Posts

Mithrism Barrowed from Christianity

"The sacred books which contain the prayers recited or chanted during the [Mithraic] survives, the ritual on the initiates, and the ceremonials of the feasts, have vanished and left scarce a trace behind...[we] know the esoteric disciplines of the Mysteries only from a few indiscretions." (Cumont, Franz. The Mysteries of Mithra. New York: Dover, 1950.152) ( Roman Cult began after Jesus life Our earliest evidence for the Mithraic mysteries places their appearance in the middle of the first century B.C.: the historian Plutarch says that in 67 B.C. a large band of pirates based in Cilicia (a province on the southeastern coast of Asia Minor) were practicing "secret rites" of Mithras. The earliest physical remains of the cult date from around the end of the first century A.D., and Mithraism reached its height of popularity in the third century. (Ulansey, David. Cosmoic Mysteries of Mithras (website) No Continuity between Ancient Persian past and Roman Cult T...

The Implausible Copycat Candidate: Mithraism

Proponents of the so-called "copycat" theory of Christian origins allege that Christianity is a myth based on the appropriation of various pagan beliefs. The most common source of beliefs supposedly borrowed is Mithraism. The alleged similarities between Christianity and Mithraism are usually overblown or distorted, but perhaps an even bigger weakness of the theory is timing. Simply put, Mithraism cannot be a source for Christianity if it came later. Origins As an initial matter, it can be difficult to establish parallels because of the fundamental differences between Christianity and Mithraism. Christianity was an open evangelistic religion whereas Mithraism was a secret, mystery cult. Christians announced their core beliefs whereas Mithraism hid them. Christianity left behind a wealth of manuscript evidence, whereas Mithrasm left very little. One implication of this is that given the paucity of evidence about Mithraic beliefs, commentators are able to read into Mi...

Why Neurological Data about RE Doesn't Disprove the RE God Argument

We have made great strides in the last two decades, understanding the relation between consciousness and brain chemistry. As a consequence of their reductionistic materialist mentality, atheists assume that any relation between brain and mind sums up all relation between brain and mind. Atheists tend to side with the functionalists, assuming that all consciousness is mere epiphenomena related to brain function. Thus, they quick to argue that RE is nothing more than some sort of miss-fire of the synapse, or a heritable trait of evolution produced by the need of the tribe for unity. This view point is totally disproved, however, by none other than Andrew Newberg, one of the major researches of the “God Pod” (my own term for what is commonly called “the God part of the brain.” Researchers have discovered that there are parts of the brain that reaction to God-Talk. “The God part of the brain” as well as “God Pod” are both misnomers because there are actually several areas that react in thi...

Atheists: the featherweight theological division

One thing I like about apologetics (both for theism and atheism), despite its bad reputation for cherry-picking facts, indulging in ad hominems and breeding false confidence, is that it focuses entirely on what is to me the most interesting question in the academic study of religion: the cognitive status of religious truth-claims. There's certainly a place for more phenomenological, descriptive studies of particular religious experiences, religious history and so on, but generally scholars in religious studies refrain from advancing arguments for the truth of any particular belief or belief system. Denys Turner wants that to change: "[this is] how I envision Theology being done within the university-as argument between traditions of truth-claim in contestation over the truths they make claim to." William J. Abraham has issued a similar challenge to religious scholars: "We need more than armchair possibilities and thought experiments; we need actual claims advanced in...

Is Richard Carrier Wrong about Romans 8:11 and Bodily Resurrection?

Romans 8:11 and Bodily Resurrection For previous installments in the “Is Richard Carrier Wrong About ....” series, check the post and links, here . In this installment, we turn to Carrier's exegesis of a specific Pauline passage. According to Richard Carrier, one of the most problematic Pauline passages for his two-body resurrection theory is Romans 8:11: However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you. Romans 8:9-11. The reference to the Spirit giving life to the Christian's mortal body seems a clear statement that the existing, mortal body will be tra...

Why did Jesus have to Die? An analysis of Atonement

Image
On the comment section Mike asks this question: "Why did Jesus have to die?" He sites his own blog "Journey of an Ex Christian:" Monday, December 31, 2007 Why did Jesus have to die? The Bible and traditional Christian theology tell us that Jesus had to die because humanity was lost in original sin. Jesus' death and resurrection paid the price that we would have had to pay for our sins, and all we have to do is truly accept his gift. First let us set up some definitions. God: Omniscient, Omnipotent, Non-Temporally bound being who created all things. Jesus: Emanuel (God with us), Son of God and also God himself. See the Gospel of John chapter 1. Humanity: Creations of God, originally good, but defiled by our original sin through Adam and Eve. I recently re-read the story of the drawbridge operator who sacrificed his son to save the lives of those on the train. The Drawbridge Keeper I'm sure it's not a true story, but it can be moving nonetheless. It's ...

Desperate, But Not That Desperate

Here is a joke that is in a recent edition of the Humanist Network News under the title of Desperate, but not that desperate : A man stumbles into a deep well and plummets a hundred feet before grasping a spindly root, stopping his fall. His grip grows weaker and weaker, and in his desperation he cries out, "Is there anybody up there?" He looks up, and all he can see is a circle of sky. Suddenly, the clouds part and a beam of bright light shines down on him. A deep voice thunders, "I, the Lord, am here. Let go of the root, and I will save you." The man thinks for a moment and then yells, "Is there anybody else up there?" I found it odd that this was in the HNN. What's odd is that I cannot figure out exactly why a humanist, aka skeptic, would find this funny. From my Christian point of view, that is exactly what skeptics do -- they turn away from the clear evidence presented that God exists and prefer to hope for something else that leaves them despera...

The World's Missionaries to Part of the Church

In his book What's So Great About Christianity? , Dinesh D'Souza discusses the explosive growth of what he calls "Traditional Christianity" (which he acknowledges is the same concept as C.S. Lewis called "mere Christianity" in his book by the same name) in much of the world. He compares it to the withdrawal that he sees in the mainstream churches in America which are rapidly shrinking. In the course of this discussion, he sets forth a quote that I found both interesting and accurate which I would like to share. Here in the West, there are lots of liberal Christians. Some of them have assumed a kind of reverse mission: instead of being the church's missionaries to the world, they have become the world's missionaries to the church. They devote their moral energies to trying to make the church more democratic, to assure equal rights for women, to legitimize homosexual marriage, and so on. A small but influential segment of liberal Christianity rejects a...

Adam's Rib -- Or Not?

Warning: This particular post discusses a part of the male anatomy and may make some readers uncomfortable. A new book has apparently been released by biblical scholars John Kaltner and Stephen L. McKenzie of Rhodes College in Memphis, TN, named The Uncensored Bible: The Bawdy and Naughty Bits of the Good Book , co-written with Christian satirist Joel Kilpatrick. The book's synopsis begins with a eye-opening question: exactly which of Adam's bones was Eve made from? We all know the story of how Eve was created from Adam's rib. But what if, perhaps, "rib" was a mistranslation and the body part she was really created from was Adam's penis bone? This would explain why human males don't have such a bone, unlike other male mammals. That's only one of many surprising and fun biblical twists readers will encounter in The Uncensored Bible. According to an brief announcement about the book in the Salt Lake City Tribune, the authors answer that it is possible th...

Typical Misconceptions about Religous Experince

Image
This was a post on my blog this July 14 (08) and involves the comments made in the comment section by a poster named "Andy Wright." Andy Wright makes comments in response to "More on Extraordinary claims," I will answer his comments here because they are typical of certain atheist misconceptions that I have been trying to correct since I started on internet apologetics boards. The average atheist on the net seems to believe that religion is for feeble minded dullards who can't think, that's its effects are clearly proven to be very bad for both the individual and society, and that belief is receding into he mists of history. Not only are these ideas totally wrong, but they are the exact opposite of truth. Not only so, but that these things are totally false is clearly demonstrably provable with the best scientific evidence. Religion is actually very good for you, religious people are much better adjusted, by and large, than most atheists. Religious people ar...