Job Discussion Forums

[Deicide]

from another forum...

The discipline of history is a tricky one and the further we journey back in time the more difficult it becomes to verify events as factual or simply myth or story. When it comes to antiquity we are forced to admit the amount of historical certainty present is paucid at best. The exact details have been lost to the mists of time (and most likely thousands of documents that have not survived the passage of time as well). No where is this fact more true when considering the origins of what we now in very broad terms call 'Christianity'. Now if one is a literalist such as certain well know forum personalties on this board the origins of Christianity are quite clear, one only need consult the bible, which by their view is a factual and historically accurate account of events as they happened. Case closed. A literalist is characterised by the a priori asssumption that the bible as it stands today is fact and even more so undiluted fact. I mention this so as to show only that I am not addressing this post to the 'Terrestrial Trinity'. They are not my target audience. I wish however to enjoin all others, atheists, theists and agnostics with an open mind and critical faculties to hear me out and examine the evidence (or lack thereof) of this presentation.
At the time of the inception of Christianity in its earliest form it is interesting (indeed impossible) not to overlook a vast pool of similarities between pagan religious cults, their adages and their 'histories'. Chief amongst them is the cult of Mithras http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism (yes this is a wikipedia article but please do not give me grief over it I simply wish to introduce Mithraism). Originally of Persian origin the cult spread like wildfire throughout the known world of mid and late antiquity. The entity known as Mithras possessing glaring similarites with one 'Christos'. Here is a short list of those similarites.

1.Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds.
2.He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
3.He had 12 companions or disciples.
4.Mithra's followers were promised immortality.
5.He performed miracles.
6.As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.
7.He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.
8.His resurrection was celebrated every year.
9.He was called "the Good Shepherd" and identified with both the Lamb and the Lion.
10.He was considered the "Way, the Truth and the Light," and the "Logos," "Redeemer," "Savior" and "Messiah."
11.His sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
12.Mithra had his principal festival of what was later to become Easter.
13.His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper," at which Mithra said, "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."
14."His annual sacrifice is the passover of the Magi, a symbolical atonement or pledge of moral and physical regeneration."
15.Shmuel Golding is quoted as saying that 1 Cor. 10:4 is "identical words to those found in the Mithraic scriptures, except that the name Mithra is used instead of Christ."
16.The Catholic Encyclopedia is quoted as saying that Mithraic services were conduced by "fathers" and that the "chief of the fathers, a sort of pope, who always lived at Rome, was called 'Pater Patratus.'"

more information here http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen048.html

Anyone who takes the time to look at Mithraism cannot help but note glaring similarities between its metaphysics, structures, etc. and those of Christianity. To compound this it should be know that Mithraism was the NUMBER ONE competitor in the ancient mediterranean wolrd (in particular late antiquity) in terms of popularity as a religion. Both Christianity and Mithraism seem to have absorbed quite a bit of tradition from the 'Osris Mystery Cult' The interesting aspect here is the passion and the ressurrection. Osiris was a prime model as having been a murdered god (by hs brother Set) who later was ressurrected to life. This is a fascinating documentary. It is a bit long but well worth the watch:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=64...7&q=naked+truth

A further interesting aspect is the notion of eating bread (the body) and drinking ale (the blood) known as the Osirian sacrament.

http://www.answers.com/topic/osiris (please scroll down to the paragraph entitled the Osirian Sacrament)

The similarities here are so obvious as to hit you in the face. Then enters Dionysus, a deity which readily borrowed much from Osiris and later merged with the Egyptian deity whilst taking on all his aspects as well.
Here is a quote from an excellent book I read a few years back. Highly recommendable.

The subject of Dionysus is complex and baffling. The problem is further complicated by the fact that he appears in at least four characters: first, as the respectable patron of the theatre and the arts; second, as the effeminate, yet fierce and phallic mystery-god of the bloodthirsty Maenads; third, as the mystic deity in the temples of Demeter; and fourth, as the divine savior who died for mankind and whose body and blood were symbolically eaten and drunk in the eucharist of the Orphic-Pythagorean celibates. Beyond this, almost all barbarian nations had their own versions of Dionysius under many names. And yet there is a simpler explanation: Dionysus, Bromius, Sabazius, Attis, Adonis, Zalmoxis, Corybas, Serapis, and Orpheus himself are replicas of their grand prototype Osiris; and the variations which appear among them resulted from the transplantation of the god from one country to another, and reflect simply the specific needs of his multifarious worshipers (37-3. The Story of Christian Origins, Martin A. Larson

Why indeed does 'Christos' have so much in common with Mithras, Osiris and Dionysus. Well I would tend to argue that Christian mythology is firmly grounded in pagan mythology, from which is heavily borrowed and modified to suit its needs. The very lack of originality with regards to the Christos make it safe to assume with reasonable accuracy the events described in the bible have their origins more rooted in mythological tradition than in historical tradition. I simply cannot see how this can all be a coincidence. Why is this particular dying and rising god any valid than the others? The answer is: he is not. His validity is simply the product of tradition as enforced by Christian authorities upon attaining political power and of course their ruthless supression of other religions. The Christian authorities at the time were well aware of these glaring, if not identical similarieties, so much so that they produced specific apologetics to counter arguments from pagans who said, 'well what you say about Jesus we've been saying for years about Mithras and Osiris, what's the big deal?' Well smart as the founding fathers were we have a Justin Martyr (c.100-165 AD), he not only cites the similarities, he repeatedly mentions them with the whopping refutation of them that it was in fact the devil who tricked humanity and imitated the myths. He writes:

"ANALOGIES TO THE HISTORY OF CHRIST. And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Aesculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre?"

Now he reiterates the myths:

"As to the objection of our Jesus's being crucified, I say, that suffering was common to all the aforementioned sons of Jove [Jupiter]... As to his being born of a virgin, you have your Perseus to balance that. As to his curing the lame, and the paralytic, and such as were cripples from birth, this is little more than what you say of your Aesculapius."

And now to top it off, as usual with those nutty Christians, it was the Devil'S fault:

"Be well assured, then, Trypho, that I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false prophets in Elijah�s days. For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by [Jupiter�s] intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that [the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? And when they tell that Hercules was strong, and travelled over all the world, and was begotten by Jove of Alcmene, and ascended to heaven when he died, do I not perceive that the Scripture which speaks of Christ, "strong as a giant to run his race," has been in like manner imitated? And when he [the devil] brings forward Aesculapius as the raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ?... And when I hear, Trypho, that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this."

Now I think the burden of proof is really on the Christians. Why indeed in light of such facts and apologetics is their particular dying and rising god 'O Christos and the others were just what? Imitations of the devil? Ahem...So I think it is clear that the bible is a collection of myths that had been around for quite some time prior to its composition. This of course doesn't do much in the way of making Christianity very valid.
One more link with an artistic depiction of the crucified, no not Jesus but 'Orpheus Bacchus'...looks damn bloody similar to me:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/christian.htm scroll down for picture

The second problem is the historical context of Jesus. There was at the time of the standard Jesus as I shall call him no common agreement as to when the chap was even alive.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/jesus.htm

That is many people believed that a certain Jeshua lived and preached at the time of Alexander Jannaeus (103 BC to 76BC). Why would there be so much dissagreement as to when the Christ had lived with descrepancies of well over a hundreds years. Now was there a Jesus Christ, sure, there were many of them.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006066799...glance&n=283155

Anyone with an open an critical mind can look at the historical evidence and conclude rightly that one specific man who claimed to be the son of God and rose from the dead simply did not exist, rather there were many such figures, some partially mythical others in part historical (see Josephus citing the execution of various saviours on the link above). At best a 'Jesus' could be perceived as the triumphant spirit of man in each and everyone of us overcoming the self. But to claim that Jesus was the one and only son of God is not only intellectually bankrupt, it is theologically bankrupt and any critical thinker can readily see this from what information we have on hand. It should be noted that I have made great efforts to avoid using links that are admittedly atheistic in nature since they would automatically be declared as corrupt be the theists here and thus I believe to have made good use of fairly neutral sites to support my argumentation. The open minded individual is always open to new evidence.

[Larry Paradine]

Gentlemen (and Ladies?), please desist. Any time now Dave's hatchet men (sorry, moderators) are going to take a look at this string and delete the lot. Off topic is putting it mildly. Those of us who've had anything to do with the field of journalism will recognise the classic symptoms of the silly season. I'm not saying the subject isn't interesting, in fact some time ago I privately contacted the theist in the argument for some information and I recognise certain sentiments in the atheist's argument as similar to those I once held (though far less passionately), but there is a time and place for this sort of dispute, and this forum isn't it. In any case Deicide, this isn't your turf. Why aren't you locked in a death struggle with Mr. Moon's acolytes in Seoul? Let's get back to the point which, for the benefit of those who've been completely sidetracked, is the "naiive young tadpole's" quest for some sort of Elysium vaguely associated with being an expatriate. And since I have no contribution to make to that, I'll leave the battlefield.

[rusmeister]

Agreed, Larry, and thanks!
As you can see, kykysha, expats are just reg'lar people who just so happen to be living in a country other than their native land. (And we all are probably a little crazy in our own ways)

[Deicide]

[kykysha]

Actually, it was a good read, if not a bit over my head

[Paul in Saudi]

You cannot drop your American (or other) citizenship in favor of 'None of the Above.' You more or less have to have a nationality. If you go in front of a US consular official to sign away your US citizenship, it will not be accepted unless you have another nationality at hand.

I presume if you could shed your national identity, a whole mess of people would want to do it.

[jpvanderwerf2001]

Please PM me if you'd like. I have lived in both Ukraine and Russia (two years each). I would be happy to give you a "Top-1000" list of reasons why you do not want to give up your American citizenship for a Russian or Ukrainian one.

[prlester]

I'm very interested in teaching in Russia/E. Europe for several years. I have a general science BA and certification in New York for teaching all sciences in a secondary setting.
Is there a possibility to work for a real school (not conversation), particularly American students (expat) or university?
Anyway to find some info?

P.S. I've taught English in Japan but with a real degree now, I'd prefer teaching science in a real school. Thanks.

[ecocks]

maybe Naturegirl, posted a list of IB schools around the world who hire certified teachers for primary and secondary school programs.

Certainly they exist and are viable. I know a couple of IB school teachers in Kyiv seem reasonably happy.

[mdk]

I think Paul in Saudi is quite correct. It is a long involved process to renounce your US citizenship. Even the guys who got sent to prison for supporting the Taliban and fighting alongside al-Quaeda weren�t stripped of their citizenship.

I would seriously advise the OP to think long and hard about this. Opposition to the current government is one thing. Surrendering your citizenship just because you are po�s is a long term solution to a short term problem.

I spend as much of my life as I can away from the current mischeif in the US, but that doesn�t mean I don�t love my country. It�s like one guy said about France....

"Wonderful country .... damned shame about the French"

You don�t have to give up yer citizenship to get permanent resident status, even in Russia. Go find yerself an "advocat" and ask him/her how to do it. A little bit of this and some discreet payments there and Shazaam!