt Xzst's purposes to ignore this and to dishonestly misrepresent us as all thinking that our particular sect is the one that is closest to the truth.

This is hogwash and you know it. You know very well that the average Christian, being a member of a sect, believes that the one they are in will get them a ticket straight to immortality. If asked, they will not say "any sect will do, as long as it's Christian" they will say that the one they are in is the best and detail why they felt confident enough to choose it. I'm sure if an individual came up to you and said "I'm undecided as to whether to become a Jehovahs Witness or join your sect" that you would not say "any will do, all Christian sects are equally correct"

PDN wrote: »

And here is another example of his dishonesty. His original statement said:

Notice that little word "all"? He was clearly stating that everyone of us would take this view. So even if only one of us takes a different view then that demonstrates his assertion to be false. Now, however, he's trying to pretend that he was only talking about some of us - so that it takes some kind of a formal agreement.

PDN, i'm not going to entertain another one of your arguments over language and it's interpretations. But you can't reply to my hyperbole with equal hyperbole and then call me dishonest. You are equally as dishonest to say that you speak for every member of the Christianity forum when you clearly don't.

Regardless, keep calling me dishonest, it just makes your argument look more and more desperate.

PDN

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

This is hogwash and you know it. You know very well that the average Christian, being a member of a sect, believes that the one they are in will get them a ticket straight to immortality. If asked, they will not say "any sect will do, as long as it's Christian" they will say that the one they are in is the best and detail why they felt confident enough to choose it. I'm sure if an individual came up to you and said "I'm undecided as to whether to become a Jehovahs Witness or join your sect" that you would not say "any will do, all Christian sects are equally correct" .

Untrue again. Most posters on the Christianity board have repeatedly stated that it is personal faith in Jesus Christ rather than membership of any organisation that grants salvation.

PDN, i'm not going to entertain another one of your arguments over language and it's interpretations. But you can't reply to my hyperbole with equal hyperbole and then call me dishonest.

If you post in English then you should expect people to interpret your words according to normal English usage.

You are equally as dishonest to say that you speak for every member of the Christianity forum when you clearly don't.

I never made any such claim. Please stop lying about me.

Regardless, keep calling me dishonest, it just makes your argument look more and more desperate.

You state things that are obviously untrue. That makes you either dishonest or an idiot.

Goduznt Xzst

PDN wrote: »

Untrue again. Most posters on the Christianity board have repeatedly stated that it is personal faith in Jesus Christ rather than membership of any organisation that grants salvation.

They state this because it is the only aspect they know they can agree upon. I'm sure if there was only a general "religious" forum, you'd find all the Jews, Muslims and Christians at least agreeing that some form of Deity exists to keep the peace, whilst fundamentally disagreeing with each other under the surface.

I've read a lot of posts that show a lot of the Christians there disagree on some of the fundamental understandings of the Bible. Sure they have aspects they agree upon, but they would never change sect or belief because they believe the other person is false in the other aspects of their interpretation of the Bible, whether it should be understood as literal or allegorical... etc

PDN wrote: »

No, we wouldn't.

PDN wrote: »

I never made any such claim. Please stop lying about me.

Ok last post here. Your replies bore me PDN as they always, read, always denigrate into an argument over semantics and how language should be interpretted. Is it really the only ground that you can argue on?

You also seem to be getting a little hot under the collar with your replies, throwing around insults and flagrant accusations, so I'll step back to let you cool off, and let you give us your next english lesson.

You said "we", plural, in reply to my statement that "all" the members of the Christianity forum would respond in a particular way. You clearly do not know that you speak for anyone in the Christianity forum, you may assume that you do, but that is all that it is, an assumption.