The Myth of Dionysus'

[thestoat]

That's over-generalizing; I've said 'that's the internet' in reference to only one source you posted.

Without a single reason why you disguarded it. And remember, not long ago, where I posted other sources and you asked for cave paintings

Begging your pardon, to explain once more; I read the source you posted, and then read the source of that source.
Your quote was there, but it was explained by its source as hearsay.

Hen answers that point nicely, methinks

Yes, I respect forensic archeology or verifiable cultural references, most significantly from the culture itself being studied; more than net hearsay.

lol. Lovely sound bite. Makes you sound quite logical and analytical in your approach which, as we have seen, is not the case.

[thestoat]

Possible historical King Arthur.

Here's a thought - if you quote something, try adding a link that works.

Now if you are saying "there was no King Arthur but here is a link stating there was one, thus proving internet links are unreliable" Then you are just talking utter shit.

1. Noone that I have seen is suggesting all internet links are reliable - strawman there.
2. There is actually evidence to suggest there may have been a King Arthur-type figure, though obviously not the Merlin/Guinevere stuff

[loCAtek]

Lo, why are you being so obtuse? Do you really not get it? Are you saying the following?

1. None of the old gods were descended from virgins
2. None of the old gods were born of humble origin
3. None of the old gods performed miracles
4. None of the old gods were resurrected

I am not saying "all of the old gods were as above" but I am saying some were and the various bits were cherry picked for the Christ story.

Let me give you a single, simple example. I think it is fair to say that wikipedia is a trusted source on these forums. So:

According to Persian mythology, Mithra, the sun god, was born at dawn on the 22nd of December to a virgin mother

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_winter_festivals

Thus I suggest - and believe - that the idea of Christ's virgin birth was plagiarized from stories such as these. Mithras came first. If you disagree with this then I would be interested to hear your reasons why.

Yes stoat the whole quote is a description of Yalda

Yalda: The turning point, Winter Solstice (December 21). As the longest night of the year and the beginning of the lengthening of days, Shabe Yaldā (Persian: یلدا) or Shabe Chelle (Persian: شب چله) is an Iranian festival celebrating the victory of light and goodness over darkness and evil. 'Shabe yalda' means 'birthday eve.' According to Persian mythology, Mithra, the sun god, was born at dawn on the 22nd of December to a virgin mother. He symbolizes light, truth, goodness, strength, and friendship. Herodotus reports that this was the most important holiday of the year for contemporary Persians. In modern times Persians celebrate Yalda by staying up late or all night, a practice known as 'Shab Chera' meaning 'night gazing'. Friends and family gather to feast and read poetry. Bibliomancy may be practiced with the poetry of Hafez. Fruits and nuts are eaten, especially pomegranates and watermelons. The red color of these fruits invokes the crimson hues of dawn and symbolizes Mithra.

If you click on the link to Yalda it provides;

It was said that Mithra was born out of the light that came from within the Alborz mountains[citation needed] . Ancient Iranians would gather in caves along the mountain range throughout the night to witness this miracle together at dawn. They were known as 'Yar-e Ghar' (Cave Mates). In Iran today, despite of the advent of Islam and Muslim rituals, Shab-e Yalda is still celebrated widely.

No where, does this suggest that Mithras was born on December 25th according to anyone's legends; but that the date of celebration [by Greco-Romans, not Iranian/Persians,]was moved during the Roman Era.

So saying that the celebration of Christ's birth was moved to that common Roman celebratory date; does not make it an exact copy of Mithra's birth, since he[Mithra] was traditionally born on the winter solstice on/or at December 21st by his contemporary and traditional followers.

Blame the [secular] Romans for the confusion, not the faithful Christians.

[Sean]

So it was secular Romans rather than Christians who decided when to celebrate Jesus' birthday was it?

[Scooter]

Blame the [secular] Romans for the confusion, not the faithful Christians.

Leaving aside the fact that by the time the date of Christmas was fixed at December 25, Rome was a Christian state...

Just who was confused?

Around AD 200, Clement of Alexandria wrote that a group in Egypt celebrated the nativity on 25 Pashons. This corresponds to May 20.

De Pascha Computus, a calendar of feasts produced in 243, gives March 28 as the date of the nativity.

In 303, Christian writer Arnobius ridiculed the idea of celebrating the birthdays of gods.

So we have some Christians celebrating Christmas on May 20, some celebrating it on March 28, some Christians saying it shouldn't be celebrated at all, until finally someone came up with December 25.

I ask again, who was confused?

Perhaps the one sucking on a liquor bottle.

[loCAtek]

So we have some Christians celebrating Christmas on May 20, some celebrating it on March 28, some Christians saying it shouldn't be celebrated at all, until finally someone came up with December 25.

Yes, I've agreed with that (the someone was the Roman Caesar Constantine) it makes my point. Secularizing the date, does not invalidate it;

So saying that the celebration of Christ's birth was moved to that common Roman celebratory date; does not make it an exact copy of Mithra's birth, since he[Mithra] was traditionally born on the winter solstice on/or at December 21st by his contemporary and traditional followers.

So it was secular Romans rather than Christians who decided when to celebrate Jesus' birthday was it?

Yes, I said that already;

Blame the [secular] Romans for the confusion, not the faithful Christians.

I ask again, who was confused?

This is all rather like the US 'President's Day' holiday.

The recent US POLITICAL decision that was made to celebrate Lincoln's and Washington's birthday on the same day and call it President's Day; can confuse the layperson into thinking Abraham Lincoln and George Washington were born exactly on the same day ...when in reality, they were not. Secularly, it was more convenient to hold them on the same day, regardless they are not in actually, the same birthday.