When I took the Advanced Class in 1973, the subject of "pre-Christ era" resurrections in various religions was raised.
Wierwille's explanation was that the devil staged these events in a preemptive effort to draw attention away from Christ's resurrection. Looking back, it's obvious Wierwille had discovered that, if there were questions he really didn't know the answer to, he could simply play the "devil's trickery" card. And, it made us feel smug that we knew the "REAL" insider information on these matters.
Here are some interesting blurbs about Mithra for your consideration.
*Please do not read these unless you are open to thoughtful consideration.*
********************************
"All this may surprise modern Christians but it was very familiar to the Church Fathers [see e.g. Justin, Origen, Tertullian], who filled their ‘Apologies’ with dubious rationales as to how Mithraism had anticipated the whole nine yards of Christianity centuries before the supposed arrival of Jesus – ‘diabolic mimicry by a prescient Satan’ being the standard explanation. Pagan critics were not slow to point to the truth: Christianity had simply copied the popular motifs of a competitive faith.
Waysider, here's another perspective on Mithraism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras and you will see that the first para, which is expanded upon in the body, states: "The Mithraic Mysteries or Mysteries of Mithras (also Mithraism) was a mystery religion, which became popular among the military in the Roman Empire, from the 1st to 4th centuries AD. Information on the cult is based mainly on interpretations of monuments. These depict Mithras as born from a rock and sacrificing a bull. His worshippers had a complex system of 7 grades of initiation, with ritual meals. They met in underground temples. Little else is known for certain."
In other words, Mithraism is the counterfeit - not Christianity.
But we're agreed on your statement: "Looking back, it's obvious Wierwille had discovered that, if there were questions he really didn't know the answer to, he could simply play the "devil's trickery" card."
The key to understanding this WIKI is in noting that "it became popular" from the 1st to 4th century. Much evidence suggests its origins are much older. But that's not really my point. Wierwille simply voiced his "counterfeit" objection wherever and whenever he had no real answer. In this instance, he simply restated the argument that had been presented long ago by the Church Fathers. And we thought he had some special insight because of his spiritual connection. (cough)
Wierwille also was inconsistent about when he played the Devil card.
In Jesus Christ is Not God, he uses pre-Christian trinities (many of which really aren't trinities) to prove that The Trinity has pagan origins, but ignores all the other things like virgin birth, the sacrificial king, resurrection etc. that occurred in pre-Christian religions.
This is an excellent point GT and I appreciate you pointing this out. I should have been more specific and said the resurrection of Jesus Christ is unique to Christianity. Jesus being a historical person.
For every point there is a counterpoint and with this topic it is no different. There is a good book by Nicholas Perrin, Lost in Translation, which deals with a few of these questions. There are many others who have written, with both sides making strong arguments for their position.
Unlike my wife, I am not argumentative when it comes to Christianity, The Way or much else. It is up to the individual who has questions to look at what the opposing points are and make up their own mind.
Further, Christians should not just close their eyes and pretend questions do not exist. I think taking serious time and diligence was actually my point.
Maybe this topic will spark more questions and possible interest. These issues are important and distinctions between the myth of Horas and the life of jesus for example, make for interesting conversation.
I wish I had more time for these forums. People formerly of The Way, not likeminded, talking through issues, and even disagreeing. That is something worthwhile.
Inanna descends to the underworld, a death or death like act, though the poem has many interpretations. Some say it was an attempt to conquer the underworld, some call it a wisdom journey, or an acceptance of her darkside. Nevertheless, she ascends from the Underworld, a resurrection for the world of death.
One of the toughest things I had to wrestle with whilst still a Wayfer, was the fact that most everything from the Bible had been used before. Creation stories abound in every culture. Noah's Ark was written about at least as far back as Sumer (and in cuneiform no less).
Virgin births were common attributes given to any number of famous men (I think even Aesop was awarded that honor). Human sacrifice, supermen-heros, God-men, evil spirits, devils, blood-rituals, burnt offerings, all sorts of holy sacriments, cannibalism, giants, bickering amongst the gods, and of course - blissful rewards for all eternity to the faithful - it's ALL been done before. Lots of it MANY times.
It's just superstition. Yeah, that's harsh to deal with after a lifetime of mindless servile obeisance, but I think that's the only logical conclusion.
Fascinating thread. Have to say I've come across a lot of these similarities regarding creation myths across cultures, too...
Regarding resurrection stories, have any of you read The Passover Plot by Hugh J. Schoenfield, published in 1965? It was banned in the U.S. for some time. It's a fun and original (I think) way of interpreting the very same verses of the gospel that are used to prove the opposite explanation of the death and resurrection events of Jesus recorded in the gospels.
The paper book jacket states, "...Jesus...sincerely believed himself to be the Messiah of Israel foretold by the prophets, and deliberately plotted his actions - which were to culminate in the events of the Passion Week with his crucifixtion and subsequent resurrection - to bear out the Messianic prophecies.
I won't spoil the ending but...oh heck why not...
Continued from the dust cover:
"...Jesus contrived to be arrested the night before Passover, fully aware that he would be nailed to the cross the following day, but taken down before the onset of the Sabbath in accordance with Jewish law.
Here's where it gets fun:
He would survive the agony of but three hours on the cross. To ensure his safe removal, he arranged to be given, while on the cross, not the traditional vinegar but a drug that would render him unconscious and make him appear dead....he would be nursed back to health and then "resurrected." In the end, he escapes out of the country to continue his revolution...
The Messianic Legacy book is another one along these lines. Fun reading on a rainy night.
In other words, Mithraism is the counterfeit - not Christianity.
I'm thinking that that is a pretty bold statement. Mithraism may indeed be a counterfeit, but simple fact of the matter is that it is pretty hard to prove that any religion is "true." Most religions have a "faith" element, something unseen, hoped for in the future, some transition after "death" or such that is based on a belief system rather than provable events. I could no more consider Christianity to be the complete truth (or non counterfeit if you will) than Mithraism. That being said, the basic tenants of Christianity seem fine, but then again so do the basic tenants of Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, and many others. They all fall short in a couple of areas however, every damned one of them. We a) murder in the name of them and b) use them for class wars - typically gender - keep the women down - keep the homosexuals down, keep the African based ethnicity's down...etc...etc...etc. And therein Christianity, historically, doesn't show one milligram better than other religions.
I dunno, Rummie, never heard of it before reading in these forums.
Yet funnily enough I came across some book in the library about pre-Christian events alleged to have taken place before the time of Christ. Like lots of the gospel miracles, etc, that allegedly occured before. Or in other religions, traditions or mythologies. Unfortunately as my library ticket was maxed out, I couldn't borrow the book.
If I remember correctly, the original point of bringing up the pre-Christian resurrection stories was as a counter to Wierwille's claim that Jesus' resurrection was unique among all the religions of the world. It wasn't. The existence of slain & risen gods born of virgins written about since antiquity doesn't in and of itself make the gospels false, but neither do the gospel stories make these others invalid.
I guess there are at least two ways of looking at this:
1. The Devil knew what God was going to do and set up other deaths & resurrections and virgin births to dilute the affect of Jesus.
2. Jesus' biographers added details from pagan mythology to his life and background to make him seem more godlike to the non-Jewish world.
3. Just a coincidence!
If you believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, I would imagine that you have to come up with scenarios like #1 in order to make it all "fit". If you do not believe that the bible is a divinely inspired book, then #2 would make more sense.
If I remember correctly, the original point of bringing up the pre-Christian resurrection stories was as a counter to Wierwille's claim that Jesus' resurrection was unique among all the religions of the world. It wasn't. The existence of slain & risen gods born of virgins written about since antiquity doesn't in and of itself make the gospels false, but neither do the gospel stories make these others invalid.
I guess there are at least two ways of looking at this:
1. The Devil knew what God was going to do and set up other deaths & resurrections and virgin births to dilute the affect of Jesus.
2. Jesus' biographers added details from pagan mythology to his life and background to make him seem more godlike to the non-Jewish world.
3. Just a coincidence!
If you believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, I would imagine that you have to come up with scenarios like #1 in order to make it all "fit". If you do not believe that the bible is a divinely inspired book, then #2 would make more sense.
If I remember correctly, the original point of bringing up the pre-Christian resurrection stories was as a counter to Wierwille's claim that Jesus' resurrection was unique among all the religions of the world. It wasn't. The existence of slain & risen gods born of virgins written about since antiquity doesn't in and of itself make the gospels false, but neither do the gospel stories make these others invalid.
I guess there are at least two ways of looking at this:
1. The Devil knew what God was going to do and set up other deaths & resurrections and virgin births to dilute the affect of Jesus.
2. Jesus' biographers added details from pagan mythology to his life and background to make him seem more godlike to the non-Jewish world.
3. Just a coincidence!
If you believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, I would imagine that you have to come up with scenarios like #1 in order to make it all "fit". If you do not believe that the bible is a divinely inspired book, then #2 would make more sense.
I don't understand your conclusion. This whole "jesus is coming!" stuff began at the beginning of the bible, not with the gospels? If you take a literal interpretation, then Adam and Eve knew, and therefore their descendants. Wierwille would of course focus on "the adversary" (bogie oogie oogie and so forth) instead of obvious human nature.
Recommended Posts
waysider
When I took the Advanced Class in 1973, the subject of "pre-Christ era" resurrections in various religions was raised.
Wierwille's explanation was that the devil staged these events in a preemptive effort to draw attention away from Christ's resurrection. Looking back, it's obvious Wierwille had discovered that, if there were questions he really didn't know the answer to, he could simply play the "devil's trickery" card. And, it made us feel smug that we knew the "REAL" insider information on these matters.
Here are some interesting blurbs about Mithra for your consideration.
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen048.html
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/Mithraism.html
*Please do not read these unless you are open to thoughtful consideration.*
********************************
"All this may surprise modern Christians but it was very familiar to the Church Fathers [see e.g. Justin, Origen, Tertullian], who filled their ‘Apologies’ with dubious rationales as to how Mithraism had anticipated the whole nine yards of Christianity centuries before the supposed arrival of Jesus – ‘diabolic mimicry by a prescient Satan’ being the standard explanation. Pagan critics were not slow to point to the truth: Christianity had simply copied the popular motifs of a competitive faith.
**************************
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Or, one could point out these as evidence of a common origin of many cultures/religions. All eagerly expecting the same future event.
just saying . . . no evidence can be conclusive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Waysider, here's another perspective on Mithraism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras and you will see that the first para, which is expanded upon in the body, states: "The Mithraic Mysteries or Mysteries of Mithras (also Mithraism) was a mystery religion, which became popular among the military in the Roman Empire, from the 1st to 4th centuries AD. Information on the cult is based mainly on interpretations of monuments. These depict Mithras as born from a rock and sacrificing a bull. His worshippers had a complex system of 7 grades of initiation, with ritual meals. They met in underground temples. Little else is known for certain."
In other words, Mithraism is the counterfeit - not Christianity.
But we're agreed on your statement: "Looking back, it's obvious Wierwille had discovered that, if there were questions he really didn't know the answer to, he could simply play the "devil's trickery" card."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Hi, Twinky
The key to understanding this WIKI is in noting that "it became popular" from the 1st to 4th century. Much evidence suggests its origins are much older. But that's not really my point. Wierwille simply voiced his "counterfeit" objection wherever and whenever he had no real answer. In this instance, he simply restated the argument that had been presented long ago by the Church Fathers. And we thought he had some special insight because of his spiritual connection. (cough)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Wierwille also was inconsistent about when he played the Devil card.
In Jesus Christ is Not God, he uses pre-Christian trinities (many of which really aren't trinities) to prove that The Trinity has pagan origins, but ignores all the other things like virgin birth, the sacrificial king, resurrection etc. that occurred in pre-Christian religions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
Or a common human trait of not looking forward to death and wanting to find a way to escape/cheat it and live forever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
For the record, I didn't split this out into a new topic.
Just saying....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mod Kirk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
OK. But no one will believe it though.
I moved the rest over since I apparently replied while you were moving....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spoudazo
This is an excellent point GT and I appreciate you pointing this out. I should have been more specific and said the resurrection of Jesus Christ is unique to Christianity. Jesus being a historical person.
For every point there is a counterpoint and with this topic it is no different. There is a good book by Nicholas Perrin, Lost in Translation, which deals with a few of these questions. There are many others who have written, with both sides making strong arguments for their position.
Unlike my wife, I am not argumentative when it comes to Christianity, The Way or much else. It is up to the individual who has questions to look at what the opposing points are and make up their own mind.
Further, Christians should not just close their eyes and pretend questions do not exist. I think taking serious time and diligence was actually my point.
Maybe this topic will spark more questions and possible interest. These issues are important and distinctions between the myth of Horas and the life of jesus for example, make for interesting conversation.
I wish I had more time for these forums. People formerly of The Way, not likeminded, talking through issues, and even disagreeing. That is something worthwhile.
Edited by SpoudazoLink to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Dont forget Elvis
Unlike those guys above, we actually lived through these 'sightings' of "The King"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
you forgot the axioms talk. oh well
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Inanna descends to the underworld, a death or death like act, though the poem has many interpretations. Some say it was an attempt to conquer the underworld, some call it a wisdom journey, or an acceptance of her darkside. Nevertheless, she ascends from the Underworld, a resurrection for the world of death.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
One of the toughest things I had to wrestle with whilst still a Wayfer, was the fact that most everything from the Bible had been used before. Creation stories abound in every culture. Noah's Ark was written about at least as far back as Sumer (and in cuneiform no less).
Virgin births were common attributes given to any number of famous men (I think even Aesop was awarded that honor). Human sacrifice, supermen-heros, God-men, evil spirits, devils, blood-rituals, burnt offerings, all sorts of holy sacriments, cannibalism, giants, bickering amongst the gods, and of course - blissful rewards for all eternity to the faithful - it's ALL been done before. Lots of it MANY times.
It's just superstition. Yeah, that's harsh to deal with after a lifetime of mindless servile obeisance, but I think that's the only logical conclusion.
Sorry...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Fascinating thread. Have to say I've come across a lot of these similarities regarding creation myths across cultures, too...
Regarding resurrection stories, have any of you read The Passover Plot by Hugh J. Schoenfield, published in 1965? It was banned in the U.S. for some time. It's a fun and original (I think) way of interpreting the very same verses of the gospel that are used to prove the opposite explanation of the death and resurrection events of Jesus recorded in the gospels.
The paper book jacket states, "...Jesus...sincerely believed himself to be the Messiah of Israel foretold by the prophets, and deliberately plotted his actions - which were to culminate in the events of the Passion Week with his crucifixtion and subsequent resurrection - to bear out the Messianic prophecies.
I won't spoil the ending but...oh heck why not...
Continued from the dust cover:
"...Jesus contrived to be arrested the night before Passover, fully aware that he would be nailed to the cross the following day, but taken down before the onset of the Sabbath in accordance with Jewish law.
Here's where it gets fun:
He would survive the agony of but three hours on the cross. To ensure his safe removal, he arranged to be given, while on the cross, not the traditional vinegar but a drug that would render him unconscious and make him appear dead....he would be nursed back to health and then "resurrected." In the end, he escapes out of the country to continue his revolution...
The Messianic Legacy book is another one along these lines. Fun reading on a rainy night.
Peace,
Penworks
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
I'm thinking that that is a pretty bold statement. Mithraism may indeed be a counterfeit, but simple fact of the matter is that it is pretty hard to prove that any religion is "true." Most religions have a "faith" element, something unseen, hoped for in the future, some transition after "death" or such that is based on a belief system rather than provable events. I could no more consider Christianity to be the complete truth (or non counterfeit if you will) than Mithraism. That being said, the basic tenants of Christianity seem fine, but then again so do the basic tenants of Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, and many others. They all fall short in a couple of areas however, every damned one of them. We a) murder in the name of them and b) use them for class wars - typically gender - keep the women down - keep the homosexuals down, keep the African based ethnicity's down...etc...etc...etc. And therein Christianity, historically, doesn't show one milligram better than other religions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
I dunno, Rummie, never heard of it before reading in these forums.
Yet funnily enough I came across some book in the library about pre-Christian events alleged to have taken place before the time of Christ. Like lots of the gospel miracles, etc, that allegedly occured before. Or in other religions, traditions or mythologies. Unfortunately as my library ticket was maxed out, I couldn't borrow the book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
If I remember correctly, the original point of bringing up the pre-Christian resurrection stories was as a counter to Wierwille's claim that Jesus' resurrection was unique among all the religions of the world. It wasn't. The existence of slain & risen gods born of virgins written about since antiquity doesn't in and of itself make the gospels false, but neither do the gospel stories make these others invalid.
I guess there are at least two ways of looking at this:
1. The Devil knew what God was going to do and set up other deaths & resurrections and virgin births to dilute the affect of Jesus.
2. Jesus' biographers added details from pagan mythology to his life and background to make him seem more godlike to the non-Jewish world.
3. Just a coincidence!
If you believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, I would imagine that you have to come up with scenarios like #1 in order to make it all "fit". If you do not believe that the bible is a divinely inspired book, then #2 would make more sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Brilliant analysis.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I don't understand your conclusion. This whole "jesus is coming!" stuff began at the beginning of the bible, not with the gospels? If you take a literal interpretation, then Adam and Eve knew, and therefore their descendants. Wierwille would of course focus on "the adversary" (bogie oogie oogie and so forth) instead of obvious human nature.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Yes, that's what Wierwille taught.
It's like I said before, he conveniently pulled out the "counterfeit" explanation wherever and whenever it worked to his advantage.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Yeah I've lost ya.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.