Originally posted by joelekGeneral Revelation, as a theological term, refers to the Revelation of truths for all mankind, to be preached to all. What you're talking about is Special Revelation - where God reveals some truth to an individual for his own benefit.
?
General revelation is the revelation that still goes on today, in which God reveals himself to every person. An example is the beauty of creation. This is one of the reasons Paul says men everywhere are without excuse -- they all see God's general revelation.
Originally posted by lucifershammerZoroaster, Dionysus, Mithras...
Such as?
(http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/virgin_birth.html)
Doctor Scribbles' question is a good one:
"Holy Virgin" was the title of harlot-priestesses of Ishtar (and) Asherah. The title didn't mean physical virginity; it meant simply "unmarried." The function of such "holy virgins" was to dispense the Mother's grace through sexual worship; to heal; to prophesy; to perform sacred dances; to wail for the dead; and to become Brides of God."
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWe've debunked Mithras' "virgin birth" elsewhere on this forum (I think in the "Happy Mithrasmas" thread) - he was born from rock, not even a woman.
Zoroaster, Dionysus, Mithras...
(http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/virgin_birth.html)
Doctor Scribbles' question is a good one:
"Holy Virgin" was the title of harlot-priestesses of Ishtar (and) Asherah. The title didn't mean physical virginity; it meant simply "unmarried." The function of such "holy virgins" was to dis ...[text shortened]... eal; to prophesy; to perform sacred dances; to wail for the dead; and to become Brides of God."
I'll look at the other two.
Originally posted by lucifershammerDon't congratulate yourself too quickly. Your lack of mythological imagination does not constitute debunking. The Earth is considered female--the ultimate virgin.
We've debunked Mithras' "virgin birth" elsewhere on this forum (I think in the "Happy Mithrasmas" thread) - he was born from rock, not even a woman.
I'll look at the other two.
Originally posted by lucifershammerThere are more than two.
I'll look at the other two.
"The pagan idea of a savior-god being virgin-born was very persistent:
a...factor making for the survival of such tales (virgin birth) in religious cults is stressed by Gilbert Murray. He notes that it is the saviour gods of paganism who are often reputed virgin-born. The father-god supplies the human race with a saviour, his son, by impregnating a goddess or a mortal. He must, however, not be regarded as actuated by lust. His purpose is the birth of a great saviour of mankind, and so the impregnation has to be effected without carnal intercourse. Hence Io was made pregnant by the laying on of the divine hand, Danae by the golden sunlight.[18]
Nowhere is virgin birth so stressed as in the Graeco-Roman world where the synoptic interpolators were deeply rooted:
[T]he doctrine of the Virgin Birth, without which no prophet or savior-god could be a divine incarnation, was so common among ancient cults that it was impossible for any religious founder to achieve acceptance without it.[19]
The virgin-birth story which is attributed to Jesus, is a later pagan addition interpolated for the sole purpose of adding support for the Christian savior. Not having been based upon a solid textual foundation like the Jews, early Christians needed to attribute the characteristics and events of existing gods to their savior in order to legitimize him as a god worthy of worship. Jesus represents a crossover from Messianic Judaism and Graeco-Roman paganism; an embodiment of the best of both worlds."
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAnd your excessive mythological imagination does not constitute proof. Nowhere have I seen the birth of Mithras in the same context as a female Earth. Yes, the two ideas exist - but I have seen no evidence of them co-existing and leading to the idea of the virgin birth in the same mythological storyline.
Don't congratulate yourself too quickly. Your lack of mythological imagination does not constitute debunking. The Earth is considered female--the ultimate virgin.
Originally posted by lucifershammerMithras had a Mom called Anahita.
And your excessive mythological imagination does not constitute proof. Nowhere have I seen the birth of Mithras in the same context as a female Earth. Yes, the two ideas exist - but I have seen no evidence of them co-existing and leading to the idea of the virgin birth in the same mythological storyline.
"By the Hellenistic era, if not before, Anahita's cult came to be closely associated with that of Mithra. An inscription from c. 200 BC dedicates a Seleucid temple in Western Iran to "Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithras". The Anahita Temple at Kangavar in western Iran is the most important Anahita temple." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anahita)
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageQuoting from the same source I did in no1's thread:
Mithras had a Mom called Anahita.
"By the Hellenistic era, if not before, Anahita's cult came to be closely associated with that of Mithra. An inscription from c. 200 BC dedicates a Seleucid temple in Western Iran to "Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithras". The Anahita Temple at Kangavar in western Iran is the most important Anahita temple." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anahita)
Finally, we are told of the "largest near-eastern Mithraeum [which] was built in western Persia at Kangavar, dedicated to 'Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithras'." This is a very curious claim which is repeated around the Internet, but no source is given for it, and Acharya attributes it to a "writer" with no name or source. I believe, however, that I have found the terminal source, and it is a paper written in 1993 by a then-high school student, David Fingrut, who made this claim without any documentation whatsoever himself. His paper is now posted on the Net as a text file. That said, it is inaccurate to start with, since the building at Kanagvar is not a Mithraeum at all, but a temple to Anahita (dated 200 BC), and although I have found one source of untested value that affirms that Anahita was depicted as a virgin (in spite of being a fertility goddess!), she is regarded not at Mithra's mother, but as his consort (though it does offer other contradictory info) -- and it knows nothing of such an inscription as described; and the mere existence of the goddess Anahita before the Roman era proves nothing.
http://tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html
Originally posted by lucifershammerPlease don't quote that source again, it stinks up the thread. Nor, if you read it carefully, does it say anything at all. The author has no interest in Mithras--he merely wishes to protect his own cult from criticism. He also clearly doesn't understand the basics of mythology--a goddess is often simultaneously a consort and mother! We have Isis & Osiris, Shiva & Parvati...
Quoting from the same source I did in no1's thread:Finally, we are told of the "largest near-eastern Mithraeum [which] was built in western Persia at Kangavar, dedicated to 'Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithras'." This is a very curious claim which is repeated around the Internet, but no source is given for it, and ...[text shortened]... nahita before the Roman era proves nothing.
http://tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html
I am not trying to debunk Christ! I don't need a Virgin Birth or any other magical tom-foolery to heed what Jesus said.
Be that as it may (I hold you responsible for this digression 🙂 ) , the parallels between Mithraism & Christianity were spotted a very long time ago:
"Justin Martyr [Justin Martyr, /Dial. with Trypho/, ch. 70.] complains that the prophetic words in the Book of Daniel [Daniel ii. 34.] regarding a stone which was cut out of the rock without hands were also used in the Mithraic ritual; and it is apparent that the great importance attached by the early Church to the supposed words of Jesus in regard to Peter -- "Upon this rock I will build my church" [Matthew xvi. 18.] -- was due to their approximation to the Mithraic idea of the /Theos ek Petras/, the "God from the Rock''."
"Tertullian [Tertullian, /Praescr./, ch. 40.] states that the worshippers of Mithra practiced baptism by water, through which they were thought to be redeemed from sin, and that the priest made a sign upon the forehead of the person baptized; but as this was also a Christian rite, Tertullian declares that the Devil must have effected the coincidence for his wicked ends. "The Devil'', he also writes, "imitates even the main parts of our divine mysteries", and "has gone about to apply to the worship of idols those very things of which the administration of Christ's sacraments consists".
"...as a solar festival, Sunday was the sacred day of Mithra; and it is interesting to notice that since Mithra was addressed as /Dominus/, "Lord'', Sunday must have been "the Lord's Day" long before Christian times."
"The head of the Mithraic faith was called /Pater Patrum/, "Father of the Fathers", and was seated at Rome; and similarly the head of the Church was the /Papa/, or "Father", now known as the Pope, who was also seated at Rome. " (http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/deities/mithra.htm)
I recommend reading the article carefully, it is quite the most thorough one I've yet read on the subject. It does not attempt to portray Christ as a fake replacement of Mithras: it merely shows the striking parallels between the two saviour figures.
Originally posted by Bosse de NagePlease don't quote that source again, it stinks up the thread.
Please don't quote that source again, it stinks up the thread. Nor, if you read it carefully, does it say anything at all. The author has no interest in Mithras--he merely wishes to protect his own cult from criticism. He also clearly doesn't understand the basics of mythology--a goddess is often simultaneously a consort and mother! We have Isis & Osiris, Shiva & Parvati...
That the best you got?
Nor, if you read it carefully, does it say anything at all.
It says that the so-called "experts" who cite this "inscription" provide no substantiation at all for it. And that the original source is probably a high-school essay.
The author has no interest in Mithras--he merely wishes to protect his own cult from criticism.
Of course the author wishes to protect Christianity from criticism. You don't think the writers promoting the "virgin birth" of Mithras do not have an agenda of their own? Please!
Evaluate the argument on its merits.
He also clearly doesn't understand the basics of mythology--a goddess is often simultaneously a consort and mother! We have Isis & Osiris, Shiva & Parvati...
Some goddesses are simultaneously consorts and mothers - not all. And care to tell me again how Parvathi is Shiva's mother?
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI really find that source offensive. Not that no1's was much better.
That the best you got?
Parvati? Oops. Nonetheless--that author's incredulousness at the possibility of a goddess being mother & consort at once shows his lack of understanding.
Care to get back on topic? You were looking into the other virgin births, not just Mithras, remember.
It seems important to me to ask whether the Christian virgin birth doctrine was an adaptation of a hoary mythological theme or a radical innovation within the Judaic tradition.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOn Zoroaster:
Zoroaster, Dionysus, Mithras...
Zoroaster was born of a virgin and "immaculate conception by a ray of divine reason." It's hard to quantify this one -- the Avesta (note again, a late source, later than Christianity) refers to a "kingly glory" that was handed onward from one ruler to the next; this glory resided in Zoro's mother for about 15 years, including during the time she was married to Zoro's dad, Pourushaspa. It seems that a human father was still needed for Zoro [Jack.ZP, 18, 24] and that this "ray" was merely for the infusion of Zoro's spirit, not his body.
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/zoroaster.html
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerGee whiz, couldn't we apply similar logic to J.C.? Like, he needed a virgin birth to impress the pagans?
On Zoroaster:
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/zoroaster.html
In case you hadn't realised I don't believe in virgin births of any description except at a mythological level.
1 edit
Equally ironic in the discussion is the glee in which the naysayers point to the plethora of mythical virgin conceptions as support of disbelief in the virgin birth of the humanity of Jesus Christ.
Not one considers the other possibilities. Almost as though said naysayers are limited to a one-track mindset. Almost sounds a little narrow-minded. Hmm.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI really find that source offensive.
I really find that source offensive. Not that no1's was much better.
Parvati? Oops. Nonetheless--that author's incredulousness at the possibility of a goddess being mother & consort at once shows his lack of understanding.
Care to get back on topic? You were looking into the other virgin births, not just Mithras, remember.
It seems importa ...[text shortened]... an adaptation of a hoary mythological theme or a radical innovation within the Judaic tradition.
Could you be more specific?
Nonetheless--that author's incredulousness at the possibility of a goddess being mother & consort at once shows his lack of understanding.
The author is not increduluous at the idea - he's simply saying he cannot find any documented evidence for the so-called "inscription" - or idea. What's more, what little documentation he can find that mentions a relationship between the two not only does not speak of her as mother, but speaks of her as consort.