View Full Version : Mithra and Jesus

09-29-2007, 08:55 PM
It has been said that Mithraism failed, in contrast with Christianity, precisely because it did not spring from a strong personality such as Jesus. There is this much truth in the statement, that the Persian Mithra was a very shadowy form beside Jesus, who came nearer to the heart, especially of women, invalids, and the weak, in his human features and on account of the touching description of his death.

His resurrection was celebrated every year. I have to classify these two as "ringers" -- I see no references anywhere in the Mithraic studies literature to Mithra being buried, or even dying, for that matter [Gordon says directly, that there is "no death of Mithras" -- Gor.III, 96] and so of course no rising again and no "resurrection" (in a Jewish sense?!) to celebrate. Freke and Gandy [Frek.JM, 56] claim that the Mithraic initiates "enacted a similar resurrection scene", but their only reference is to a comment by Tertullian, significantly after New Testament times! Tekton Research Assistant Punkish adds: The footnote is for Tertullian's Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 40 which says, "if my memory still serves me, Mithra there, (in the kingdom of Satan,) sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of a resurrection, and before a sword wreathes a crown" ...so their argument relies on Tertullian's memory, and it isn't the initiates but Mithra who does the celebrating and introduces an *image* of a resurrection?! How is that at all related to initiates acting out a scene? Wynne-Tyson [Wyn.MFC, 24; cf. Ver.MSG, 38] also refers to a church writer of the fourth century, Firmicus, who says that the Mithraists mourn the image of a dead Mithras -- still way too late, guys! -- but after reading the work of Firmicus, I find no such reference at all! Acharya adds the assertion of Dupuis that Mithras was killed by crucifixion, but from the description, either Dupuis or Acharya are mixing up Mithra with Attis!

Such little documentation, no actual bodily resurrection, and such vague unclear references, obviously you can see why Mithraism failed to challenge Christianity.


05-27-2009, 01:51 PM
The Vatican was built upon the grounds previously devoted to the worship of Mithra (600 B.C.). The Orthodox Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithratic virsion. Virtually all of the elements of Orthodox Christian rituals, from miter, wafer, water baptism, alter, and doxology, were adopted from the Mithra and earlier pagan mystery religions. The religion of Mithra preceded Christianity by roughly six hundred years. Mithraic worship at one time covered a large portion of the ancient world. It flourished as late as the second century. The Messianic idea originated in ancient Persia and this is where the Jewish and Christian concepts of a Savior came from. Mithra, as the sun god of ancient Persia, had the following karmic similarities with Jesus:

Identical Life Experiences

(1) Mithra was born on December 25th as an offspring of the Sun. Next to the gods Ormuzd and Ahrimanes, Mithra held the highest rank among the gods of ancient Persia. He was represented as a beautiful youth and a Mediator. Reverend J. W. Lake states: "Mithras is spiritual light contending with spiritual darkness, and through his labors the kingdom of darkness shall be lit with heaven's own light; the Eternal will receive all things back into his favor, the world will be redeemed to God. The impure are to be purified, and the evil made good, through the mediation of Mithras, the reconciler of Ormuzd and Ahriman. Mithras is the Good, his name is Love. In relation to the Eternal he is the source of grace, in relation to man he is the life-giver and mediator" (Plato, Philo, and Paul, p. 15).

(2) He was considered a great traveling teacher and masters. He had twelve companions as Jesus had twelve disciples. Mithras also performed miracles.

(3) Mithra was called "the good shepherd,” "the way, the truth and the light,” “redeemer,” “savior,” “Messiah." He was identified with both the lion and the lamb.

(4) The International Encyclopedia states: "Mithras seems to have owed his prominence to the belief that he was the source of life, and could also redeem the souls of the dead into the better world ... The ceremonies included a sort of baptism to remove sins, anointing, and a sacred meal of bread and water, while a consecrated wine, believed to possess wonderful power, played a prominent part."

(5) Chambers Encyclopedia says: "The most important of his many festivals was his birthday, celebrated on the 25th of December, the day subsequently fixed -- against all evidence -- as the birthday of Christ. The worship of Mithras early found its way into Rome, and the mysteries of Mithras, which fell in the spring equinox, were famous even among the many Roman festivals. The ceremonies observed in the initiation to these mysteries -- symbolical of the struggle between Ahriman and Ormuzd (the Good and the Evil) -- were of the most extraordinary and to a certain degree even dangerous character. Baptism and the partaking of a mystical liquid, consisting of flour and water, to be drunk with the utterance of sacred formulas, were among the inauguration acts."

(6) Prof. Franz Cumont, of the University of Ghent, writes as follows concerning the religion of Mithra and the religion of Christ: "The sectaries of the Persian god, like the Christians', purified themselves by baptism, received by a species of confirmation the power necessary to combat the spirit of evil; and expected from a Lord's supper salvation of body and soul. Like the latter, they also held Sunday sacred, and celebrated the birth of the Sun on the 25th of December.... They both preached a categorical system of ethics, regarded asceticism as meritorious and counted among their principal virtues abstinence and continence, renunciation and self-control. Their conceptions of the world and of the destiny of man were similar. They both admitted the existence of a Heaven inhabited by beatified ones, situated in the upper regions, and of a Hell, peopled by demons, situated in the bowels of the Earth. They both placed a flood at the beginning of history; they both assigned as the source of their condition, a primitive revelation; they both, finally, believed in the immortality of the soul, in a last judgment, and in a resurrection of the dead, consequent upon a final conflagration of the universe" (The Mysteries of Mithras, pp. 190, 191).

(7) Reverend Charles Biggs stated: "The disciples of Mithra formed an organized church, with a developed hierarchy. They possessed the ideas of Mediation, Atonement, and a Savior, who is human and yet divine, and not only the idea, but a doctrine of the future life. They had a Eucharist, and a Baptism, and other curious analogies might be pointed out between their system and the church of Christ (The Christian Platonists, p. 240).

(8) In the catacombs at Rome was preserved a relic of the old Mithraic worship. It was a picture of the infant Mithra seated in the lap of his virgin mother, while on their knees before him were Persian Magi adoring him and offering gifts.

(9) He was buried in a tomb and after three days he rose again. His resurrection was celebrated every year.

(10) McClintock and Strong wrote: "In modern times Christian writers have been induced to look favorably upon the assertion that some of our ecclesiastical usages (e.g., the institution of the Christmas festival) originated in the cultus of Mithraism. Some writers who refuse to accept the Christian religion as of supernatural origin, have even gone so far as to institute a close comparison with the founder of Christianity; and Dupuis and others, going even beyond this, have not hesitated to pronounce the Gospel simply a branch of Mithraism" (Art. "Mithra").

(11) Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected. His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day." The Mithra religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper.

(12) The Christian Father Manes, founder of the heretical sect known as Manicheans, believed that Christ and Mithra were one. His teaching, according to Mosheim, was as follows: "Christ is that glorious intelligence which the Persians called Mithras ... His residence is in the sun" (Ecclesiastical History, 3rd century, Part 2, ch. 5).

05-27-2009, 02:02 PM
Non-Identical Life Experiences

Christianity is not the Roman Church. John, one of the original Apostles, wrote Revelation 17 speaking against the Roman Church (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Revelation_17.htm) which he prophesied would come into being (also in Rev. 2 the Thyatira church period (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/7churches.htm)). Call it religious Rome. She makes drunk the nations with the wine of the wrath of her fornications (14.8).

I think this recent post (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2967) might help you to see how many religions may appear to be the same for there is both common grace as well as widespread sin.

Satan tries to copy God's design as long as you continue to reject God and His redemptive purpose in Christ so the evil spirit can take you to Hell with him.

The key point to remember is that it was only Jesus who said He was God and proved it by His resurrection. Jesus said He and the Father are One, He existed before the foundations of the world, nothing was made that was made without Him, and He forgave sins, for which the Pharisees wanted Him killed, because they said only God can forgive man's sins.

Claims of Mithra resurrection are unsubstantiated. There was nobody before Christ who proved deity by resurrection, and nothing solidly established after the multiple attestation provided in Scripture. We have 66 books across 1500 years with 40 authors in agreement. What do you have with Mithra in terms of ancient documents and eyewitness testimony? Just hearsay through selected Encyclopedias and claims from men you admit who created cults.

How you respond to Christ in this life determines where you spend eternity, either Heaven or Hell.

So the burden remains on you, if you can't find substantial documentation in antiquity for the resurrection of Mithra, you know it is not true and hence, this is quite unlike what Jesus did for you. Satan can copy many things, but he trips up eventually. By the way Christians do not believe Jesus was born on Dec. 25th so that would be a difference as well. The Bible makes Dec. 25th an impossibility (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/triangulating.htm) for the time of His birth. Once you realize this is a difference between Mithra and Christ, then you can move onto the next point.

In actuality, most of your points need to be substantiated, evidenced, with quotes from antiquity to draw comparisons, otherwise, you are just showing your own bias. If you can't do that, then you are just self-declaring stuff without evidence.

Gary R. Habermas, leading scholar on the resurrection, said that he can find no evidence for a resurrection of Mithra prior to the time of Christ, so you know it was a copycat religion of sorts. Anything to reject Christ, right?

I believe even the pyramids were created to reject God, because they somewhat mimic the New City which is 1379 x 1379 x 1379 miles.

The evidence we have from Tertullian suggests that Mithra resembles the Antichrist (see opening post), not the Christ, for remember, the Antichrist will make himself out to be God. What better way to do that then copy God's word in many ways. Hence apparent resurrection of the forerunner who is the 7th, resurrected as the 8th in Revelation 17.

05-27-2009, 04:19 PM
In The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th Ed., 2008 it says, "Mithra, ancient god of Persia and India (where he was called Mitra). Until the 6th cent. BC, Mithra was apparently a minor figure in the Zoroastrian system."

Compare this to ancient Israel in which the Messiah was always the prominent figure.

"Mithraism found widest favor among the Roman legions, for whom Mithra (or Mithras in Latin and Greek) was the ideal divine comrade and fighter."

This is quite different than Jesus who was a living breathing individual, God in the likeness of flesh, who walked the earth and did not fight. He was not some ethereal god of the sun in mythology like Mithra was.

"The fundamental aspect of the Mithraic system was the dualistic struggle between the forces of good and evil."

In Christianity, there is no dualism, but God's redemptive design. In other words, things are not made yin and yang, good and evil, but rather because of the disobedience of one man, sin enters, and God's redemptive design is the solution to the sin problem.

"Mithra [was] restricted to men only. Mithraism declined rapidly in the late 3rd cent. AD." [See F. Cumont, The Mysteries of Mithra (reissued, 1956) and M. J. Vumaseren, Mithras, the Secret God (1963).]

Christianity is for men and women. Obviously Mithraism declined because it lacked any depth to the the human condition and explain the big picture. And when you look at it closely, it does not bare much resemblance to Christianity at all.

Start asking yourself the question why it went away and Christianity prevailed? There is this little thing called evidence. You should try it some time.

05-28-2009, 04:01 AM
In The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th Ed., 2008 it says, "Mithra, ancient god of Persia and India (where he was called Mitra). Until the 6th cent. BC, Mithra was apparently a minor figure in the Zoroastrian system."

Compare this to ancient Israel in which the Messiah was always the prominent figure.

So Jesus going roughly 3000 years before being mentioned even once, is still a prominent figure? How do you figure that?

"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)

Even Jesus thinks of himself as a minor figure (compared to himself). Why would he think that he is less powerful then himself? If he is God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit (like you claim) one would think that he would know that. Come to think of it, I can't remember the Holy Spirit being mentioned untill the "virgin" birth. I would think that someone would have known about them and actually wrote down something about them (in the OT).

The fact remains. Mithra 600 BCE, Horus 1280 BCE and Krishna 3228 BCE ALL came before Jesus.

Krishna and Jesus
Yeshua and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God. Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man. Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity. His adoptive human father was a carpenter. A spirit or ghost was their actual father. Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent. Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star. Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura. Both Yeshua and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted. Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki." Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection." Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth. Both were "without sin". Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine. They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases." Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead. Both selected disciples to spread his teachings. Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners. Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well. Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies. Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.

05-28-2009, 12:49 PM
Christianity is for men and women. Obviously Mithraism declined because it lacked any depth to the the human condition and explain the big picture. And when you look at it closely, it does not bare much resemblance to Christianity at all.

I am not trying to claim that Mithraism is true or that it is better then Christianity. I am mearly showing that the legend of Jesus was built from previous religions that have been going around the Mediterranean for over a thousand years.

Start asking yourself the question why it went away and Christianity prevailed? There is this little thing called evidence. You should try it some time.

If Jesus actually existed and did all the miraculous things he is said to have done then surely many people would have written about it during and immediately following Jesus' life. Writing was common at the time, yet an extensive search by many scholars over centuries has turned up nothing. The very few references to Jesus that allegedly date back to his lifetime are clearly forgeries, forged no doubt hundreds of years later by people who realized this embarrassing lack of evidence needed to be rectified (see Joseph Wheless Forgery in Christianity (http://members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/bookr.html#WHELESS2)).

Even if we ignore the evidence that they are forgeries, the very small number of these questionably authentic writings that allegedly date back to his alleged lifetime are still far too few. There should be a huge wealth of writing about this person that was written during his lifetime.

Jesus allegedly had crowds of thousands follow him around. Once he fed 5000 people with only a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish (Mark 6:39-44 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=mark+6:39-44)). Later he repeated the miracle again feeding a crowd of 4000 people (Mark 8:1-9 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=mark+8:1-9)). Jesus cured sick people miraculously and raised people from the dead. He changed water into wine at a wedding reception. He exorcised demons. He commanded 2000 pigs to rush into a lake and drown themselves, inciting the people of the nearby town and countryside, who asked him to leave. (No mention is made of what happened to the poor pig herder whose livelihood must have been ruined. Mark 5:1-20 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=mark+5:1-20)).

Wherever Jesus went a crowd gathered and wondered in amazement who this person was. Jesus was a very controversial person. Finally he got himself into so much trouble that huge crowds of Jews demanded his execution. There was a controversial trial followed by his public execution. Three days later he is seen walking around alive again. And no one wrote any of this down when it allegedly happened?

Even the earliest full account of Jesus in the Bible, the Gospel of Mark, is admitted by the Catholic Church to date to at least A.D. 70, a full 40 years after Jesus' alleged death and resurrection. (Mark makes reference to an event that happened around A.D. 70, so it could not have been written any earlier. Modern scholars now date the Gospels as being written near A.D. 170, a full 140 years after the alleged event, since no one makes any reference to a Gospel of Mark, or any other Gospel, prior to this time.)

It's inconceivable that no one at the time bothered to write down anything about the most important person in the whole of human history. Writing was common back then. People wrote letters. Historians wrote commentaries on current events. The Romans wrote and kept legal documents about trials. It's considered one of the best documented periods of history. Yet no one wrote anything about this Jesus; no one painted a portrait of this Jesus; no one drew a sketch of this Jesus; no one cast a coin depicting this Jesus; no one made a statue of this Jesus; no one makes any reference whatsoever to this Jesus. The historical evidence is overwhelming—the Jesus of the Bible never existed.

When is absence of evidence, evidence of absence? In general a mere lack of evidence is not sufficient to conclude a proposition is false. We must also demonstrate:

1) All of the evidence used to support the proposition is untenable.
2) Adequate tenable evidence should exist.
3) A thorough search for this tenable evidence has been made and none has been found.

Any counter-argument will be an attack against one of the above three points. We can not prove that Jesus never existed, just as we can not prove that Santa Claus never existed. Quite a lot of people believe Santa Claus exists (mostly young people).

05-28-2009, 01:30 PM
So Jesus going roughly 3000 years before being mentioned even once, is still a prominent figure? How do you figure that?

"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)
What is Jesus saying when He says the Father is greater than I? This means that Jesus agreed with the Father the Father would be the one Jesus would be in perfect obedience to do His will when Jesus walked the earth. This does not mean it is not true what Jesus said that He and the Father are One. What Jesus is showing you, being in the likeness of flesh, is how to do God's will perfectly by being Christ-like. Of course, this takes humility to accept.

Since no man has ever been resurrected from the dead by his own doing, why would the fact that Jesus who resurrected Himself, was raised up and will be returning in approximately 2000 years (not 3000 years), this century, not remain the prominent figure, for who else is at the right hand of the Father but Jesus? Only Jesus can be, because God the Father and God the Son always existed in the Trinity from eternity past. And Jesus said nothing was made that was made without Him. That sound prominent, don't you think? Your problem is you read the Bible with your flesh. The flesh wars against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh.

The reason I believe Jesus will return this century is because Israel is a nation after 2500 years (60 years has passed already since then), the battle over oil won't take much longer (we are past Hubbert's curve for 4 trillion barrels of oil) and nuclear proliferation is upon us. Revelation and other books of the Bible tell us 1/4th of the earth will be scorched and 1/3 of the people of the earth will die in the Tribulation. However, I believe it will take place later in this century because still the mark of the beast is not being widely implanted in people willingly to be able to buy or sell. During the Tribulation it will be forced on people. The one world currency and one world bank still need to take more prominence. The US Dollar has not collapsed yet.

Watch Zeitgeist Refuted (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2762&highlight=Zeitgeist). In there you will see most of the claims you make are false about Krishna and Mithra. You got to back up your claim with proofs (quoting earliest ancient texts). For example, Gary R. Habermas said there are no ancient texts for a resurrection of Mithra (or any person in antiquity), but is added in sometime after Christ. Satan likes to try to copy God's work. And the documentation is so sparse for your attempt at copycats, why do you hold them as true when you reject the overwhelming documentation for Christianity? Seems like a double standard. You can't have it both ways. This is why scholars and historians don't use your approach, because it is disingenuous and lacks credibility.

So what you are doing is trying to make Christianity and these other religions seem similar by reading into them that which is not there. For example, claims of resurrection don't exist prior to Christ. And it was already stated, any appearances of similarity are not enough reason to reject God incarnate in Christ, for there are bound to be some similarities in the human condition.

As to the timing of the writings of the NT, there is no reason for you to think they were not written down as the events were happening or soon afterwards. Nothing is written down as near to the time of the events than the NT. If you reject the NT on your theory it was written down too late, then you have to reject everything in antiquity. Scholars and historians don't do history that way. You can glean some facts of history because the corroborating evidence is overwhelming on certain matters, such as no known naturalistic theory can account for the resurrection of Jesus. Therefore, it must be a supernatural resurrection. And you can't use the argument there is not enough evidence for Christianity, for nobody is more well documented in antiquity than was Jesus.

Paul said in 1 Cor. 15 what he received from the disciples who spent 3 years with Jesus and seeing Jesus resurrected agrees with Paul's experience of seeing the risen Lord, so obviously, this is not something added decades later, but is right on top of the events. Paul was converted 2 years after Jesus died on the cross and met the Apostles within 5 years after the cross. Read Galatians 1 & 2, 1 Corinthians 15. Scholars believe these are the earliest NT writings, even predating Mark. And people don't go to their deaths for something they know is a lie, so they truly believed it. They had seen Jesus not just individually but in various group settings. There are no known records in history of group hallucinations, so it must be real.

05-28-2009, 02:08 PM
The most important thing of all is if you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the resurrection appearances of Jesus given the data, then realize Jesus is God and you are going to Hell for calling Him and the Apostles liars. God said He will make a liar out of you. Indeed, we see that happening right here, right now.

12 Historical Facts (Most Critical Scholars Believe These 12 items) (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Christianity.htm)
Gary Habermas – leading scholar and foremost expert in world on the resurrection of Jesus
http://www.garyhabermas.com/video/video.htm (http://www.garyhabermas.com/video/video.htm)

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

05-28-2009, 02:18 PM
If you can't even agree with most skeptical scholars, then that just shows you how belligerent and obstinate you can be shutting your mind down to the evidence. The reason why most skeptical scholars concede these points is because the evidence is overwhelming and so well corroborated in the New Testament. Paul really did set up the churches as did the other Apostles, because they really believe they saw Jesus resurrected. Paul really did meet with James, John and Peter and testified seeing Jesus resurrected. People don't go to their deaths as martyrs for something they know is a lie, so they truly believed they had seen Jesus resurrected. But you call them liars. I wouldn't want to be in your shoes as you call James, one of the original Apostles, a liar who was killed by the Pharisees for saying he saw Jesus resurrected. James, the brother of Jesus, did not believe his brother was God until he saw Him resurrected. Stephen was killed for the same testimony (the first Christian martyr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Stephen)). Read your Bible.

When you accuse people of being liars, why don't you think you need any evidence for your accusation? You know Satan is called the "great accuser." He too needs no reason for his accusation. He will even accuse of the truth as though somehow that makes any sense at all. How are you any different than him?

After Satan is put into the Pit for 1000 years (during the Millennial Kingdom), he will be released for a short while to show three things:

1) He will never repent;
2) Man still had some hidden sin;
3) God's good pleasure.

Afterward he goes to Hell permanently.

I believe Satan may know he is going to Hell, but his objective is to bring as many with him to Hell as possible. Is it possible he is delusional enough to think he can usurp God? Possibly, but surely he must know God created Lucifer, the most beautiful angel, and the most beautiful angel then fallen becomes Satan can't overcome his Creator. However, if he truly accepted this, then he wouldn't have rebelled in the first place. So that's what makes me think, he thinks he can get above God.

Same applies to man. Become like God is the enticement. I think the fallen angel knew better and so does man, but man is given the Redemptive Design because God wants fellowship and man was enticed by Satan, whereas Lucifer did not have the same enticement. That's why his rebellion is permanent, whereas people can be saved "whosoever is willing." Those who don't want forgiveness and reconciliation with God, go to Hell.

Think of it this way. Lucifer knew his choice would be a choice for forever to be independent of God, for remember, he is the most beautiful angel God ever created. Hence, he really is without excuse. Man knows this too, but God gives man grace to be saved, because God wants fellowship and can't keep sending spirits and men to Hell otherwise there will never be fellowship. If 2/3 of the angels did not fall with Lucifer, then do the 1/3 have a valid excuse? I don't think so. The testimony of the 2/3rds is judgment upon the 1/3.

Even more than this, the redeemed men and women will be the pillars of the New City above the angels in the New Earth. Angels work for man's redemption (Revelation 5). Once the task is accomplished they relinquish their role.

05-28-2009, 02:47 PM
99.99% of people on earth can belive in something. But that does not make it true.

You keep talking about evidence. The only evidence you have shown me is a biased holy book that cannot even agree on simple facts. I would love to see all the references to Jesus' wonderful life of miraculous events outside the bible. If you can show me the book (not written by a christian) that dates to 30-40 A.D. and gives an account of some part of Jesus' life, I may consider that evidence. The gospels are so poorly written and tampered with by the early church, that they fail as evidence. As I posted before, more then 4 accounts of his life should be around if he was ressurected and did all those miraculous things right? No historians, no trial records, none of the thousands he fed, none he peached to or any he healed wrote anything about him. Why not? I certinly would have if he had made me able to walk again, or healed my blindness, or raised me from the dead.

So why should I belive a story that does not agree with its self, has been tampered with by man and appears nowhere but in its own dogmatic book?

05-28-2009, 03:12 PM
We have already talked about all these things in various posts so deal with the response given.

First, inerrancy is not required to prove the resurrection proving Jesus is God, so that is a false approach you are using. Since you can't explain it away naturalistically, this is your testimony you are going to Hell.

Second, you couldn't find any contradictions as we have gone through scores together, and each time you are found to have misread Scripture. I trust you gave your best arguments first. Historians don't throw an entire document out if there are contradictions anyway.

Third, in the time of the first century, the writings about Jesus were the contemporary writings included in the New Testament. Nobody denied the life, death and burial of Jesus. Of course some contended or doubted His resurrection like Thomas, Paul and James (appearing to these though not others), but that does not change the fact that the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus resurrected. You can make a case even if Jesus appeared to some, they still would reject Him, so there would be no point in appearing to those.

Four, as was said before, the life of Jesus is more well documented in antiquity than anyone else, so you have no excuse for rejecting the ample evidence. You keep asking for more and more evidence, but the bar is already set so high, higher than anyone else in antiquity. This only shows no amount of evidence will convince you, thus justifying sending you to Hell for eternity.

Five, you couldn't find anything poorly written (not that that matters, for it is subjective, and subjectively you are wrong).

Six, certainly, you are right, all that was written and could have been written would fill probably an Encyclopedia. The Bible would be too large a book if it was an Encyclopedia, so the Holy Spirit arranges the key points in the 66 books and today it is still the freest and most widely dispersed book in the world. That would be weird if people would take to church with them an Encyclopedia.

None of your arguments ever have any merit. You are always wrong. That is the nature of someone who is going to Hell.

What you have decided is nothing will convince you. No amount of evidence. Take a good long long look at yourself to see that it is so. Hence, John 3.18 says you are already condemned.

You've made your choice already. Now you are just trying to rationalize that choice. Remember, there is nothing the flesh can't rationalize. If you still want to think the world is flat, you could create a proof for it. But the true evidence is that you admit there is no naturalistic theory that can account for the data to explain away the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Even if 99.99% of the world still thought the world was flat, the 0.01% would still be right it is round based on the evidence. The same applies to the resurrection if 99.99% were to reject it because the evidence is overwhelming. No naturalistic explanation fits the data. And this is not rocket science. You should be able to come up with an explanation, but you don't. Because you don't and can't, you help convince people in Jesus Christ.

What I recommend is you learn more about why almost all skeptical scholars agree on the 12 historical facts about Jesus Christ. And that leads to the conclusion Jesus is God.

Praise the Lord!

05-28-2009, 04:48 PM
Since you can't explain it away naturalistically.

Man makes up storys, this happens all the time. There are more books of fiction then there are books of history or fact. The 4 gospels only prove that the story of Jesus is fictitious.

It is impossible for someone who has been dead for a day and a half to come back to life. Do you belive Frankenstein? No thats just silly. The gospels in bible naturally falls under the catagory of fiction, just like Frankenstein.

You cannot find any refrence to the ressurection outside the bible. Why? I'll tell you. It did not happen. That is why no one would write anything about Jesus or his ressurection, it did not happen.

Well that sounds pretty naturalistic to me....

05-28-2009, 05:00 PM
Did you watch the Zeitgeist Response videos (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5800#post5800) showing how all your comparisons fail?

Since you have no evidence of fiction, your faith is one without evidence. It is impossible for someone to die and naturalistically come back to life, but Christians don't say it happened naturalistically.

Since the Word of God never purports to be fiction, but these are real individuals giving their real life testimony, building the churches, traveling from city to city, and an enemy attestation (e.g. Romans and Jews) do not deny their existence, then you are in fantasy mode.

There can only be one resurrection, God's ultimate proof and vindication that Jesus is God which is also proof that whoever rejects Jesus on the cross to atone for our sins is saying to God they want eternal separation from Him. You effectively send yourself to Hell.

Do you see how you are erroneously arguing against something Christians are not contending for? We are not contending that Jesus was raised naturalistically, so the burden remains on you, if you can't find a naturalistic explanation to explain away the data of the eyewitness claims, then you are as much saying you are bound for Hell. Can you see the logic?

The Christian is a Christian because he gives into the evidence. We do not, like you, know how to explain away the resurrection data. So instead of shutting our minds down or contradicting ourselves as you do, we simply submit to the overwhelming evidence.

As the lawyer who won the most court cases in a row (245) said in the Guinness Book of Records, there is no better case ever presented for the life, death, burial, resurrection and deity of Jesus Christ.

Since you don't introduce any damning evidence, why not give into reality?

Praise the Lord!