Mithras and Christ

Is the Gospel of Jesus Christ Inspired by Mithraism?

Apr 4, 2008

Some say Christianity came from Mithraism along with every major Christian doctrine, such as the virgin birth of Jesus and his resurrection. Is this true?

Was Christianity formed on the back of Mithraism? Did the cult of Mithras inspire the Christian religion? A sizable number of Christianity's critics, especially those on the Internet, say "Yes." Though they are outside the mainstream scholarly community in making this claim, they are nevertheless a highly vocal and visible minority. And if their position is correct, then Christianity - as they well know - is fatally undermined and discredited.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ

At its core, the central message of Christianity is that God came into the world in human form to atone for the sins of mankind. That Jesus of Nazareth was Immanuel - God with us - and that he:

was born of a virgin
taught the kingdom of God, gathering followers (including twelve primary disciples)
performed miracles
was crucified
rose from the dead
ascended back into heaven, and...
is coming again

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the "Good News" that Jesus rose from the dead, thus validating his claim to be the Messiah and the Son of God - and that he therefore is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" (John 14:6).

Christianity and Mithraism

Not so, say critics like Vexen Crabtree. A student of pagan religions and a self-described Satanist, Crabtree writes: "Christianity grew out of a mixture of Persian Mithraism, Judaism and the works of individuals such as St. Paul who gave us written records of this synthesis."

Kenneth Humphreys, whose website "Jesus Never Existed," takes aim at virtually all of the major tenets of Christianity, maintains that Mithraism was a "dress rehearsal" for Christianity and that the two religions are virtually identical. Humphreys writes:

Mithras had had twelve followers with whom he had shared a last sacramental meal. He had sacrificed himself to redeem mankind. Descending into the underworld, he had conquered death and had risen to life again on the third day. The holy day for this sun god was, of course, Sunday (Christians continued to follow the Jewish Sabbath until the fourth century). His many titles included ‘the Truth,’ ‘the Light,’ and ‘the Good Shepherd.’ For those who worshipped him, invoking the name of Mithras healed the sick and worked miracles. Mithras could dispense mercy and grant immortality; to his devotees he offered hope. By drinking his blood and eating his flesh (by proxy, from a slain bull) they too could conquer death. On a Day of Judgement those already dead would be raised back to life.

Others make the claim that Mithras, like Jesus, was born of a virgin, but Humphreys readily grants this is a weak parallel. In fact, Humphreys argues that "Mithraism's failure to have anthropomorphised its god into a man - something which was to be accomplished so successfully by Christianity - weakened the cult's appeal to the uneducated and opened the door to the competition."

Tracing the Origins of MithraismAs the two religions (MIthraism and Christianity) are currently understood, the parallels are striking and difficult to dispute. However, it takes more than similarity and parallel to prove a connection, particularly a dependent one.

What we know about Mithraism comes primarily from Franz Cumont, a Belgian scholar who pieced together a theoretical understanding of the ancient mystery religion from various strands of evidence. His 1903 monumental work, Mysteries of Mithras, is regarded as a foundational milestone in the scholarly study of Mithraism.

Two facts should be understood about Cumont's work:

His work was the inspiration behind a wave of early-to-mid 20th century scholarship that claimed Christianity arose from Mithraism
Since the 1960s and 70s, much of Cumont's work and many of the subsequent conclusions by those 20th century scholars linking Christianity and Mithraism have been rejected

The biggest problem facing Cumont's thesis is that the earliest Mithraic inscription in the West dates to a statue from the year A.D. 101. And while the god Mithras has been traced to the fourteenth century B.C., the vast majority of texts describing Mithraic beliefs are dated after A.D. 140. So what, you ask?

The current understanding of Mithraic beliefs is based on Mithraic inscriptions and texts that date to the second, third, and fourth centuries in this common era. It is sheer speculation, at best, to argue that Mithraism (as explained by Cumont and 20th century scholarship) is the same form of Mithraism that stretches back to its ancient origins in Persia. There is no documentary evidence to support such speculation. That means it's possible that some of the tenets of Mithraism similar to Christianity may have been copied from Christianity as opposed to the other way around. One can speculate in either direction, and it's just that -- speculation.

The Origins of the Gospel of Christ

Whatever the origins of Mithraism, there is documentary evidence attesting to the origins of Christianity. Agnostic, liberal, and conservative New Testament scholars agree that parts of the New Testament were written as early as the fifth decade of the common era (50s A.D.), and that these writings were heavily informed by oral traditions carried forward by Jesus' closest followers.

Furthermore, the core of Christian theology was fully developed by the end of the first century A.D., with Christianity's leading apostles articulating the basic tenets of Christianity - which can still be heard from pulpits today.

This means that the Christian religion can be traced, via documentary evidence, to the same century - even to within 20 years - of its founder! Very few religions in the world have such strong documentary evidence supporting them. Certainly not Mithraism.

*********

Sources for this article include:

The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel (Zondervan 2007)

Website: Vexen Crabtree's "Mithraism and Early Christianity"

Website: "Jesus Never Existed" (subsection on Mithraism)

Website: "Sacred Texts" (subsection with Frank Cumont's The Mysteries of Mithra - 1903)

The copyright of the article Mithras and Christ in Protestantism is owned by Brian Tubbs. Permission to republish Mithras and Christ in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Comments

Apr 5, 2008 5:23 AM

Pink :

.
In his most recent article, Brian claims:
.
At its core, the central message of Christianity is that God came into the world in human form to atone for the sins of mankind. That Jesus of Nazareth was Immanuel - God with us - and that he:

* was born of a virgin
* taught the kingdom of God, gathering followers (including twelve primary disciples)
* performed miracles
* was crucified
* rose from the dead
* ascended back into heaven, and...
* is coming again

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the "Good News" that Jesus rose from the dead, thus validating his claim to be the Messiah and the Son of God - and that he therefore is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" (John 14:6).
.
I disagree that you even come close to identifying the Gospel.
.
The "Good News" is that human beings do NOT have to go through some religious rigamarole to please some angry god; but, that a direct relationship with the God Spirit is the norm. The result of that is that the priesthood and every other supposed super person or persons is removed as legitimate authority over us--we are sovereigns with God. Jesus is the example of what sets us free from the bondage of every evil authority.
.

Apr 5, 2008 7:35 AM

Brian Tubbs :

Other than your comment about it being the "norm," you have a slice of the pie with your answer - but not the whole thing. Yes, Jesus makes a way for us to have a relationship with God apart from complex, hierarchical religious orders. You are correct about that, but only partly so.

The Good News of Jesus Christ IS centered on Jesus' resurrection, because it validated who Jesus said he was - namely the Son of Man (a divine self-description). Jesus was God in the flesh. He is Immanuel.

Pink, you reject this - as is your right. But you are postulating a theory that is limited and NOT based on any historical evidence.

Do you really believe you have a better idea of the Gospel than the Apostle Paul? Do you actually believe your theory has more credibility than the Apostle Peter?

Apr 5, 2008 8:01 AM

Pink :

.
What it means to be the son of man and the son of God is relative to the issue involved in the life and death of Jesus.
.
What makes a person a "son of man" is that they carry the weight of the world on their shoulders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber
.
Jesus is presented as being a person identified with all humanity in a way that he felt everyone's pain. That is difficult for us to do; but, if we try, we can experience some small part of it. The more trod upon we are, the more we feel the pain.
.
Jesus had gone beyond the place where he could appeal to the temple leaders for any satisfaction. He plead with God for understanding--he sought to know. And, he learned the truth about God--he became the Son of God.
.
I think this is the hidden message of the Gospel that comes through all the biblical rhetoric and religiosity.
.
The truth about God is available to each and every one of us outside the realms of organized religion which puts an unnecessary burden on our backs and entangles us in bondage to its authority.
.

Apr 5, 2008 8:40 AM

Brian Tubbs :

Do you believe the meaning of words should be based on the intent of those who spoke or wrote them? Or...

Do you believe the meaning of words should be determined by those who READ them?

Apr 5, 2008 8:46 AM

Pink :

.
It's not that simple.
.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
.
And, it is constantly changing.
.
Meanings of words are constantly affected by the context in which the words appear.
.
Migisi has reminded us time and again that the only thing constant is change.
.

Apr 5, 2008 8:58 AM

Brian Tubbs :

This is probably one of the major points of disagreement I have with you and Migisi. I understand that things change, but some things should NOT change.

When Jesus called himself the "Son of Man," he meant something. Let's call that meaning "X."

Now, it's true that different people have interpreted Jesus' "Son of Man" description in different ways over the centuries. In that sense, you could say that there's been change. But...

There's still one CONSTANT - and that's "X" (Jesus' original meaning).

The only meaning that REALLY matters at the end of the day is Jesus' original meaning.

Apr 5, 2008 9:26 AM

Pink :

.
The only meaning that REALLY matters at the end of the day is Jesus' original meaning.
.
Matters? Matters to whom?
.
And, who is to say what Jesus' original meaning was? You? Me?
.
That's why I say that meanings change.
.
"...some things should NOT change."
.
What should be is one thing. What is--is most often--something else.
.
I'm sure you've noticed that so far.
.
:)

Apr 5, 2008 12:36 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Pink, if Jesus meant he was divine when he said "Son of Man," then that's what he meant.

If he meant what YOU said, then that's what he meant.

But to say that HIS meaning changes over time is bogus. I'll grant that people's INTERPRETATIONS of his meaning change. But Jesus said what he said and meant what he said - and that doesn't change.

Apr 5, 2008 12:49 PM

Pink :

.
I think a strong case can be made that the message given by Jesus is transcendent, i.e., it is able to flex with the times in which the respondent receives it.
.
We live in times that are so totally different than those of just a few generations ago that what they understood is not able to be appreciated today and vice versa.
.
When we expand that time back two thousand years and move it forward by the same amount of time, meanings change.
.
I see what you're saying and I don't have any problem with it. But, I know what I'm saying is just as valid. They are not different realities. But, each person is different from every other person. Our interpretation is what is important. THAT, in and of itself, is part of what it means for to be at one. When I am at one with you, that condition is different than when I am at one with someone else. When I am at one with God, that condition is different than when someone else is at one with God.
.
We are all individual in our own sense--no two of us is the same as each other.
.
It doesn't seem to be such a difficult thing for me to understand. It's like falling off a log. Very easy.
.

Apr 7, 2008 12:41 PM

Brian Tubbs :

I believe the writer of Hebrews would respond to your latest post here with the same words that he wrote in his original letter to the Hebrew Christians -- words we find in Hebrews 13:8...

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever."

Apr 8, 2008 6:09 AM

Pink :

.
We keep coming back to postmodernism in these threads.
.
It's easy to see why so many "defenders of the faith" are so opposed to the ideas it engenders. Postmoderns are able to stand up with questions to statements like Hebrews 13:8 as you use it.
.
Hebrews 13:8 can be paraphrased to say, "Jesus Christ has always been transcendent, is transcendent, and always will be transcendent". Transcendence meaning to go beyond the limits that have been established.
.
True Christianity sets no limits of the possibilities of existence. Religionism alwyas sets limits.
.

Apr 8, 2008 6:26 AM

Brian Tubbs :

Pink, postmodernists who believe that truth is limitless and can be redefined in each passing age are wrong. It's a fundamentally flawed worldview - a wrong-headed approach. And Christianity should be opposed to it.

The winners of this past Super Bowl were the New York Giants. The winners of the 2008 Super Bowl will ALWAYS be the New York Giants. That won't change over time. People might MISTAKENLY change the name of the winning team over time or attribute the victory to the Patriots or whatever. But they would be MISTAKEN to do so. The TRUTH is that the Giants won the 2008 Super Bowl!

George Washington was the president of the 1787 Constitutional Convention. That truth remains the truth throughout ALL of time. Yes, we could have a future constitutional convention that elects a different president, but Washington will always be the president of the 1787 constitutional convention. That will NOT change!

Likewise, Jesus proclaimed certain truths and facts about himself. Whatever those facts and/or truths were, that's what they were - and those facts, those truths do NOT change their fundamental meaning over time. People may change their IMPRESSIONS over time, but the center of gravity doesn't rest with one's understanding or perception. What Jesus said is what he said. And what he meant is what he meant. And that doesn't change - unless and until HE changes it. And even then, it only changes insofar as NEW revelation from HIM is concerned, not insofar as the original message.

Apr 8, 2008 6:40 AM

Pink :

.
You're making my point.
.

Apr 8, 2008 7:30 AM

Migisi :

.
I understand that things change, but some things should NOT change.
.
Spoken like a true authoratarian. :) Just because ~you~ think some things SHOULD NOT change doesn't mean they can't or don't.

Apr 8, 2008 9:55 AM

Brian Tubbs :

Just because ~you~ think some things SHOULD NOT change doesn't mean they can't or don't. 
Of course it does. :) It's all about me, after all. :) Oh, wait, I sound like a postmodern relativist, don't I?

Apr 8, 2008 10:34 AM

Brian Tubbs :

The issue of this discussion is whether the Christian conception of Jesus is based on the mythology of Mithras. I would submit that this is ultimately a TRUTH question. Either the founders of Christianity invented their faith based on Mithraism or they didn't. Either Christianity comes from Mithraism or it doesn't.

While people will certainly have differing opinions on this matter, that does NOT mean that all these opinions are of equal value or validity. Those who claim Mithraism and Christianity are dependently linked are either right or they are wrong. It is not simply a matter of interpretation.

How then can we know whether Christianity came from Mithraism? It is a simple (perhaps not easy - but SIMPLE) exercise in investigating the question. Here are the issues or questions which must be carefully and objectively studied...

1) Are there similarities?
2) If so, what are the similarities and what is the nature of those similarities?
3) Which faith came first?
4) Which of the similarities came first - example, which faith had the first resurrection story?
5) Is there any documentary evidence (letters, diaries, archaelogical records) that shows a conscious linkage between the two faiths?

The burden of proof is on those who claim that Christianity came from Mithraism. If they cannot establish to a reasonable degree of certainty that such a dependent link exists (using the above questions as a guide and using the standard of documentary and/or some form of TANGIBLE evidence), then their theory should be regarded simply as speculation - and nothing more.

But let's understand that this exercise is one of FACT-finding and truth-seeking. It is NOT merely one of subjective interpretation, where truth is determined by the seeker. To the extent that it is, then the exercise has no validity or credibility whatsoever - and should be rejected out of hand.

Apr 8, 2008 10:42 AM

Pink :

.
Personally, I don't claim Christianity came from any other religion; but, from the necessity of the times.
.
Here we are, in postmodern culture--post industrial society--the twins of our times.
.
Read the post on the postmodern condition in the postmodern thread. Who controlled the knowledge that was available during the time that the Bible was canonized?
.
Any answers?
.
Or are we supposed to think there was such a thing as a free press in those days--let alone free speech? You could have been burned alive at the stake just for being associated with the wrong people. It is the same question we are faced with in today's society and culture.
.
Get real.
.
:)

Apr 8, 2008 11:20 AM

Brian Tubbs :

You're making a serious error in interpreting history - one that could easily be corrected simply by looking at CHRONOLOGY!

People see the imperial power of the organized Catholic Church - when they look back at history, something that BEGAN to develop after Constantine and was well in place by the 5th and 6th centuries. And then they think of the Inquisition and all that, and assume that the Bible was canonized under these auspices. This is Dan Brown extremism - it's prejudice built on a false foundation!

Pink, you (like Dan Brown and so many other critics) are taking the worst aspects of corruption and power that have been observed in Christian history and you're projecting this perspective BACKWARD onto the canonization process - but the chronology doesn't fit! The facts (and, yes, there are FACTS we can examine here) don't support your presuppositions or assumptions.

Here are the facts (focusing on the New Testament canon)...

1. The books of the current 27-volume New Testament were all written - INDIVIDUALLY - within the FIRST century. There are a VERY small handful of scholars that put the Gospel of John and Revelation into the early 2nd century. These academics are on the fringe, however. The wide consensus is that all the NT was written in the FIRST century! And even if you want to toss out John and Revelation, you've still got 25 of the 27 NT books written in the first century - and those 25 books provide all the core Christian doctrines.

2. The early Christian churches actively circulated and made copies of the Gospels and apostolic letters, which now comprise the NT. This is a fact beyond dispute! And this proliferation of copies can be traced to the first century.

3. By the time the canon was formally determined in the 4th century, the CONTENTS of the canon were already in WIDE USAGE in churches throughout the known world. So what, you ask?

4. The canon process was essentially ratifying what the Christian churches were already embracing! There was no closed-door, corrupt, high-powered conspiracy of "priests" imposing books on the masses. That's just absurd. It didn't happen that way at all - UNTIL the Roman Catholic Church forcefully added the apocraphyal books to the canon in the Middle Ages!

5. There was disagreement during the canon process over a small number of the books, such as Revelation, II Peter, and Hebrews. But even if you throw those books out, you STILL have the core, fundamental doctrines of the Christia

Apr 8, 2008 11:26 AM

Pink :

.
I know all of that.
.
My point has to do with who was in control of what got recorded including the original manuscripts that are available.
.
We just cannot be absolutely positive without actually having to have been there to see it for ourselves.
.
That's my total point.
.

Apr 8, 2008 11:51 AM

Brian Tubbs :

My point has to do with who was in control of what got recorded including the original manuscripts that are available.

We can be reasonably certain how the New Testament originals were produced. (I say "reasonably certain" not as a cop-out, but simply as an acknowledgment that ABSOLUTE certainty is only possible via DIRECT observation).

I will grant that there's more mystery with respect to the Old Testament. As a Christian, I accept on faith that the Old Testament (as we have it) reflects what God wants in the Bible. And I acknowledge that this is a FAITH proposition on my part. Speaking as a student of history, we cannot be certain how all the Old Testament was written or edited. There IS some mystery there. But....

That mystery recedes considerably when you get to the New Testament, especially the epistles. Yes, there's some uncertainty on specifics -- i.e., Paul apparently writes FOUR letters to the church at Corinth. We only have two preserved, except for the possibility that one of the missing letters is incorporated into II Corinthians. So, you have questions like that, but otherwise...there's a high degree of confidence in the integrity and credibility of most of the NT books.

Apr 8, 2008 3:26 PM

Pink :

.
We can be as reasonably certain as we were with the stories Donald Rumsfield and Company were telling us prior to the violent and unprovoked military attack on Iraq by W.
.
Going around and making unfounded statements that claim legitimacy for historical documents is off base in our postmodern times.
.
Most wide awake people do not buy into those grand narratives any more. We used to do that; but, we don't anymore.
.
So, here we are--you and me--playing language games.
.
You have come clean, however, I must say. It is all about faith. So, we can stop with the claims of absolute truth all ready.
.

Apr 8, 2008 5:23 PM

Brian Tubbs :

I reject the cynicism to which you and other postmoderns have surrendered. History is not as undiscoverable as you make it out to be. There are many things about history that we CAN know with reasonable certainty - much more so than what we give credit.

As for my admission, don't read more into it than what I said. There are many facts concerning Christianity that I can prove beyond any reasonable doubt. No faith required. However, that are other aspects of my Christian beliefs that require a step of faith. It's not an all-or-nothing thing.

For example, with due respect to Migisi, we can be pretty certain that Jesus lived and that he amassed a following and that he was crucified. These facts are not in dispute, except on the fringe.

Now, when it comes to the virgin bith of Jesus...that is all faith. There's no way anyone can prove that Jesus was born of a virgin, unless we could time-travel back to Judeo-Palestine and observe Mary's entire life. Not going to happen, so that one has to be taken on faith or rejected.

But the entire Bible is not like the virgin birth doctrine. There's a great deal in the Bible that we CAN know with reasonable certainty.

Some of the Bible can be established with a high degree of confidence. Some of it has to be taken on faith.

Apr 9, 2008 5:00 AM

Pink :

.
Cynicism? How's that?
.

Apr 9, 2008 11:20 AM

Brian Tubbs :

We can be as reasonably certain as we were with the stories Donald Rumsfield and Company were telling us prior to the violent and unprovoked military attack on Iraq by W.

Your premise is that anyone in positions of power or influence can't be trusted

Going around and making unfounded statements that claim legitimacy for historical documents is off base in our postmodern times.

The statements I'm making ARE founded. You deny that and simply point to issues of trust - see above - and/or to postmodernism. It's cynical. It's dismissive. It's wrong.

Apr 9, 2008 3:07 PM

Pink :

.
Your premise is that anyone in positions of power or influence can't be trusted.
.
Keerect your are!
.
Postmodernism] is cynical. It's dismissive. It's wrong.
.
Postmodernism doesn't make any claims. But, postmodernists do. And, many of them are cynical, dismissive, and wrong. Many are correct. I think I have a pretty good handle on things; but, I could be wrong.
.

Apr 9, 2008 4:51 PM

Migisi :

.
Your premise is that anyone in positions of power or influence can't be trusted.
.
Keerect your are!
.
I second that - for the most part.

Apr 9, 2008 6:41 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Your rejection of biblical truth then is based on your lack of trust in any person that holds a position of influence or a position of authority. That is cynicism in the extreme, and I hope that very, very few people reading this thread share it. The less cynicism of that kind we have in this world, the better off we will all be.

Apr 9, 2008 6:53 PM

Brian Tubbs :

If Christians cannot make any truth claims, because of the limitations of language and/or because of our "postmodern times," then the same limitation applies to atheists or (bringing us back to this thread) adherents of Mithraism.

If we follow postmodern deconstruction to its logical end, then no truth is possible to ascertain. Knowledge is fundamentally elusive, and everything is relative and/or subjective. And...it's therefore pointless to even discuss or debate anything -- esp when you throw in the postmodern distrust of language itself.

Apr 9, 2008 6:56 PM

Pink :

.
The less cynicism of that kind we have in this world, the better off we will all be.
.
It would be wonderful if we could believe all the stories we've been told over the centuries.
.
And that is the point so many make in our postmodern times. The grand narratives have failed us and we are set adrift on a sea of stories each with its own vocabulary.
.
You and I could kick against the barbs as long as we live; but, the generations coming up see through the stories.
.
The real problem is not in trying to save the stories; but, in developing strategies to deal with what is coming next.
.

Apr 9, 2008 7:09 PM

Brian Tubbs :

It would be wonderful if we could believe all the stories we've been told over the centuries.

NO ONE is asking you or anyone else to believe "all the stories we've been told over the centuries."

I'm not saying that "all the stories we've been told over the centuries" are true. I'm saying that SOME of the stories are true. And there are ways we can validate some of those stories.

We need not throw the baby out with the bath water!

Apr 10, 2008 6:01 AM

Pink :

.
My opinion is that some of us will always believe some of the stories we hear some of the time; but, that none of us will believe all of the stories we hear all of the time.
.
And, that is part of the postmodern condition.
.
After a while, one story is as good as the next one. And, that creates a problem for every ideology that seeks to be seen as legitimate.
.
.

Apr 10, 2008 11:08 AM

Migisi :

.
I'm saying that SOME of the stories are true. And there are ways we can validate some of those stories.
.
Which ones? Can you validate the resurrection story is true - and not just hearsay? How about the virgin birth?

Apr 10, 2008 12:52 PM

Brian Tubbs :

I've already acknowledged in a previous post that the virgin birth is a story one must accept on faith. There's no way to verify that - unless you travel back in time and follow Mary around.

Apr 10, 2008 4:10 PM

Migisi :

.
the virgin birth is a story one must accept on faith.
.
IMO, there are MANY stories which one might voluntarily accept on faith - like they're part of the Christian 'package'. Gotta believe it all. But, I wonder WHY they are accepted as truth when they can't be validated?

Apr 15, 2008 5:44 AM

Pink :

.
I think the validations of the absolutes various ideologies hold out to be truth are within the stories people keep telling each other.
.
What is amazing is the extent to which organizations go in their efforts to make their foundations valid. Starting with St. Peter's in Rome and moving to the Mosques in Spain and coming around the world to the sprawling campuses in America, religion has put great effort into solidifying beliefs into "truth". It isn't easy to expose any weaknesses.
.
But, I think we see them here as the defenders have faded into the woodwork.
.

Apr 15, 2008 11:06 AM

Brian Tubbs :

Christianity, at its core, is built upon the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There are aspects of Jesus' life that CAN be proven. And there are aspects of Jesus' life that cannot be proven, but need to be taken on faith.

Pink and Migisi, you're right to say that not all religious claims are provable. But you're wrong to say that ALL religious claims are simply matters of faith and belief. Some CAN be proven.

Apr 15, 2008 2:04 PM

Pink :

.
Brian poses with, "Christianity, at its core, is built upon the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ."
.
I respectfully disagree with your statement. Here is what I say, "Christianity, at its core, is built on narratives as they are recorded in the Holy Bible."
.
By the way, without doing so, what is it that can be proven aside from faith and belief?
.

Apr 16, 2008 6:20 PM

Brian Tubbs :

If the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt," then there are facts about Jesus' life that can clearly be established. And there are others that are LIKELY - meaning that the record of them according to the Bible is more likely true than any alternative explanation or interpretation.

If the standard is scientific, absolute verification, then THAT is only possible through direct observation. And if the standard is universal agreement, then forget it. There are still people who believe the earth is flat. So, you'll never achieve proof to that standard.

Apr 17, 2008 4:56 AM

Pink :

.
I didn't ask you for any proof.
.
I merely asked what "things" CAN be proven.
.
Just because something is written down doesn't make it true.
.

Apr 17, 2008 10:02 AM

Brian Tubbs :

You really need to listen to Amy Orr-Ewing's explanation of history and what can be substantiated from it.

http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=182&TopicID=1&CategoryID=2

She's brilliant and her explanation of this issue is outstanding!

Apr 17, 2008 10:08 AM

Brian Tubbs :

Also, I recommend once again that you read this essay (which appears to be an excerpt from a debate) by Keith Windschuttle. It's called "History, Truth, and Postmodernism."

http://www.sydneyline.com/HSC%20History%20talk.htm

Apr 17, 2008 11:29 AM

Pink :

.
All I asked for was a list of some of the "things" you said could be proven.
.
I'm not looking for proof.
.

Apr 18, 2008 8:10 AM

Brian Tubbs :

"Things" that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt...

1. There was a CAUSE to the universe
2. There is evidence of some type of external, intelligent design
3. There was a man named Jesus of Nazareth who lived in the first century in Judeo-Palestine
4. This Jesus of Nazareth was a teacher who amassed a significant following
5. Jesus was crucified by authority of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate
6. Jesus' tomb was found empty
7. Many of Jesus' followers (Paul's letter to I Corinthians cites a number greater than 500) claimed they saw him AFTER his death - this set the stage for belief in the resurrection!

The above facts (and there are others) can be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

6.

Apr 18, 2008 8:15 AM

Brian Tubbs :

If by "things," you are referring to items in a GENERAL sense, then I would answer it this way...

When it comes to history, we can establish participants (who they were, what they were named), places of interest or significance, events of significance, and/or beliefs held by people of the past. We can study historical leaders, battles, documents, etc. - and draw reasonable and (in some cases) relatively air-tight conclusions about them.

For example, we know that the Americans and the French defeated the British at Yorktown. We know that Julius Caesar was assassinated. We know that JFK was assassinated. We know that the Allies landed in Normandy, France on June 6, 1944.

There are many, many, many "THINGS" which can be known. Many. And, of course, there are some things that can't.

Apr 18, 2008 10:10 AM

Pink :

.
I'm not at my own computer right now; but, I have some information there about historical truth and its validity.
.
I'll enter that when I'm at my home office.
.

Apr 18, 2008 2:28 PM

Pink :

.
I ran across some work by an Australian author and historian by the name of Keith Windshuttle.
.
It has been said, you are one who makes such claims, that historical writing can be depended on for accuracy.
.
Here are some points about recorded history in Windshuttle's words:
.
"1. Truth is not an absolute concept but a relative one. Different cultures and even different political positions each have their own truths.
.
2. History cannot give us any knowledge in an absolute sense. Different ages reinterpret the past for their own purposes.
.
3. We do not have access to any such thing as a real world. What we think of as reality is a construct of our own minds, our language and our culture.
.
4. The meaning of any text is in the eye of the interpreter. People of different ethnic, sexual and cultural backgrounds will read historical evidence their own way, and that way will be different to people from other perspectives.
.
5. History is thus not fundamentally different to myth or to fiction. When historians look at past cultures they cannot be objective, nor can they escape from the cocoon of their own politics or culture. What historians see in the past are their own values and interests reflected back at them." 
.
I am currently reading some of what he has to say in this area. Are you familiar with his work?
.

Apr 18, 2008 3:16 PM

Brian Tubbs :

I'm familiar with Keith Windshuttle, and have referenced him several times. These points that you attribute to him are NOT his position. He takes the opposite stance. He is a leading critic of postmodernism in the field of history.

http://www.sydneyline.com/HSC%20History%20talk.htm

Apr 18, 2008 3:24 PM

Pink :

.
Perhaps you should check this site out and make a complaint:
.
http://www.publicphilosophy.blogspot.com/2003_01_05_publicphilosophy_archive.html
.
You can go there and under "edit" on your tool bar, do a find for "Windshuttle's words:" and you will find the statement I credited to him. Please verify it as I do not want to make improper credits.
..
I must add that I took the statements out of context. Here is the intro to the statements:
"Windshuttle breaks with this to the extent that he gives us the prevailing assumptions of postmodern history writing."

Apr 19, 2008 5:00 PM

Brian Tubbs :

I surfed around the site a little bit. I didn't have time to dig into deeply. It seems that the blog author is largely in agreement with my position. The quotes you lifted seem to be the kind of quotes that Windshuttle would use as examples to refute.

Apr 19, 2008 6:40 PM

Pink :

.
Perhaps; but, they are credited as his way of defining the post modern condition regarding truth and history.
.

Apr 22, 2008 9:43 AM

Liz Kirchner :

Hi,
I'd like to understand better the basic premise that Christianity is fatally undermined and discredited by the notion that pre-existing spiritual approaches like Mithraism influenced its adoption.

It is not stated why outside influence is undesirable.

It would also be helpful to present evidence to readers why and how it would be possible that pre-existing world views did not affect the adoption of the new Christian world view. Maybe a different article.
Thanks very much,
Liz

Apr 23, 2008 5:43 AM

Pink :

.
It seems it would be more the other way around that Christianity would have an effect on pre-existing views.
.
In fact, that is what Christianity is all about, is it not?
.

Apr 24, 2008 7:34 AM

Migisi :

.
It is not stated why outside influence is undesirable... how it would be possible that pre-existing world views did not affect the adoption of the new Christian world view.
.
Two very good points for discussion, Liz. I'd like to hear some ideas on those myself.
.
Just dropping by, again. :)

Apr 25, 2008 1:39 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Hi Liz,

I'll try to answer your questions as best I can...

I'd like to understand better the basic premise that Christianity is fatally undermined and discredited by the notion that pre-existing spiritual approaches like Mithraism influenced its adoption.

There are certain traditions and practices within the LARGER "Christian" community (particularly within Catholicism) that have been influenced by pagan traditions. The basic premise of Christianity is NOT undermined by this.

But if the belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the view that Jesus serves at the atonement of our sins - if those two tenets as examples - are based on Mithraism or any pagan tradition, then Christianity WOULD be fatally undermined. It would quite clearly mean that the atoning sacrifice of Jesus and his resurrection are nothing more than myth.

It would also be helpful to present evidence to readers why and how it would be possible that pre-existing world views did not affect the adoption of the new Christian world view. 

It seems that you're shifting the burden of proof here, asking me to prove a negative. I think the burden of proof (or at least the burden to offer compelling evidence) rests on the person presenting a theory, interpretation, or narrative.

That said, I accept that certain traditions and practices WITHIN the OVERALL "Christian" (and I use that term very broadly) community were influenced by paganism. Certain practices within Christmas, for example, have pagan roots.

Apr 26, 2008 6:10 AM

Migisi :

.
But if the belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the view that Jesus serves at the atonement of our sins - if those two tenets as examples - are based on Mithraism or any pagan tradition, then Christianity WOULD be fatally undermined. It would quite clearly mean that the atoning sacrifice of Jesus and his resurrection are nothing more than myth.
.
Quoting snippets (my bold and italics) from:
.
The Pagan Files
http://alkman1.blogspot.com/2006/12/sun-gods-as-atoning-saviours.html
.
SUFFERING SAVIORS
"....These myths arose before the time of Christ, but their exact date cannot be fixed, because the history of ancient mythology is not known and probably cannot ever be known, and not least because chronology before the time of Alexander the Great (330 BC) gets increasingly uncertain....
.
"Tammuz was a god of Assyria, Babylonia and Sumeria where he was known as Dumuzi...The fullest history extant of this saviour is probably that of Ctesias (400 BC), author of Persika. The poet has perpetuated his memory in rhyme.
.
'Trust, ye saints, your Lord restored,
Trust ye in your risen Lord;
For the pains which Tammuz endured
Our salvation have procured.'
.
"Tammuz was crucified as an atonement offering: "Trust ye in God, for out of his loins salvation has come unto us." Julius Firmicus speaks of this God rising from the dead for the salvation of the world. This saviour which long preceded the advent of Christ, filled the same role in sacred history.
.
"Even the Catholic Encyclopedia notes: 'Nature Worship generally, and Agrarian in particular, were responsible for the Tammuz cult of Babylon, with which the worships of Adonis and Attis, and even of Dionysus, are so unmistakably allied. Much might have been hoped from these religions with their yearly festival of the dying and rising god, and his sorrowful sister or spouse.'
....
.
"Speaking of this crucified Messiah, the Anacalypsis informs us that several histories are given of him, but all concur in representing him as having been an atoning offering for sin. And the Latin phrase "suspensus lingo," found in his history, indicates the manner of his death. He was suspended on a tree, crucified, buried and rose again. Attis is the Phrygian version of Tammuz, and Adonis and Jesus could equally well be included here as other versions of the same god.
....
"The illustration is of an ancient La

Apr 26, 2008 1:18 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Many of the overall myths (general story arcs, legends, characters, etc.) were certainly in place before the time of Christ. But the idea of an atoning death and resurrection -- that particular idea -- is a different matter altogether. We do not have any documentary evidence that puts a divine atonement and resurrection story prior to the time of Christ. NOT UNLESS YOU MAKE THE ASSUMPTION that the resurrection myth was originally part of the overall mythical story. But this is far too great an assumption, since virtually any historian will tell you that these myths change, evolve, and develop over time.

Apr 26, 2008 2:01 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Just FYI - I read the article that you linked.

I would invite those observing these discussions to watch the video at this link...

http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=strobelT1085

...and read The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel.

Apr 26, 2008 3:01 PM

Pink :

.
Go ahead, all you with any courage, check it out:
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu6bZpRNIYI8Ae4hXNyoA?fr2=sg-gac&sado=1&p=death%20and%20resurrection%20myths&ei=UTF-8&vm=p
.

Apr 26, 2008 4:39 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Courage is critical, Pink. And let there be no mistake. I am not encouraging anyone to avoid researching this. Go ahead. Do the research. Check out the sites Pink has pulled up. Read the articles that Migisi has linked. Go ahead.

But...remember that courage alone will not lead you to the answers. You also need intelligence, critical thinking skills, and an appreciation for and understanding of CHRONOLOGY. These things (at least the latter one) seem to be lacking with respect to many who claim that Christianity is based on paganism.

Apr 26, 2008 4:41 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Rather than repeat points already made, I'd encourage those dropping in on these discussions to read one of the original articles I wrote on this subject...

http://protestantism.suite101.com/article.cfm/is_christianity_based_on_paganism

Apr 27, 2008 8:42 AM

Migisi :

.
Many of the overall myths (general story arcs, legends, characters, etc.) were certainly in place before the time of Christ. But the idea of an atoning death and resurrection -- that particular idea -- is a different matter altogether.
.
Change the gods names, but the underlying 'suffering savior' theme remained the same... crucifixion, resurrection, blood atonement for sin. Not a 'different matter altogether', as I see it.
.

Apr 28, 2008 12:54 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Maybe I'm not articulating my point very well (a distinct possibility), but you are sidestepping my main point. Or at least you appear to be.

I have acknowledged two things...

1) there are parallels between Christianity and some of the pagan religions

2) these parallels include suffering/dying/atoning/rising gods

These points you continue to emphasize over and over, but you are beating a dead horse. As are so many others making the same points. The CRITICAL issue is (and it's also my main point)...

The parts of these pagan myths that include "suffering / dying / atoning / rising gods" - those parts of the myths - canNOT be traced to before Christ. It's as if the myths themselves changed AFTER Christ.

For example, the religion of Adonis predates Jesus, but the story of Adonis returning from the dead is an addition to the legend -- an addition that postdates Jesus.

Apr 30, 2008 7:06 AM

Migisi :

.
Bri wrote: For example, the religion of Adonis predates Jesus, but the story of Adonis returning from the dead is an addition to the legend -- an addition that postdates Jesus.
.
I previously posted:
.
The fullest history extant of this saviour is probably that of Ctesias (400 BC), author of Persika. The poet has perpetuated his memory in rhyme.
.
'Trust, ye saints, your Lord restored,
Trust ye in your risen Lord;
For the pains which Tammuz endured
Our salvation have procured.'
.
The above verses predate Jesus by 400 hundred+ years, and refers specifically to 'risen Lord' and 'Our salvation'. I consider this 'documentation' of the myth's resurrection/salvation components predating Jesus.
.
The Prometheus myth first appears in the Greek epic poet Hesiod's "Theogony" - circa late 8th - early 7th centuries BC). Additions to the myth post-Jesus referred specifically to Prometheus' role in the creation of Man. They didn't add the resurrection/atonement concepts to the Prometheus myth ~after~ Jesus.
.

Apr 30, 2008 8:49 AM

Pink :

.
1. What difference does it make that the stories of Christianity are similar to others that predate it?
.
2. Just because some one else claims to have been raised from the dead, does that negate the story of Jesus?
.
3. What about the story of Eshtar?
.
I don't mean to discount anything that has been posted here--only to ask these three simple questions.
.
:)

May 1, 2008 7:22 AM

Liz Kirchner :

Hi Brian,
Thank you for your prompt reply, sorry for the delay in mine. You're probably on to other things by now, but I wonder if you might talk a little more about the requirement of originality in Christian tenets. It seems to me that the Christian construct of the covenent between God and people is different than the pagan construct. Even if the images of resurrection and atonement have always been used to illustrate stories, if you're Christian, you believe this particular story is more than just a story.

I wonder too, if you would, please clarify (and typing in big letters doesn't count) why the atoning sacrifice of Jesus and his resurrection are valuable only if they were original ideas. Clearly, these basic tenets are valuable to Christians and unique in the context of Christ's teachings.

Basic world-view teachings like "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" are not original. Most religions and world views encourage good behavior with varying amounts of a God as enforcer or guide, but when Christians add to those social guidelines the motivation to do good because Jesus died for our sins and wants us to, that's what gives old ideas the new, Christian, original twist.

It sounds as if I'm trying to make you feel better about the long, and really pretty undeniable, intertwining of all human cultural thought with profoundly ancient, fire-lit tales of God and Man that explained death, encouraged love, and kept the demons at bay just beyond the flickering light, that you don't like.

Thank you for your insight on this subject.
Best regards,
Liz

May 1, 2008 8:00 AM

Liz Kirchner :

People do change stories, don't they. Is that true about the Adonis story adding the rise-from-the-dead twist? That's interesting. Although... there are a lot of pre-Christian spring rite stories that involve resurrection. Persephone right off the top of my head and the Native American Manabozho story...I think it's Algonquin.

May 1, 2008 5:29 PM

Brian Tubbs :

I wonder too, if you would, please clarify (and typing in big letters doesn't count)...

I couldn't help but get a good chuckle out of this. What if I LIKE TYPING IN BIG LETTERS? :)

May 1, 2008 5:36 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Here's another great article on Christianity's comparisons with pagan religions...

http://www.probe.org/cults-and-world-religions/the-pagan-connection-did-christianity-borrow-from-the-mystery-religions.html

May 1, 2008 5:46 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Here's an article on Prometheus specifically...

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/promy.html

May 1, 2008 5:47 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Here's an excellent scholarly article on some of the resurrection myths that have alleged parallels with Jesus...

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html

May 2, 2008 5:43 PM

Pink :

.
I picked up a book at Barnes and Noble to read while we are spending our spring vacation in southern Florida.
.
Susan Jacoby's, The Age of American Unreason.
.
I did sixty pages on the plane this afternoon.
.

May 3, 2008 12:15 PM

Migisi :

.
1. What difference does it make that the stories of Christianity are similar to others that predate it?
.
Just responding to Brian's previous statement: "The parts of these pagan myths that include "suffering / dying / atoning / rising gods" - those parts of the myths - canNOT be traced to before Christ. It's as if the myths themselves changed AFTER Christ." It makes little difference (to me, anyway) which myths people choose to believe.
.
2. Just because some one else claims to have been raised from the dead, does that negate the story of Jesus?
.
Jesus wasn't the first or the last. Other Bible characters allegedly rose from the dead BEFORE Jesus allegedly did.
Just a few examples: A widow's son (1 Kings 17:19-24); the Shunammite's son (2 Kings 4:32-35); a man whose body touched Elisha's dead bones (2 Kings 13:21); Lazarus (John 11:43-44); a ruler's daughter (Matthew 9:23-26); 'many' others rose from the grave at the moment Jesus died and 'appeared to many' in the holy city (Mat27:52-53); Eutychus returned to life AFTER Jesus' resurrection (Acts 20:9-10); and so did Tabitha (Acts 9:36-43). We don't proclaim all who allegedly were resurrected to life are gods (or the God). So why was Jesus so special?
.
3. What about the story of Eshtar?
.
Eostre, the Anglo-Saxon goddess, is associated with renewal of life (spring). Does 'renewal' mean the same as 'resurrection'?
.

May 3, 2008 3:51 PM

Pink :

.Does 'renewal' mean the same as 'resurreciomn'?
.
I don't know; but, I can say that the antiintellectual attitude being expressed here that keeps denying your good points has been around for at least a hundred years. It is astonishing to see it come from otherwise intelligent people.
.

May 5, 2008 8:15 AM

Migisi :

.
I can say that the antiintellectual attitude being expressed here that keeps denying your good points has been around for at least a hundred years.
.
And likely will be around for another 100+. I understand why denial is imperative. Brian said it best:
.
"But if the belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the view that Jesus serves at the atonement of our sins - if those two tenets as examples - are based on Mithraism or any pagan tradition, then Christianity WOULD be fatally undermined. It would quite clearly mean that the atoning sacrifice of Jesus and his resurrection are nothing more than myth."
.
He's right, of course.

May 5, 2008 8:52 AM

Pink :

I guess the active word in Brian's statement is "based".
.
Otherwise, the similarity means nothing.
.
If I were a doctrinarist I guess I would think all that stuff was important. As it is, I think it is just an interference to our ability to have a sense of unity with the Great Spirit. I think that doctrinairist ideas are what Jesus came against. And the upper crust of organized religion do not like that. It is why Jesus is crucified in the stories. I see it all as metaphor to the history of humanity's struggle against the power elite.
.
Dostoyevsky seemed to have it all down pat in his story of the grand inquisitor.
.

May 5, 2008 12:50 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Pink attributes an "antiintellectual attitude" to my disagreement with Migisi. Is the requirement of being "intellectual" that I must agree with Migisi? To agree with Migisi is to be intellectual and to disagree is to be "anti-intellectual"? Am I understanding you correctly, Pink?

Or perhaps it's this way....

To stand on the tenets of evangelical Christianity is "anti-intellectual" and to reject Christianity is intellectual. Perhaps THAT is what you're saying.

May 5, 2008 12:58 PM

Brian Tubbs :

You've got me digging into ancient mythology at this point. Just letting you know that I'm not ignoring your point here. For the time being, I will concede that you've offered a valid point of evidence - some type or degree of a "risen lord / salvation" legend, which predates the life of Jesus.

Although, this article here from Tektonics is worth a look...

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/tammuz.html

Yet even if Tektonics is wrong and you're right, there is another dimension to Jesus, that being the prophecies which themselves predate him. I'm aware that skeptics (such as yourself and the websites you often quote) are forever attacking and attempting to debunk these prophecies (such as the ones from Isaiah), but the prophecies concerning Jesus are a part of the dimension which should be weighed and considered here.

May 5, 2008 1:08 PM

Brian Tubbs :

For those interested in INTELLECTUAL points, I would offer some logic here. If Migisi and those in her camp can establish that there were dying/rising god legends before Jesus (and before the prophecies pointing to Jesus), then they will have scored an important point. I will concede this.

However, in order to fatally undermine Christianity, they then need to establish that the early Christians borrowed from these pre-Jesus legends. In order to do that, they have to (among other things) answer the evidence surrounding the life of Jesus and the death of Jesus as well as his purported resurrection.

Think of it this way...

The fact that two religious faiths have similarities does not automatically prove that one religion borrowed from the other. I would submit, after all, that ALL religions (except for atheism) have at least one thing in common - that being a belief in the supernatural. Most religions, in fact, share many things in common. Commonality alone does not prove sameness and it does not prove dependence.

May 5, 2008 1:13 PM

Pink :

.Brian quips, Pink attributes an "anti-intellectual attitute" to [his] disagreement with Migisi...
.
I guess I would expect more from someone who takes the role of hosting a site than your facitity here, Brian.
.
I'm sure ~ as a person who claims to be an historian ~ you know exact;y what an anti-intellectual is. And, you do qualify with you cutesy response. Sorry to say.
.
But so what, right?
.
It doesn't take all that much to fatally undermine any ideology that claims to know the absolute truth.
.
:)
.

May 5, 2008 3:51 PM

Pink :

.
I meant to write, facicity.
.
For facicious.
.

May 6, 2008 11:09 AM

Brian Tubbs :

Pink, you're sidestepping my question. I have a pretty good idea of what an intellectual standard is - at least when it comes to history. That being that one should examine all the evidence and follow it where it leads. Contrary to your assumptions about me, I've done that. You underestimate the seriousness of my periods of doubt in the past. I really did put everything about my faith to the test. I examined the evidence as objectively as I could, and I came to the conclusion that there's more evidence for Christianity than for any other religion in the world. And that there's more evidence for Christianity than atheism. I grant that the evidence doesn't take you ALL the way to Christianity, but it takes you pretty close to the mark. The rest you have to take by faith. But it's not a blind leap of faith. It's a reasonable step of faith.

May 6, 2008 12:09 PM

Pink :

.
Here is the facictious statement you made, "Pink attributes an 'antiintellectual attitude' to my disagreement with Migisi. Is the requirement of being 'intellectual' that I must agree with Migisi?"
.
I think it was a cheap spin shot for you to make. It is not true.
.

May 6, 2008 12:58 PM

Pink :

.
When points of fact are met with blinded denial, I think we see the groundwork of anti-intellectual behavior. Religionists have long been famous for closing their eyes to any such point. One of the most obvious of all is the continual demands made on behalf of the Intelligent Design promoters, to teach their ideology in public schools as though it were a theory combined with their claims that evolution is an unprovable idea.
.
Evolution is proven to be true.
.
Admitting to this fact of reality should not require an act of courage on the part of any Christian.
.
:)
.

May 7, 2008 10:55 AM

Migisi :

.
In order to do that, they have to (among other things) answer the evidence surrounding the life of Jesus and the death of Jesus as well as his purported resurrection.
.
Answer what 'evidence'? Isn't your evidence really just 'hearsay', and the twisting/stretching of OT prophesies to fit the man named Jesus?
.

May 7, 2008 7:56 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Pink, evolution is a loaded term, meaning different things depending on context. Intraspecies adaptation - or what is also known as micro-evolution - has been proven to be true. It's been proven, because it's been observed. What has NOT been proven is that all species have evolved from a common ancestor.

It is hardly "anti-intellectual" to point this out.

May 7, 2008 8:00 PM

Brian Tubbs :

The empty tomb isn't hearsay. Nor is the fact that the birth of Christianity can be traced to the third decade of the first century.

As for the rest of the evidence, if you're going to dismiss the early written records as merely "hearsay," then - to be consistent - you'd also have to say that the assassination of Julius Caesar is "hearsay" as would be any number of episodes in ancient history - for which our primary evidence is oral or written tradition.

May 8, 2008 6:55 AM

Migisi :

.
The empty tomb isn't hearsay.
.
Has a burial tomb been irrefutably located, identified, and proved to be the one Jesus was allegedly buried in? No. And the gospel writer's explanation as to why his tomb was empty IS definitely hearsay.
.
As for the rest of the evidence, if you're going to dismiss the early written records as merely "hearsay," then - to be consistent you'd also have to say that the assassination of Julius Caesar is "hearsay" as would be any number of episodes in ancient history - for which our primary evidence is oral or written tradition.
.
Did the writers documenting Caesar's assassination have a particular agenda to sell to the public, or a religion to promote? No. (Did any historian write that Caesar rose from the dead?) The early Christians had both motives for spinning a tale. Hence, my skepticism of the validity of their 'documentation' regarding a man called Jesus - and their claim that he was THE suffering/dying/rising savior (and all others preceding Jesus were false gods).
.
Ever read the story of hero Paul Bunyan? Are we supposed to believe that, by merely his clapping hands, he broke out all the windows in his house... or that he and his ox carved out the Grand Canyon by dragging an ax - just because someone wrote it? The Paul Bunyan yarns are indeed entertaining, but they're not true.
.

May 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Pink :

."... evolution is a loaded term, meaning different things depending on context. Intraspecies adaptation - or what is also known as micro-evolution - has been proven to be true."
.
I don't see the significance of speciation, if that's the correct word, as far as accepting the fact that evolution is a fact of life (no pun intended). :)
.
You are probably one of the very few professing Christians to admit to evolution. It is almost impossible to find more than a handful of Evangelicalist Christians who accet evolution; but, a large number want Intelligent Design taught in public schools as an alternative to evolution. Now, that is plain ignorance.
.

May 11, 2008 7:37 AM

Migisi :

.
You are probably one of the very few professing Christians to admit to evolution.
.
Yep - to his credit. Shows he's still capable of rational thinking. (wink and :) )

May 11, 2008 7:51 AM

Pink :

.
Today is the 100th anniversary of the first Mother's Day and it took place in the State of Virginia.
.
Happy Mother's Day to you, Migisi!
.

May 12, 2008 8:37 AM

Migisi :

.
Thanks, Pink. And "happy happy" to all Mom's lurking here.
.
It's my 34th Mother's Day, and my 6th Grandparent's Day coming up. I don't count my birthday's anymore. :)

May 12, 2008 2:14 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Has a burial tomb been irrefutably located, identified, and proved to be the one Jesus was allegedly buried in? 

You know as well as I that the words "irrefutably" and "proven" are loaded. If the standard of proof is absolute, then the answer is "no." Of course, how many things can be absolutely proven beyond refutation or doubt? Think about that question before answering too quickly.

If the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt," then we're down to two likely locations - and (if you throw in James Cameron's "Lost Tomb" documentary) one additional, though unlikely possibility.

Unless you're going to speak up for Cameron's location (and you'd once again be in the minority - even quite a few skeptics of Christianity have dismissed Cameron's hypothesis), I won't waste time on that one.

So, we're down to two locations - and they both have in common the fact that they're empty.

For more on the historicity of the empty tomb, I recommend the article below...

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tomb2.html

May 12, 2008 2:18 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Migisi, your comments about the bias and lack of trustworthiness of the early Christian writers is based on a faulty premise. It simply doesn't work CHRONOLOGICALLY.

You're looking at Christianity - as it later became institutionalized. And then you're assuming that people twisted and changed certain "facts" of history to advance their agendas and empower themselves. That works....IF....you buy into the Dan Brown claim that Constantine invented Christianity and affirmed the deity of Christ in some Nicene conspiracy in 325 AD. Of course, Dan Brown's claim is historically invalid. The evidence just isn't there to support it.

Resurrection claims surrounding Jesus can be traced back to the third decade - the very decade of Jesus' crucifixion! That's a remarkable and (for you) inconvenient fact of history. I realize, of course, that claims don't equate to reality, but they DO prove that the resurrection wasn't a myth LATER invented by "priests" or conspiratorial power-brokers trying to empower themselves.

And finally...bias in and of itself doesn't mean a person can't speak the truth. And having an "agenda" doesn't mean a person is incapable of presenting accurate information.

May 13, 2008 7:27 AM

Migisi :

.
You know as well as I that the words "irrefutably" and "proven" are loaded.
.
Yep, I know they're loaded. You use them a lot to qualify your so-called 'evidence'.
.
Of course, how many things can be absolutely proven beyond refutation or doubt?
.
Exactly.
.
So, we're down to two locations - and they both have in common the fact that they're empty.
.
Two empty tombs prove one thing -- there's nothing in them. If I discover two empty buckets, how can I know what - if anything - was carried in either before I found them? There's no physical evidence inside them. Heck, the buckets may never have been used at all. Emptiness is not evidence.

May 13, 2008 8:12 AM

Migisi :

.
And then you're assuming that people twisted and changed certain "facts" of history to advance their agendas and empower themselves. That works....IF....you buy into the Dan Brown claim...
.
I contemplated the truth-twisting and Bible interpolations by comparing the gospel accounts of the same event, and studying Church history - well before Dan Brown wrote his first words down. I am an ex-Catholic, and was required to study Church history.
.
Are you saying that, throughout Christian history, not one apostle, disciple, priest, monk, Pope, king, or preacher today has advanced their religio-political agendas and empowered themselves by corrupting what was written or orally transmitted? If so, you must believe that every Christian over the last 2008 years was/is sinless and divine.
.
Resurrection claims surrounding Jesus can be traced back to the third decade - the very decade of Jesus' crucifixion!
.
Crucifixions and resurrection claims of gods and their champions existed WAY before Jesus' time, and continued thereafter.
.
I realize, of course, that claims don't equate to reality,...
.
We agree.
.
...but they DO prove that the resurrection wasn't a myth LATER invented by "priests" or conspiratorial power-brokers trying to empower themselves.
.
As I said, resurrection myths had been created well BEFORE Jesus' time (I presented examples before). The suffering/dying/rising savior myth was merely transferred to Jesus in order to make him divine and promote a new belief system.
.
And finally...bias in and of itself doesn't mean a person can't speak the truth. And having an "agenda" doesn't mean a person is incapable of presenting accurate information. 
.
From my life observations, the biased speak ~~their~~ version of the truth. And to promote their a specific agenda, their information is often tainted and slanted in favor of that truth. But these are just my observations.

May 13, 2008 9:01 AM

Pink :

.
Then, there's Jack and the Beanstalk.
.
Don't forget that one.
.
I was with some people during my vacation. A child asked her mother, "Who wrote the Bible?"
.
No answers were given.
.
I related your thoughts about primitive people sitting around a camp fire. Then, the mother said, "Your father and I believe that it is the actual Word of God."
.
What choice does the child have?
.

May 13, 2008 6:24 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Pink, you're dealing (again) in extremes. To refute the idea that the Bible is "the Word of God," you present it as a "Jack-in-the-Beanstalk" tale woven by primitive people around campfires.

The Bible is a collection of ancient writings drafted by a wide assortment of individuals - approximately 40, in fact, over a span of 1,500 to 2,000 years. Evangelical Christians like myself believe that God inspired these writers - making the Bible the "Word of God." However, even if you reject that (and you obviously do), you still (to be at least REMOTELY fair) need to treat the Bible with the intellectual respect it deserves. To say that it's a tale spun by primitive campfire peoples is insulting and (need I even say?) historically ridiculous.

May 13, 2008 6:50 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Migisi, if you challenge the reality of objective truth and/or the ability of people to possess tangible knowledge, then it's frankly impossible to prove anything in that framework. Such a framework is illogical and ultimately untenable, but it is your right to hold onto it - as precarious and as unreasonable as it might be.

Assuming that you're willing to come at least a LITTLE bit in my direction...

I don't believe that one should have to prove something 100% beyond ALL doubt in order to provide sufficient reason for others to accept it as 'true." If you disagree, then I would submit that virtually nothing is 100% provable beyond all doubt, and therefore we're stuck in extreme skepticism (see above).

A much more effective and logical framework is the "beyond the reasonable doubt" standard for truth. Yes, I'm aware that people are flawed, and therefore mistakes will sometimes be made. But it's still a much better standard.

May 14, 2008 4:36 AM

Pink :

.
To say that it's a tale spun by primitive campfire peoples is insulting and (need I even say?) historically ridiculous.
.
Insulting?
.
Is it better to fill a child's mind with stories of demons and the fears of being sent into lakes of fire to exist for ever and ever in agony with millions of others that didn't get in line? How would you consider that other than insulting? Apparently you don't see anything off color about that. Entire civilizations are messed over with tales of fear and great fortunes in the sky.
.
Maybe it would be better to compare it to Pinocchio with God being Geppetto.
.
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
.
The Bible is a book filled with wisdom mixed in with plain childishness. Maturity demands discernment.
.

May 14, 2008 9:53 AM

Migisi :

.
I related your thoughts about primitive people sitting around a camp fire.
.
Bet you were a BIG hit with that answer (wink).
.
What choice does the child have?
.
None right now. But when he's older and starts to think for himself... perhaps your answer will make sense to him.

May 14, 2008 10:26 AM

Migisi :

you still (to be at least REMOTELY fair) need to treat the Bible with the intellectual respect it deserves.
.
Some great writing, no question about it. But then, I think the Iliad and Odyssey is intellectually impressive. Should I believe that Homer's epics are completely factual and absolutely true too? Nah.
.
To say that it's a tale spun by primitive campfire peoples is insulting and (need I even say?) historically ridiculous.
.
You don't think people living 6,000 years ago were primitive? They didn't tell and retell their Creation, Flood, and Hero legends around their campfires? Sure they did. They sure didn't post them on the web, or send out newsletters.

May 14, 2008 10:46 AM

Migisi :

.
I don't believe that one should have to prove something 100% beyond ALL doubt in order to provide sufficient reason for others to accept it as 'true."
.
So, if 100% beyond-a-doubt proof isn't required to accept something is true, what's the acceptable percentage? 75%? 50%? 25%?
.
True believers accept ZERO % proof ...
.
Merriam-Webster defines FAITH as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". Answers.com defines FAITH as "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
.
Believers don't need proof or evidence. Given that, why are believers so fired up to find and present it?

May 14, 2008 11:15 AM

Migisi :

.
Maybe it would be better to compare it to Pinocchio with God being Geppetto.
.
Hee hee. I like it! Geppetto wants a child, so he creates a puppet son. There's a Serpent in that story too. :)

May 14, 2008 12:45 PM

Pink :

.
During the earliest days of European settlements in the North American colonies, Puritanism held almost complete sway over the thoughts of settlers in what we call the New England states today.
.
Six years after the Boston Bay Company landed, the Puritans instituted Harvard. The purposes that school was established was to educate ministers to head up the churches. No church would operate with out an educated pastor.
.
Education was based on the traditionalism that had been established in Europe which was classical. Aristotle was at the roots of any formal schooling. Various ideas were presented, weighed, and argued as to which were and were not to be allowed at Harvard and, consequently, anywhere else.
.
Cartesian philosophy got to be quite the way to go for some time, i.e., doubting as a method of discovering the reality of things.
.
It is a very interesting study to learn about the development of what Christians consider to be the absolute truth of reality today.
.
Where do YOUR thoughts come from? Does God put them in your mind as completed packages while you are developing in the womb?
.
Sound silly and nonsensical?
.
Ask a seriously minded Christian those questions. You might be surprised at their answers.
.
---------------------------------------------
.
Click on this to read something or other:
http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/s/song-of-the-south-script-transcript.html
.

May 15, 2008 7:25 AM

Brian Tubbs :

I'm a true believer, and my belief is not based on "zero proof" or blind faith. You are pushing this to an extreme choice.

I believe there is a high percentage of evidential substantiation for the existence of God, the existence of Jesus, and the resurrection of Jesus - the three foundational, building block tenets for Christianity.

In my periods of doubt and soul-searching (and please do not underestimate the depth of doubt in those periods), I came to the conclusion - through study (not just prayer) of ALL sides - that there was more evidence for the fundamental claims of Christianity (and I'm talking about BASIC, evangelical Christianity - and NOT Catholicism or all the 2000 years of doctrinal evolution) than for any other religion or for atheism.

The Bible does not call Christians to a blind "leap-in-the-dark" faith. It calls them to a reasoned faith.

http://protestantism.suite101.com/article.cfm/blind_faith

May 15, 2008 7:29 AM

Brian Tubbs :

Where do YOUR thoughts come from?

The brain is the processor for our thoughts. The source of those thoughts would be the stimuli of our senses. Example: We see and smell an object, and those senses are processed in our brain and we then realize we are looking at and smelling a flower. I'm over-simplifying, because this is an Internet discussion board, and I don't have time to give a more thorough biological and psychological explanation. But you get the idea.

Does God put them in your mind as completed packages while you are developing in the womb?

No, but we grow in our womb according to God's design. God is the Creator of humankind.

May 15, 2008 8:49 AM

Pink :

.
This question of where our thoughts come from was one of the main doctrinal issues during the early days of our nation--in particular with the highly educated Puritan pastors like Johnathon Edwards and Whitfield.
.
So, Bryan, are you saying that your thoughts do not come directly into your mind from the Holy Spirit of God?
.
Is that what you are saying?
.

May 15, 2008 7:38 PM

Brian Tubbs :

I'm saying that thoughts are the result of the brain processing input from the various stimuli - and that stimuli includes, but is not limited to, God. God is certainly capable of putting thoughts into our mind, but not every single thought that I have comes from God.

May 15, 2008 7:46 PM

Brian Tubbs :

To Migisi AND Pink, my challenge to both of you is that you apply the same standard of analysis ACROSS THE BOARD to documents of antiquity.

Migisi, I'm not asking you to buy into all of Homer's writings - hook, line, and sinker. But retaining a critical and skeptical mind with respect to Homer doesn't mean that you completely dismiss Homer and what he says.

There are many things that the Bible reports, and there's no reason to question them. For example, all four Gospel accounts say that Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimethea (sp?). Well, why question that? That's FOUR ancient documents - four sources - that report that particular situation. There's no reason to throw that out.

And yet...it seems that (to a great extent) Migisi and (to a lesser, but still significant extent) Pink are inclined to jettison the ENTIRE Bible, because of the "agenda" of some of its authors and the supernatural claims made within many of its pages. I'm saying that...EVEN IF YOU REJECT THE SUPERNATURAL ELEMENTS and/or TURN YOUR NOSE UP AT THE MONOTHEISTIC AGENDA...the collection of writings contained in the Bible deserve to be treated - at the very least - as any other document of antiquity. To do anything less is truly anti-intellectual.

May 16, 2008 4:14 AM

Pink :

.
It amazes me that you try to speak on behalf of others regarding what their beliefs are about the Bible.
.
I don't throw ANY of the Bible out per se. But, I do put the Fundamentalist as well as other extremist interpretations where I think they belong.
.
The more I learn, the less I believe. No wonder Fundamentalists are so anti-intellectual. They are afraid of education.
.

May 16, 2008 7:09 AM

Pink :

.
Education is like a light that penetrates the darkness of human ignorance.
.
Ignorance is inexcusable in our post modern times when education is so readily available.
.
The idea of praxis as it is applied to self education seems to be lost on so many of the religious right who are led about by the nose of their emotions. With public libraries so available and the 'Net so easy to access, it is difficult to understand why anyone would close the doors to the opportunity we all have to learn more and more truth about our existence.
.
Ignorance is the purposeful closing of the mind to the light of education. What a shame that America is so engorged on religious bigotry that disallows the light of what is already available to be known about reality. There is more than enough proof ~ PROOF POSITIVE ~ that the earth is more than 100s of millions of years old and that prehistoric animals pre-existed human beings. To say a person is ignorant, is to say they purposely close their eyes to the light.
.
Religious bigotry has outlived its ability to block out the light from anyone who exhibits the least amount of curiosity. But, it continues to do what it can to confuse and discombobulate reason.
.

May 16, 2008 9:47 AM

Migisi :

.
For example, all four Gospel accounts say that Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimethea (sp?). Well, why question that? That's FOUR ancient documents - four sources - that report that particular situation. There's no reason to throw that out.
.
Yes there is reason to throw it out. Was it Joseph's tomb?
.
- Mat 27 says "placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock."
- Mark 15 says "and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock".
- Luke reads "placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid".
- John 19 reads "At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there."
.
So, only Matthew identifies the tomb as belonging to Joseph. The other three don't.
.
Discrepancies surrounding this simple little detail, and the many others surrounding the resurrection and appearances afterwards, shoot holes in the accuracy of the four "ancient documents".
.
According to Jewish burial tradition back then, Joseph would've had his tomb built in his native Arimathea where his family clan was. Let's say Joseph followed tradition. Problem is even the location of Aramathea remains in question. Some say it's about 16 miles east of Joppa, some say it's northwest of Lydda, others think it's actually the town of Ramah six miles north of Jerusalem. So, who really knows where Joseph's tomb really was - or where Jesus' tomb was??
.

May 16, 2008 10:51 AM

Brian Tubbs :

Education is like a light that penetrates the darkness of human ignorance.

Agreed...well said.

Ignorance is inexcusable in our post modern times when education is so readily available.

Agreed...also very well said.

The idea of praxis as it is applied to self education seems to be lost on so many of the religious right who are led about by the nose of their emotions. 

The "religious right" (which is a very loaded and fluid term, but I'll let it pass for now) is not the only group that allows itself to be led "by the nose of their emotions."

With public libraries so available and the 'Net so easy to access, it is difficult to understand why anyone would close the doors to the opportunity we all have to learn more and more truth about our existence.

I agree with you 100%. This has always been frustrating to me. But a lot has to do with our fixation on pleasure, entertainment, etc. People care more about NCAA March Madness or Tom Cruise's career and love life than they do about the kinds of things we regulardly discuss on this site.

Ignorance is the purposeful closing of the mind to the light of education.

Agreed

What a shame that America is so engorged on religious bigotry that disallows the light of what is already available to be known about reality.

Bigotry in general is a culprit in this, not simply religious bigotry. And there are other factors as well, like I mentioned above.

There is more than enough proof ~ PROOF POSITIVE ~ that the earth is more than 100s of millions of years old and that prehistoric animals pre-existed human beings.

If you assume across-the-board naturalism and embrace uniformatarianism, then I agree.

To say a person is ignorant, is to say they purposely close their eyes to the light. Religious bigotry has outlived its ability to block out the light from anyone who exhibits the least amount of curiosity. But, it continues to do what it can to confuse and discombobulate reason.

I reject religious bigotry, but I think you define that term more broadly than I do.

May 16, 2008 10:54 AM

Brian Tubbs :

Let's start up a new thread on the empty tomb. I think this is a great discussion, and I appreciate your points. Let's not have this get lost in a broader discussion on Mithras, Christ, paganism, etc.

May 17, 2008 5:51 AM

Migisi :

.
Yer the boss. :)

115 Comments